diff --git "a/ecthr_articles.jsonl" "b/ecthr_articles.jsonl"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/ecthr_articles.jsonl"
@@ -0,0 +1,5063 @@
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicants argued that the investigations into the abductions of their relatives had been ineffective and inadequate, in breach of the requirements derived from Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed to the delays in taking the most basic steps, failures to identify and question important witnesses other than the applicants or their neighbours, repeated suspensions and reopening of the proceedings, and failure to keep the victims informed about any progress."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ce668c62-f326-4e9e-8363-91795fb7d20c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in its judgments, obliged national authorities to investigate a death as soon as they become aware of it. They also submitted that their complaints concerned the effectiveness of the prosecutor\u2019s investigation and that there had not been a criminal trial in which they could have taken part as civil parties."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8981a79e-2f7f-4d3e-b61b-b75b3178b91d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained about the killing of their respective husband and father, Mr Stevo Borojevi\u0107, and insufficiencies in the investigation in that respect. They also claimed that he had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d5a32e8c-1241-47fd-bf7e-bfefcb1919af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government argued that the procedural requirements as regards the State\u2019s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had been respected in the present case. The authorities had acted of their own motion, the investigation conducted had been independent, all possible methods had been used, the evidence concerning the incident had been secured, the investigation had been conducted promptly, and the applicant, who had been recognised as the victim, had been sufficiently involved in the investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6561c183-7915-4437-adf2-532858d0eb84", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s brother had died of acute coronary insufficiency and ischemic decease exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome, whereas Article <mask> of the Convention covered only the deprivation of life by use of force. Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s complaint should be dismissed as incompatible with the relevant Convention provisions. As regards the ensuing investigation, the Government considered that the national authorities had promptly investigated the circumstances of Mr Timin\u2019s death. The investigators had questioned the staff of the temporary detention centre and medical practitioners, and had commissioned forensic evidence. The authorities had examined the circumstances of the case thoroughly and had established the cause of Mr Timin\u2019s death, which excluded any criminal liability on the part of the staff of the temporary detention centre or medical practitioners."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "67163b90-3ce0-42bc-b1e3-5e794dbc5a75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government further submitted that the persons whom the first applicant had requested in her petition of 21 January 2008 to be heard (see paragraph 22 above) had had no direct information which could have altered the course of the investigation. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not impose a duty on the investigating authorities to satisfy each and every request made by a relative in the course of an investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "16325a4e-aaf0-4f66-a21d-5c5654fe751d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants alleged that their relative had been deliberately killed by a police officer in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They complained that the suspension of pronouncement of the judgment in respect of the police officer was not compatible with the obligation to protect the right to life by law within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. Relying on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants also complained that there had been serious shortcomings in the investigation into the shooting and in the trial of the police officer."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "41dd6749-548f-4a19-ab42-fd36b6604b75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["196.  The applicant did not submit that prosecutors in England and Wales were not adequately independent for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, relying on Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, 18 March 2010, she criticised the fact that the prosecutor normally makes decisions without the benefit of oral testimony. She submitted that in cases like the present, where honesty and credibility were decisive, it was vital that the prosecutor should be in a position to assess the demeanour of witnesses giving oral evidence."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "12170772-9db3-4abf-8f23-15a64bf502ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government maintained that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They pointed out that Czech law provided for a set of remedies in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention, consisting of a constitutional appeal, an action for damages under the Police Act, an action for damages under the State Liability Act and an action for protection of the personal rights under the Civil Code."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "52016c84-556c-4d26-b491-b9ca9afe9cb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government further submitted that the Convention did not guarantee the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for criminal offences. They contended that even in cases under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court had accepted that the State\u2019s procedural obligations may be met by affording victims a civil-law remedy \u2013 the Government cited the cases of Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, ECHR 2002\u2011I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII; and \u0160ilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, 9 April 2009. In that connection, the Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s civil claim had been thoroughly examined by the courts and granted to the extent that the applicant had substantiated his losses, so despite the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings the applicant had received adequate compensation for the assault and any shortcomings in the criminal proceedings had thus been remedied."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4a08d61e-1d64-4b51-9d73-b8613ddacf38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicants maintained their complaints. In their opinion, it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had apprehended and taken away their two relatives on 2 July 2001 were from the federal forces, given the fact that those forces had carried out a special operation in Sernovodsk on the date in question and that this had been confirmed by eyewitness statements, NGO and media reports submitted by the applicants and acknowledged by the Government in their observations. The applicants accordingly argued that following their arrest Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been under the control of the State. They stressed that their relatives had been apprehended in life-threatening circumstances and contended that the fact that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov were not listed among those being held in detention centres proved that their lives had been endangered after their arrest, since it was widespread practice in Chechnya for people apprehended by State agents to be deprived of their lives either immediately, or shortly afterwards. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, they thus argued that the fact that their relatives had remained missing since 12 May 2001 proved that they had been killed. They also claimed that the special operation carried out on the aforementioned date had not been properly planned and supervised by the authorities to ensure that it met the requirements of Article 2."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1e64b921-8e57-448f-b283-776d11f4d1de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government maintained that, at the applicant's request, the Prosecutor's Office had conducted an inquiry in which it had collected all available evidence \u2013 reports and other documents, and statements from individuals \u2013 in connection with the death of the applicant's son. According to the Government, that inquiry complied with the requirements for an effective investigation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "243000e5-7921-4df6-a549-44e2610ca822", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["213.  The Government reiterated that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, the obligation deriving from the procedural limb of Article 2 was one of means and not of result. In this regard, if some doubts had persisted concerning the events surrounding the applicant\u2019s husband\u2019s death, this was simply because there were always situations in which medical science was unable to predict, diagnose or explain. However, this was not in any way attributable to a lack of effort on the part of the domestic authorities. The Government therefore considered that the procedural obligations deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention had been fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, they called for the application to be rejected as inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, on the ground that it was manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "89aaf5c2-5296-405b-bef1-d6398a021ab9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant stated that the quantum of any award for non-pecuniary damage was for the Court to assess on an equitable basis. She raised concerns, however, that any just satisfaction award, as was made in the other Northern Ireland cases (Hugh Jordan, McKerr, Kelly and Others and Shanaghan, cited above), would be regarded as bringing to an end the investigative obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. She referred in that regard to the approach adopted by the domestic courts in the application brought by Jonathan McKerr after the Court's judgment for a declaration that the State was in continuing breach of the procedural obligation under Article 2 and for an order of mandamus to compel it to provide an effective investigation. On 26 July 2002 the High Court in Northern Ireland rejected the application, finding that this Court would not have exercised its discretion to award just satisfaction had it envisaged the possibility of restitutio in integrum through the holding of an effective investigation and therefore considered that any continuing obligation had come to an end once the Court had delivered its judgment. This decision has since been overturned by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, on 10 January 2003, and an application by the Crown for leave to appeal is apparently pending before the House of Lords. The applicant requested the Court to state that awards of just satisfaction do not bring to an end the rights conferred by Article 2. Since she would not wish any just satisfaction award to jeopardise action taken at the domestic level to enforce an investigation, she requested the Court not to make such an award if it were to agree with the High Court's approach mentioned above."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f6ff99dc-9bf3-45d9-930c-2240d0c0a816", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant asserted that the point at which life began had a universal meaning and definition. Even though that was in the nature of things, it was now scientifically proven that all life began at fertilisation. That was an experimental finding. A child that had been conceived but not yet born was neither a cluster of cells nor an object, but a person. Otherwise, it would have to be concluded that in the instant case she had not lost anything. Such an argument was unacceptable for a pregnant woman. Accordingly, the term \u201ceveryone\u201d (\u201ctoute personne\u201d) in Article <mask> of the Convention was to be taken to mean human beings rather than individuals with the attributes of legal personality. Indeed, that had been the position taken by the Conseil d\u2019Etat and the Court of Cassation, which, having agreed to review the compatibility of the Termination of Pregnancy Act with Article 2, had been compelled to accept that, from the first moments of its life in the womb, the unborn child came within the scope of that provision (Conseil d\u2019Etat (full court), 21 December 1990, Recueil Lebon, p. 368; Court of Cassation (Criminal Division), 27 November 1996, Bulletin criminel no. 431)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "89d76562-9ce8-4210-964f-148776086c0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants complained about the killing of S.M. and insufficiencies in the investigation in that respect. They also claimed that S.M. had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "46518259-70ab-4d03-910e-0e0214e17fc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not yet exhausted domestic remedies as regards the substantive complaint because their civil action was pending. While there appeared to be two lines of relevant case-law, they considered that the governing authority lay with the Caraher v. the United Kingdom line ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000 I; the six judgments concerning Northern Ireland cited at paragraph 37 above; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010). The cases, which the applicants considered showed a contrary line, were distinguishable. In any event, given the pending decision of the DPP, the possible referral to the Police Ombudsman, possible criminal proceedings and related judicial review proceedings, it would be premature and inappropriate to examine the applicant\u2019s complaint of a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "71e96f6e-74e4-4a68-af46-74033845275b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government further argued that only actual killing could be regarded as deprivation of life for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention and that there were no grounds to believe that Mr Sultan Isayev or any other residents of Alkhan-Kala detained on 29 April 2001 were in fact dead, given that their deaths had not been confirmed by courts in accordance with domestic law."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c12bb7eb-7484-4e7d-8cca-3a36e1dd0ff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants complained under Article 2 that their relatives were killed in circumstances in which resort to lethal force was not justified. Alternatively, it was alleged that the planning and conduct of the operation which resulted in the deaths was not such as to ensure the protection of the right to life of their relatives. In addition, it was contended that the right to life of their relatives was not adequately protected by domestic law and practice in Turkey. The applicants further alleged that the investigation and criminal proceedings against certain members of the security forces was fundamentally flawed and, as a result, were not capable of being effective, in violation of the procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2e86e47f-5844-4dc6-a83b-ebe5492ca6b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["178.  The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that the Government did not provide the Court with some of the investigation files in their entirety as had been requested."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "10d4d768-a450-4e84-b765-d6473092743f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1, 13 and 17 of the Convention about unfairness and outcome of the proceedings. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about excessive length of the first set of proceedings. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was not provided with the car he whished. He finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. He also referred to certain provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0e0893de-f0d2-4353-8f08-f18d3257e851", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government attributed the delay in commencing the investigation to the applicants, arguing that the first applicant had made a complaint to the authorities only on 14 February 2003. The Court is not in a position to establish whether the applicants visited any law enforcement authorities on 3 February 2003 in the absence of any material evidence for that or to the contrary, but it does not deem it necessary to go into such details for the following reason. The Government provided no explanation whatsoever for the fact that the district prosecutor\u2019s office had opened the investigation in case no. 42050 more than a month after 14 February 2003. The Court reiterates in this respect that the mere knowledge of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances on the part of the authorities gives rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, \u00a7 82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011IV; and Ya\u015fa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, \u00a7 100, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VI). Accordingly, the Court finds that the investigating authorities should be held responsible for the delay in commencing the investigation between 14 February and 17 March 2003. In the Court\u2019s view this delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in a timely fashion."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "56c58419-8376-41c0-802a-21e288b90a14", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["148.  The Government disputed the applicants\u2019 assertions and maintained that the refusal of access to Boyda\u015f village had aimed at protecting the lives of the applicants on account of the insecurity of the region. In their opinion, had the applicants been evicted from their village by the security forces as alleged, this must have been carried out in pursuance of the State\u2019s duty to fulfil its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention, which overrode its undertakings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6102e496-f66b-4ecd-85d9-694eb017ed73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicants argued that Marvan Idalov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for almost seven years. The applicants also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court's case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention. They had verbally informed the authorities of Marvan Idalov's kidnapping immediately after the crime, but had not considered it necessary to lodge written complaints owing to their lack of legal background. In any event, the first written reply to their complaints had been sent by the prosecutor's office of unit no. 20116 on 27 March 2003, which proved that the applicants had complained before that date. The applicants pointed out that the investigating authorities had not tried to establish the owners of the APC and IBV or to question the servicemen of military unit no. 24. The investigation had several times been suspended and then resumed, which illustrated its ineffectiveness. The applicants invited the Court to draw conclusions from the Government's unjustified failure to submit the documents from the case file to them or to the Court."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "38bf1607-3d68-4bec-868f-bc2bea25cc7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants further stated that the investigation into their son\u2019s death had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. While there had been no significant difficulties in gathering and assessing the necessary evidence related to the case and the conclusions of the internal investigation had been available two days after the incident, the criminal proceedings against the police officers in charge of the training exercise had only been instituted seven and a half months later. The investigation authorities had focused on the criminal case against K. and failed to investigate properly the circumstances which had led to the applicants\u2019 son\u2019s death. The conclusions of the internal police investigation, which highlighted the severe deficiencies in the organisation and exercise of the training exercise, had been disregarded by the investigating authorities, who had also lost important pieces of evidence, such as the original video recording of the training exercise."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "630eacb3-3c17-49ee-9477-b55190b3ffb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complained of the lack of an effective, impartial and thorough investigation carried out within a reasonable time and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest, Timi\u0219oara, Bra\u0219ov, Re\u0219i\u021ba and Craiova, when they had been shot or their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "aaf1c6c8-9044-4486-b8e9-a22e4948c7ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicants G\u00fcler Karata\u015f, P\u0131nar \u015eafak Karata\u015f, Berdan Ula\u015f Karata\u015f, B\u0131ra Karata\u015f, Kumru Karata\u015f, Perince Ata\u015f, Nebahat Ate\u015f, Serincan \u00c7i\u00e7ek and Y\u0131ld\u0131z Deniz complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their relative B\u00fclent Karata\u015f had been killed in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. The tenth applicant alleged that he had been injured in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicants also complained that the national authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the killing of B\u00fclent Karata\u015f and the wounding of the tenth applicant."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b762bd04-b96b-4342-bdae-e3b00a0c51da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicants submitted that Mr Dimitrov had been killed intentionally, and had died as a result of a use of force which had not been absolutely necessary and in the course of a police operation which had not been planned with a view to minimising any risk to his life. They pointed out that he had died in the presence of no one but five police officers and in the course of a police operation involving violence on the part of all three groups of officers entrusted with carrying it out. The way in which the operation had unfolded showed that the police were not seeking to gather evidence against Mr Dimitrov but to inflict retribution on him. For instance, the group dispatched to his family\u2019s hotel had stopped the search for narcotic drugs after learning that Mr Dimitrov had died. The applicants contended that the authorities had not given a plausible explanation of how Mr Dimitrov had lost his life. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation that his death had been accidental did not correspond to the findings of the lower courts or the evidence in the case. The use of force against Mr Dimitrov had not at all been necessary. He had not been convicted, had on all previous occasions cooperated with the police, was unarmed and not physically prepared for resistance, and was not doing anything illegal at the time when he encountered the five officers. He did not put up any resistance \u2013 a fact established by all courts which had dealt with the case \u2013 and was alone against five experienced, well-armed and trained officers. His arrest should have been carried out without any force. The violence unleashed against him \u2013 especially after he was handcuffed \u2013 had therefore contravened the requirements of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 and the terms of any briefing or order given to the officers. Indeed, the Sofia Military Court and the Military Court of Appeal had both, on four consecutive occasions, found that the officers had intentionally murdered him; their findings differed only in respect of the medical cause of death. Even if it were to be accepted that the death had occurred in the manner impermissibly established the Supreme Court of Cassation, it still engaged the respondent State\u2019s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2f2e7530-e61e-41bf-9216-645c0b4624fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The Government claimed that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the Convention requirement of effectiveness. It had been expeditiously instituted on the day following the incident. The applicants had impeded the investigation by refusing to agree to an autopsy on their relatives\u2019 bodies. The proceedings had been repeatedly suspended and then resumed, which did not prove its ineffectiveness. The Government argued that the investigators\u2019 refusal to allow the applicants\u2019 access to the case file did not run counter to the procedural requirements of Article 2. Further, numerous investigative measures had been and were being taken and, accordingly, the investigation was compatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2dcb6a4e-882f-4ad6-90cf-5327c88f205e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicants complained that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov had been killed in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. It was alleged that they had died as a result of the failure of domestic law and practice to regulate in a Convention-compatible manner the use of firearms by State agents. In effect, State agents had been authorised in the instant case to use lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary. This fact alone violated Article 2. The applicants also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0592b545-dc9e-467d-aea2-47f6bb90a651", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained about lack of an effective investigation into the death of his wife. He invoked Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that it is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case. In the present case, it considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerns exclusively the failure of the State authorities to effectively investigate the circumstances of his wife\u2019s death. The complaint is therefore to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "32d1a09a-1679-4dc9-a3af-b1df72f022de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been \u201cintentionally deprived of his health, which also means life\u201d by being kept in inhuman conditions of detention, which had led to his contracting tuberculosis, and that he had not been provided with sufficient medical assistance. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant also complained under Article 3 that he had been ill-treated by the police when arrested in order to make him confess to crimes which he had not committed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5a4a452f-b6aa-483f-997b-1fb5a1cd7614", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government submitted that the fact that some persons had not been heard as witnesses and that DNA results could not be obtained from the hair samples had not diminished the effectiveness of the investigation. They added that there had not been any other actions left to take by their authorities and that the obligations arising from Article <mask> of the Convention and the Court\u2019s established case-law on the subject had been fulfilled in the present case."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5617d2a1-de51-412b-beda-d3282c309db7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been infected with HIV through a blood test in the hospital of the correctional colony where he was detained and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the incident. The Court will examine the present complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany, nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05, \u00a7 29, 5 March 2009, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, \u00a7\u00a7 51-57, 23 March 2010). Article 2, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "97df020f-63df-4e47-8eb3-d0d722fe07e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants claimed that Article <mask> of the Convention covered not only incidents which resulted in the death of the victim, but also cases where the victim suffered life-threatening, serious injury. Bearing in mind that the first applicant's disease was not curable, the State was responsible for violation of the right to life of the first applicant. They thus claimed that Article 2 of the Convention applied in the present case."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6549de7b-edbf-4fec-ac1e-198dad6f36fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["167.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that during his detention his health had deteriorated. He complained under Article 6 of the Convention alleging overall unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also complained under Article 7 of the Convention that he had been charged with a crime which he had not committed. The applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the criminal prosecution and, in particular, searches at his father\u2019s flat had adversely affected his private life. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention alleging ineffectiveness of the Russian legal system in general."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6efd82d8-43bc-40d0-aab5-cc5c48be6987", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant did not lodge a civil claim with the courts. Meanwhile, as noted above (see paragraph 65 above), Article <mask> of the Convention does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case of medical negligence. The question is therefore whether in the present case the applicant should have raised the matter before the civil courts."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "525b791f-d759-47ca-9aa8-d7b852f8758d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants complained under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation conducted by the Azerbaijani prosecution authorities in connection with their son\u2019s murder, and of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Azerbaijani courts and prosecution authorities. The Court considers that the present complaint falls to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e20de6b4-b183-4e49-856f-97c02256edd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants indicated that there had been numerous incidents both remote in time and recent when D. had abused alcohol and had behaved violently. He had nevertheless been allowed to carry a weapon day and night. The failure of his superior officers to monitor compliance with the conditions for the use of firearms by their subordinates had been expressly acknowledged in the internal police investigation and in the court decisions of 14 November 2000. However, these conclusions had been ignored by the national courts in the civil proceedings for compensation, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "15ab5b3b-9cee-46ea-88c9-ff9118b6fae5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["200.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police had been responsible for the death of their son. In particular, although they were called in precisely to deal with a mentally disturbed person, they had not been trained for such a situation, nor were they accompanied by a specialist, such as a psychiatrist; and their excessive and unjustified use of force led to Mr Shchiborshch\u2019s death. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "712600d4-c80b-4590-8476-8469b349bc87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants, who now live in France, argued that the fact that no enforcement judge had been appointed for a prolonged time to execute F.T.\u2019s custodial sentence (see paragraph 14 above) could not release the State from its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. Their allegations under this head did not concern any new threats or attacks by F.T. about which they could complain to the national authorities, but rather the continuing threat which F.T. posed to them, and the sense of impunity which he had been free to enjoy until the authorities enforced his custodial sentence. It was that threat and the continuing pressure created by the presence of F.T. in their vicinity which forced the applicants to leave their village and the respondent State."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6b5d0062-8b51-4ee8-81a7-7d1f5738d85a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government stated that, taking into account the applicants\u2019 submissions and witness statements on the circumstances surrounding the incident of 12 September 1999, \u201cit should be acknowledged\u201d that the use of lethal force resulting in the death of five residents of Kogi (Runnoye) \u2013 Borambike Esmukhambetova, Elmurat Esmukhambetov, Eldar Esmukhambetov, Melikhan Abdurakhmanova and Bota Kartakayeva \u2013 had constituted an infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as that Article secured the right to life of the relevant applicants\u2019 deceased relatives. They further submitted that, having acknowledged that infringement, the national authorities had paid compensation in that respect to the first three applicants in the amount of 60,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately EUR 1,500) to the first applicant and RUB 20,000 (approximately EUR 500) to each of the second and third applicants."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "86d99427-a18b-4488-8a1f-5c54e2c3ee2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant alleged that Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for several years. Referring to the case of Turluyeva, cited above, he further claimed that the policemen at the roadblock failed to take measures to protect his brother\u2019s right to life. He also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "079e9d51-8faf-4356-8ca0-653e8e0745ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants further claimed that the investigation into their relative's abduction had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government had failed to give the exact date of the opening of the investigation. The applicants themselves had been confused in that respect because in some authorities' replies that date was given as 19 September 2002 and in others as 19 November 2002. Assuming that it had been the former date, that meant that the investigation had been opened five weeks after the authorities had become aware of the disappearance. The investigators had failed to question any members of the armed forces who might have been involved in the disappearance and had confined themselves to simply sending written requests to various State bodies. The applicants had not been properly informed about any significant developments in the investigation. Lastly, the investigation had been suspended several times and had failed to produce any known results."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0eed12b4-7877-4ab3-9f05-01325fb89e0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had failed in their positive obligation to protect the right to life of the first applicant as a result of his infection with the HIV virus by blood supplied by the K\u0131z\u0131lay, and that no effective investigation had been conducted into their criminal complaints. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a2870170-ad72-4a76-b0ce-e2b2fbcabe64", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained of insufficiencies in the investigation into the killing of her former husband and disappearance of her two sons. She also claimed that he had been killed because of his Serb ethnicity and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. She relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e69dea2a-3e04-4b65-b99a-66d51acc3608", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government also pointed out that, under Article <mask> of the Convention, the State is enjoined not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction from acts by others or, where appropriate, from themselves (they referred to K\u0131lavuz v. Turkey, no. 8327/03, \u00a7 78, 21 October 2008). They added that, where the authorities were aware of the risk of suicide by an individual, it was incumbent on them to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the suicide (ibid., \u00a7 88)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "87d3934f-b185-41ad-85d2-512bdf00e9a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government argued that there had been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention and that in the circumstances the Croatian authorities had done all they could to investigate the killing of the applicant\u2019s father. They maintained that after the Croatian authorities had regained control over the territories previously under the control of Serbian paramilitary forces in August 1995, they had been faced with a devastated territory and a chaotic post-war situation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "41f5f074-e87f-4523-b549-9c64e88fb354", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["260.  The Government argued that the authorities had opened cases nos. 24050 and 25268 in connection with the attack of 2 October 1999, and that in the course of the investigation in those cases measures had been, and were being, taken to establish comprehensively the circumstances of the incident in question. In their submission, the length of the investigation could be explained by the fact that in the period when the events in question had taken place the active military actions had still been underway, and therefore the lives of the investigating officers had been in danger. The Government also submitted that the first applicant had never sought to be granted victim status or to be given information concerning the investigation in any of the aforementioned cases. Nevertheless, she had been declared a victim in case no. 25268 and interviewed regarding the incident of 2 October 1999. The Government further submitted that at present the criminal proceedings in this latter case were pending and insisted that the Russian authorities had complied with their obligation to carry out an effective investigation as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cb77c87e-78c3-4850-b6d3-18af8e780689", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicants complained that the authorities had put their lives at risk on 7 August 2001 by releasing a large amount of water, without any prior warning, from the Pionerskoye reservoir into a river which for years they had failed to maintain in a proper state of repair, causing a flash flood in the area around the reservoir where the applicants lived. They also complained that they had no judicial response in respect of those events. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8d6cc66d-7c4c-436c-933d-571f65534947", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government maintained that none of the elements of a \u201cgenuine connection\u201d between the impugned death and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia had been established in order for the procedural obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention to come into effect. Firstly, whereas in the \u0160ilih case the short lapse of time (one year) between the death of the applicant\u2019s son and the acceptance by Slovenia of the right of individual petition was a crucial element, the fatal accident that had triggered the investigation in the present case took place nine years before the ratification date. Furthermore, and contrary to the Court\u2019s position in numerous post-\u0160ilih cases in which a significant proportion of the procedural steps required by this provision were, or should have been, carried out after ratification, the public investigation at issue was carried out and terminated before the critical date. The Government stressed that although the criminal prosecution pursued by the applicant had continued beyond the ratification date, the applicant had not requested the reopening of the investigation. The competent authorities could not have initiated another ex officio investigation or resumed the prosecution after the initial investigation had been terminated and the applicant had already taken over the prosecution in the capacity of a \u201csubsidiary prosecutor\u201d. The Government therefore opined that the applicant\u2019s complaint should be rejected by the Court as incompatible with the Convention ratione temporis."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7de0ab43-4ffb-4cff-aa00-a6c895470838", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant alleged that the authorities\u2019 refusal to provide him with meals compatible with his medically prescribed diet had infringed his right to live a healthy life, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, he submitted that his continued detention in the particular circumstances of the case had amounted to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b5a08a5c-d8f1-44bb-b4fc-2a649466aee3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government observed that Article <mask> of the Convention did not prohibit capital punishment but that the protection against the death penalty was guaranteed in all circumstances by Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 to the Convention, a Protocol by which Sweden was bound. Thus, the Government had no objection to the examination of the present case under both Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13, and they would proceed on that assumption."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6661df76-c053-4721-9f96-08de9df9f37f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.   The Government maintained that the investigation into Olga Biliak's death had been carried out by the Shevchenkivskyy Prosecutor's Office, a body independent from the prison authorities. The investigators had thoroughly examined the circumstances of the victim's death, commissioned medical examinations and assessed the other available evidence. The somewhat protracted nature of the investigation had been due to the need to obtain medical evidence. The Government reiterated that in the absence of a final decision on the applicants' criminal complaints they could not comment on whether or not there had been a violation of the State's procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "56978611-cd02-4fa0-ab6b-1a9a7a00810c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government conceded that there had been a violation of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev\u2019s right to life, as confirmed by the evidence in criminal case no. 04560079. At the same time they argued that the investigation conducted into his death had been effective and satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, as demonstrated by the number of steps taken to establish who had been responsible for the crime."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "802ab46a-a14a-44d8-9748-6cb282bf32b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that the force used by the gendarmerie officers against their daughter had not been absolutely necessary and that the excessive nature of the use of force showed that the officers had in fact intended to kill her. They further added that the investigation into the killing of their daughter had neither been impartial nor adequate for the purposes of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "499aec54-7b2c-40b7-a5cf-b98ed25d1468", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev's detention and disappearance, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. She contended that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. Referring to the Government's submissions, she argued that it appeared that certain important steps had never been taken, such as reviewing custody records and operational plans, identifying and questioning those responsible for the arrest of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, and examining the alleged place of detention. The authorities had systematically failed to inform her of the proceedings and she had no information about important procedural steps. The Government's failure to disclose in full the materials of the investigation to her or to the Court served, in her view, as further proof of the ineffectiveness of the investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e9fa3370-7bd1-4eca-b4c2-385558d74508", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants stressed that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov disappeared while under the control of the State in life-endangering circumstances and the Government had failed to produce any plausible explanation as to his whereabouts. The applicants contended that the fact that their relative was not listed among those being held in detention centres, as alleged by the Government, proved that his life had been endangered after he had been detained, since there was a widespread practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Chechnya by representatives of the federal forces. The applicants thus argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had remained missing since 17 October 2000 proved that he had been killed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "96bbb877-44d5-489e-af6f-d6ae7f5cfe3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["189.  The Government submitted that a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the residents of Stariye Atagi had been opened promptly on 13 March 2002 and complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. The investigating authorities had carried out a large amount of work. The investigation was complicated by the need to eliminate discrepancies between the witnesses\u2019 statements concerning the underlying events, especially since some of them resided in different regions, and by the complexity of expert examinations and tests."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c5c2253f-e84e-48bb-b654-de99c3dbc4cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained that his wife, Sariye Y\u0131lmaz, was killed by artillery shells fired by the security forces. He alleged that no effective investigation had been carried out into her death. He also claimed that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to protect her right to life. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "999775bc-c0c9-49f3-90fa-b7e46ad27b78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants submitted that Mr Mihaylov\u2019s killing was the result of a clear abuse of force. As the domestic courts observed on a number of occasions, the forensic evidence indicated that Mr Mihaylov was shot from behind, in a position that gave the policeman full control over him. The relevance and significance of these findings was not altered by the fact that, in its final judgment, the Military Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor\u2019s decree exonerating the policeman. The Court of Appeal\u2019s ruling lacked any analysis of its own concerning the necessity of the killing; it merely reproduced the partial reasoning of the prosecutor\u2019s office which had been declared inadequate and false a number of times previously by more critical and independent-thinking judges of the same court and of the lower court. Moreover, the Military Court of Appeal, in upholding the prosecutor\u2019s decision to exonerate the police officer, applied a legal test which was not in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. Domestic law during the period in question did not require a test of absolute necessity to justify recourse to lethal force by the police. The Court had been critical of this same legal framework in a number of judgments, for example Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, 7 October 2010 and the national authorities had themselves recognised that the law was in need of reform and had taken steps to amend it (see paragraph 41 above). The fact that the domestic courts on a number of occasions, even applying the more lenient national law standard as it then applied, found that the killing was unjustified made it all the more clearer that the use of force was in breach of the more rigorous requirements of Article 2."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bcfd8959-d27f-4388-b35a-55ba1bf52eaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government argued that Mr Togonidze died of methadone intoxication. Given this cause of death and the lack of any evidence of coercive actions against Mr Togonidze, his death should not be considered as a death in suspicious circumstances (see Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, \u00a7 86, 3 February 2011). Consequently the Government argued that there was no need for further investigative measures and the conducted investigation was in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government did not submit any comments on the medical report provided by the applicant."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ec28e1c1-f2f2-4348-ac6c-1d484aa0498c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["259.  The applicants maintained their complaint, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances violating Article <mask> of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigation into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that, in breach of Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention, the Government had failed to duly comply with the Court\u2019s request for the investigation files."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bcb0f2c1-7d90-48c8-a951-6bde0533fc24", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant complained that the State had been responsible for her son\u2019s death in the course of an intervention intended to take him to a psychiatric hospital. She also complained that the investigation into the circumstances of his death had been carried out by the authorities merely as an attempt to conceal the truth and to avoid liability. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that her complaints fall to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b70e4c77-f365-4297-b9bd-590eb39dd66d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["272.  The applicant has suggested that the threshold should be lower in cases involving the use of lethal force by State agents. However, there is nothing in the Court\u2019s case-law to support this proposition. Although G\u00fcrtekin did not concern unlawful killing by State agents, in that case the Court made it clear that the fact that a crime engaging Article <mask> of the Convention was particularly \u201cserious\u201d (in that case, mass killings) was not a sufficient reason to prosecute individuals regardless of the strength of the evidence. On the contrary, it found that since the consequences of a prosecution on such serious charges would be particularly severe for any defendant, it should not be lightly embarked upon (see paragraph 266 above)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c391259f-a426-42cf-8059-cdd786a2ba5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicants were further of the view that the criminal proceedings had fallen short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in the manner in which they had been conducted, in their scope and in the standard applied by the authorities. Attempts had been made to cover up Mr Dimitrov\u2019s murder from the very outset. The two military investigators and the prosecutor from the Sofia Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office who had visited the scene shortly after the events had not carried out any investigative steps. Mr Dimitrov\u2019s relatives had been kept in the dark about his death and had not been allowed access to the body. The police had given a press conference at which they had made false statements about the case. A number of crime-scene investigative steps which could only have been taken immediately had not been properly carried out. The initial autopsy had not been sufficiently full, and the experts carrying out the second autopsy had faced obstructions. After taking over the case, the military prosecuting authorities had made an attempt unlawfully to discontinue the proceedings. When hearing the case on appeal for the first time, the Military Court of Appeal had quashed the Sofia Military Court\u2019s judgment on spurious grounds, as demonstrated by the dissenting opinion of one of its judges. Later, a series of improper procedural steps had led to the appointment of experts who could not lawfully have been appointed, and to the admission of expert reports which had unlawfully altered the conclusion on the cause of Mr Dimitrov\u2019s death. That had initially led to much lower punishments being imposed on the five officers convicted of his death, and eventually to their acquittal by the Supreme Court of Cassation, on the basis of impermissible fresh findings of fact."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3e5abb78-5aa4-4d12-ab00-23bc3250a546", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government argued that the investigation carried out into the death of the applicant\u2019s daughter had been in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. It had started immediately after the law-enforcement agencies had received a report on Z.\u2019s death, and had been effective and thorough. The measures necessary to establish the circumstances and the cause of Z.\u2019s death, as well as the examination of its possible criminal nature and the involvement of third parties, had been undertaken by the pre-trial investigation agency within a month and a half of the incident. The length of the investigation had been caused by numerous complaints brought by the applicant, in which she had raised new arguments regarding crimes allegedly committed by Ch. in respect of her daughter and pointed to new circumstances to be examined or specified. The Government concluded, therefore, that the applicant\u2019s complaint was manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bd47ab8e-4351-4ddd-9e0a-e4d162246d80", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["230.  The Government argued in particular that the refusal to grant any civilian access to Gulistan was justified by the security situation pertaining in and around the village. While referring briefly to their obligations under international humanitarian law, the Government relied mainly on interests of defence and national security and on their obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect life against dangers emanating from landmines or military activity."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cbe19120-78e3-4176-b5b3-81caa7e11f39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant submitted that the investigation conducted following the death of his son had not been effective, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention. He stated that the investigators were not independent from the authority involved and that a deliberate attempt had been made to cover up evidence of the true circumstances of his son\u2019s death."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1104ec82-5b3a-4046-bfa4-fdee202b6ff1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the Russian authorities had complied with their obligations set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had sustained injuries as a result of a terrorist attack at the Domodedovo airport. Her allegations of the State responsibility in her case had been unsubstantiated. The security system at the airport had been in full compliance with international and domestic standards. In any event, the fully operational security system could only minimise the terrorist threat. It could not eliminate it completely. The Government further submitted that the circumstances of the bombing of the airport had been fully established within the framework of the criminal case against the alleged perpetrators. The investigating and judicial authorities had identified the persons responsible for the organisation of the act of terror and brought them to justice. The applicant had been granted a victim status in the relevant criminal proceedings. It had been open to her to bring civil claims for damages against the defendants either within the criminal proceedings instituted or in a separate set of civil proceedings. However, the applicant had chosen to do neither. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant\u2019s failure to resort to that remedy raised an issue of her compliance with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. As regards the investigation into the alleged negligence on the part of the airport security personnel and the police deployed at the airport, the Government submitted that the proceedings were still pending. The case was a complex one. The authorities had so far commissioned 283 forensic expert examinations, questioned over 900 witnesses and performed numerous investigative activities (searches, seizures, etc.). Lastly, the Government pointed out that the Russian authorities had not distanced themselves from the victims of the explosion. All of them, including the applicant, had received financial support from the State. In particular, the applicant had received a financial aid in the amount of 1,900,000 Russian roubles (RUB)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a13ed122-16b4-449c-9bba-75ee1900144a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["193.  The applicant contended that as the investigating authorities were applying a lower standard than that required by the Court, they were prevented from considering whether the use of force by Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 was or was not justified in the circumstances within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In other words, the extent to which the domestic authorities were able to submit the actions of State agents to careful scrutiny was undermined, with the consequence that the State\u2019s investigation was unable to secure accountability through a prosecution for a violation of Article 2 (see, for example, Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, \u00a7 52, 10 June 2010)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8394ae17-8c50-47e2-a569-3343fbc2f656", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government submitted that the investigation into Mr Todorov\u2019s death had been comprehensive, objective and sufficiently speedy. It had been opened the same day. An autopsy had been carried out the next day and had identified all injuries on Mr Todorov\u2019s body and the cause of his death. All police officers who had taken part in the operation had been interviewed, and expert opinions had been obtained. The authorities which had conducted the investigation had been independent from the persons who had taken part in the police operation. In deciding to discontinue the proceedings, the prosecutors and the courts had duly applied Article 12a of the Criminal Code, and their findings had been fully consistent with this Court\u2019s case\u2011law under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5e53c3f4-d5d9-4b25-8a7a-ebab7fc2486d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant also argued that she was excluded from the criminal proceedings, as despite her efforts she had been denied access to the case file and had not been properly informed of the course of the investigation. In particular, the authorities had failed to send her copies of procedural decisions suspending and reopening the proceedings. The applicant thus claimed that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in it procedural aspect, in the present case."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3bcbfc8e-1f17-4328-adfc-9344c674cea5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant argued that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention imposed a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person and backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. She submitted that this could also imply in certain circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (she referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII, cited in Kontrov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, \u00a7 49, 31 May 2007). She concluded that in the present case the Italian State had not taken the necessary measures to protect her life and that of her son."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "54ef0034-ea05-4ab2-872f-d196b5a90414", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant complained that his brother had died as a result of intentional police mistreatment, that the failure of the police to provide adequate medical care for the victim following his arrest had resulted in his brother's death and that the authorities had failed to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective official investigation to determine the cause of the death. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides :"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6d924002-40de-4b19-891f-3e2a4a4e093f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["177.  The applicants complained that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention by both the Cypriot and Turkish (including the \u201cTRNC\u201d) authorities on account of their failure to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives, Elmas, Zerrin and Eyl\u00fcl G\u00fczelyurtlu. They pointed to the failure of the respondent States to cooperate in the investigation of the murders and bring the suspects to justice. The applicants contended that where there had been a systemic failure to investigate certain killings after the perpetrators had escaped by crossing a dividing line; the substantive requirement of Article 2 had also been violated, as the domestic laws in place had not protected the right to life."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "31f5833f-e2b6-4c1f-9a07-6e69b13f1f17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants complained, under various Articles of the Convention, that the relevant Montenegrin bodies had failed to promptly and effectively investigate the deaths and/or disappearances of their family members and prosecute those responsible. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f38c216e-f634-4c7e-8305-16ab15ca3028", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The applicant alleged that her right to life and the right to life of her son and other relatives was violated by the actions of the military. She also submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e433916c-cf40-4438-b902-253e67595d89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant contended that his son, who had not taken part in the demonstrations in question and had found himself by chance between the demonstrators and the security forces, had been killed deliberately by the latter, which had used a degree of force that was unnecessary and manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate. In addition, domestic law did not regulate, in a manner that was compatible with the Convention, the use of firearms by State agents. The latter had allegedly been authorised to use lethal force against his son in a manifestly inappropriate manner without it being absolutely necessary, in his view. He added that numerous violations of human rights had been committed during the incidents in question and, lastly, that the Government were not able to provide the slightest explanation capable of justifying the degree of force used. In addition, the applicant contended that the investigation had not been conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "60b7b3bc-6fa4-4541-a7f1-10d27e5731cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to life was violated by the State and argued that unknown persons attempted to break into his apartment and to kill him. The applicant is convinced that those persons were State agents. Moreover, the applicant argued that the State attempted to kill him by constantly increasing the price of commodities while at the same time keeping his pension at a very low level. The Court considers this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded. It must therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a50b61be-5929-48b5-b16f-a9013dc02ad7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government also noted that the events under examination had occurred in 2000, when violent confrontation had taken place between the federal forces and the rebel fighters and numerous murders had been committed by members of illegal armed groups, using firearms and military vehicles. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that the right to life of the applicant\u2019s husband secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "dc5d1e2a-f47b-4a25-b5f9-3bb403153319", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the official investigation, which had ended by 13 January 1992, had been independent and effective. Also, as noted above, no relevant new evidence was discovered as of the date of ratification, i.e. 3 March 2004, and the criminal proceedings have since then mostly concerned the assessment of evidence collected earlier, specifically whether B should be convicted of murder or, instead, acquitted on the basis of self-defence. In any event, the State could not have initiated an ex officio investigation once the applicant had already taken over the prosecution of the case in her capacity as a subsidiary prosecutor."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "37769260-721e-4f1f-b842-02c5bae1101d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that members of the armed forces had been responsible for the disappearance of their relatives: Cas\u0131m \u00c7elik, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf \u00c7elik, Mirha\u00e7 \u00c7elik, Naci \u015eeng\u00fcl, Sedd\u0131k \u015eeng\u00fcl, Re\u015fit Sevli, Kemal \u0130zci, Hayrullah \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, Salih \u015eeng\u00fcl, Hur\u015fit Ta\u015fk\u0131n, Abdullah \u0130nan and A\u015fur Se\u00e7kin. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c2981e4b-12e8-4d91-8bc1-929db2b4c1b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicants submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that their relatives had been deprived of their lives by the State agents in circumstances that violate Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that their relatives had been killed on 5 February 2000 during a \u201cmopping-up\u201d operation in the southern districts of Grozny, in particular, in the nearby settlement of Novye Aldy."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e189f94a-ba75-443d-8403-3b62c3f0deae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his life had been in danger during the police intervention. He also claimed a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention, stating that other means than firing with live ammunition could be used to immobilise a mentally ill person. He further alleged a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, submitting that part of his house had been demolished as a result of the police intervention. Finally he complained under Article 13 of the Convention that his appeals had not been effective because the domestic authorities had failed to thoroughly examine the course of the police intervention and under Article 17, without further explanation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d68e9738-4bb1-4b33-9fc5-fabe4cfae705", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and contended that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that Isa Zaurbekov was dead, or that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They expressed doubts that any reliance could be placed on the eyewitness statement by Ms M.-M., submitted by the applicants (see paragraph 13 above), given that this statement contradicted the information given by Ms M.-M. to the investigating authorities during her interview (see paragraph 45 above). The Government insisted that until the circumstances of Isa Zaurbekov\u2019s abduction, and the identity of the persons involved, had been established, there were no grounds to claim that his right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "beb983ee-33f9-42c2-91a1-ba24b3b05967", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government also argued that the shortcomings in the criminal proceedings had been remedied by the compensation awarded to the applicant from the alleged perpetrators in subsequent civil proceedings, and cited the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention in which civil\u2011law remedies had been considered sufficient (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court observes that the cases invoked by the Government (Calvelli and Ciglio, Vo and \u0160ilih, all mentioned above) concerned injuries caused by the negligent acts of private individuals. In contrast, in cases such as the present one, where the applicants were injured by the deliberate, violent acts of other individuals, the Court has repeatedly held that compensation awarded in civil proceedings could not be considered sufficient for the fulfilment of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, as it is aimed at awarding damages rather than identifying and punishing those responsible (see Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 32662/06, \u00a7 72, 10 January 2012; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, \u00a7 39, 16 April 2013; Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, \u00a7 41, 14 November 2013; and Stoev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41717/09, \u00a7 50, 11 March 2014). The Court sees no reason to depart from that approach in the present case."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "951a60de-72a8-430d-9eb7-e3c4361ffd08", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the killings of their relatives, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. They contended that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. The authorities had systematically failed to inform them of the proceedings and they had no information about important procedural steps. They argued that the Government's failure to submit in full the documents from the investigation file had seriously hampered their ability to make detailed submissions about the alleged violation and that the Court could draw inferences as to the well-foundedness of their allegations."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8e1bdeaf-78ce-4ea2-83c8-2d98dfd60c59", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["223.  The applicants, with the exception of the second applicant, complained of the deaths of their relatives as a result of the aerial attacks by the federal forces on Urus-Martan on 2 and 19 October 1999. They also alleged that the strikes by federal troops with high-explosive aerial bombs against heavily populated residential areas of Urus-Martan on 2 and 19 October 1999 had put their lives at real risk. Lastly, they argued that there had been no effective investigation into those incidents. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "164ecf17-db0d-46f3-9ba2-35c143d510c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic authorities had disregarded his contention that he had acted in self\u2011defence and was protecting his own life. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been threatened and tortured by his cellmates, who were collaborating with the police and who were forcing him to confess."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e6d882a6-1e69-4408-aef0-f43f7ade3bb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["205.  The applicant further submitted that disciplinary proceedings could not, by themselves, have complied with Article <mask> of the Convention as they were essentially administrative proceedings intended to govern future employment. Where serious breaches of the Convention were concerned, effective protection had to be provided by the criminal law because the sanctions available were more punitive and had better deterrents than disciplinary proceedings. In a case such as the present, disciplinary proceedings could not have satisfied the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention because there would have been a manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the punishment available."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "50ff32b2-fa62-48c9-916d-ab358234741a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained that their children had been killed in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their allegation they argued that, had the authorities carried out swab tests it would have become apparent that their children had been unarmed and had not opened fire on the soldiers. Furthermore, the fact that none of the soldiers had been killed or injured in the incident was another indication that their children had been unarmed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b607c519-4a5f-45a4-9ed3-7188d18d2cb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted and deprived of his life by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to take measures to safeguard Mr Rustam Kagirov\u2019s right to life. He further alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cbcc2891-1d20-4389-95a3-84afc0b0c4da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government stated that by allowing the applicant to bring a civil action, the domestic courts had expressly acknowledged a breach of the procedural guarantees enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and had awarded her compensation. Therefore, as the applicant had been afforded sufficient redress, she had lost her status as a victim of a violation of Article 2."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ee726e8d-b31d-429e-8b54-3d4c55bee50d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant submitted that throughout the investigation, the version of events implying the involvement of State agents in the killing of her daughter had been paramount. The applicant specifically relied on the statement by witness O. L., who claimed that after the GAZ-66 truck driven by the applicant\u2019s daughter had been hit by a mortar, FSB officers had got in touch with the military and asked them to cease fire; the decision of the District Court of 14 April 2008 which pointed out the need to identify the person who had given the order to use heavy weapons without precisely calculating the target area or ensuring that the relevant area had been cordoned off beforehand; and the instructions issued by the head of forensics at the Investigative Committee on 4 July 2011, who requested the investigator to question all the FSB officers who had been involved in the events of 7 June 2003, since it followed from a number of witness statements that it had been FSB officers who had asked unidentified individuals for mortar fire support, and it had subsequently been at their request that the mortar shelling had been stopped. The applicant further submitted, with reference to the statement by witness S. M., that the version of events implying the involvement of members of the illegal armed group in the mortar fire had been abandoned. The applicant thus believed that it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the authorities had been responsible for the mortar fire on the Dyshne-Vedeno-Kharachoy road on 7 June 2003 resulting in the death of her daughter. The applicant further argued that the use of heavy ordnance in peacetime and with no precautions taken did not comply with the extent of diligence expected from law\u2011enforcement bodies in a democratic society. Even if it were accepted that the operation had pursued a legal objective, by no means could it be agreed that the operation itself had been planned and carried out with due concern for the lives of civilians. The applicant considered, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive aspect."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9ea6d50c-f0e4-428e-ae8e-ac9465a4c895", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government conceded that the applicant's relatives had been deprived of their lives by State agents. They argued, however, that the applicant's relatives had been killed in the course of a counter-terrorist operation carried out by the federal forces in the Chechen Republic in order to eliminate illegal armed groups. They further stated that the local residents had been informed about the curfew and the obligation to obey the orders of the military when in the area of a special operation. Taking into account that the applicant's relatives had been driving in the dark during the curfew and had disobeyed the order to stop the lorry, the servicemen had taken them for members of illegal armed groups and opened destruction fire. The Government thus contended that the use of lethal force in the present case had been no more than absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 (a) and (b) Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the deaths of Ramzan Suleymanov, Petimat Aydamirova, Ibragim Suleymanov and Aslanbek Aydamirov had been the result of their failure to comply with the necessary rules concerning personal safety in an area where State agents were conducting a special operation and to obey the servicemen's legitimate orders."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a02e17c0-5319-4949-ba3f-f8c6b43a4387", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government further argued that the prosecuting authorities had initiated an investigation of their own motion immediately after the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s death had been discovered. Thus, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the authorities had complied with the procedural obligation stemming from Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed to the diligence and expedition of the prosecutor\u2019s investigation, which had resulted in the bringing against four employees of the centre of serious charges of unintentional homicide and failure in their duty of supervision. Nevertheless, the Government conceded that there had been delays at the judicial stage of the proceedings owing to the resignation of one of the judges and the heavy workload of the Tychy District Court during the material time. Moreover, there had been other events, such as illnesses of witnesses and the accused, which had caused the hearings to be rescheduled. The criminal proceedings had guaranteed the necessary element of public scrutiny in that the applicant had been involved as a party in both the investigative and the judicial stage."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7ef9cf75-6bf1-45ed-ac0f-0186a14b7596", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained that the doctors treating her daughter failed to provide her with adequate treatment. She also complained that no effective investigation was conducted which would have allowed the establishment of responsibility for her daughter\u2019s death. Lastly, referring to the law governing objection on grounds of conscience, she maintained that the State had failed to adopt a legal framework which would have prevented the death of her daughter. She cited Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7fd01000-7dc2-45e3-b868-ffd3073ef606", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Isa Zaurbekov had been detained by representatives of the federal forces, this fact being confirmed by two eyewitness statements, which they had previously submitted to the Court, and by the statements of Mr Sh. contained in the file on criminal case no. 20123. They also pointed out that the investigating authorities had established the fact that the armed men who had taken Isa Zaurbekov away had used armoured personnel carriers and argued that such military vehicles had been in the exclusive possession of the federal armed forces. The applicants stressed that their relative had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, and the fact that he had remained missing for over three years and the Government\u2019s failure to provide any plausible explanation as to his fate proved that he had been killed. The applicants also argued that the special operation carried out on the aforementioned date had not been properly planned and supervised by the authorities to ensure that it met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9573118f-d641-4961-bfec-21c34619c948", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the prison authorities had failed to protect her son\u2019s right to life by taking the necessary measures, in particular by protecting him from attacks by other prisoners, as well as from the danger he posed to himself. She submitted that the prison staff had been aware of the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s suicidal tendencies and that she had also warned them regularly about his worsening mental state. In addition, the applicant complained that no investigative measures had been taken as regards the responsibility of the prison staff for the death of her son."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4000fb92-8de3-471f-8853-5805ac640888", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government argued that the applicant had lost her victim status. In particular, they noted that following the accident of 30 November 1998, the criminal investigation had been carried out and the responsible persons had been identified, charged and convicted, whereas the other persons had been subjected to a disciplinary sanction. Additionally, the domestic courts, having found the local authorities liable, had awarded the applicant damages. Although that judgment had been partly quashed on appeal, the applicant's award had been upheld. Furthermore, neither the judgment nor the Court of Appeal's decision had been appealed against by the applicant who, on the other hand, sought their enforcement. In the Government's view, the above facts show that the domestic authorities had expressly acknowledged and afforded the applicant redress for the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e706d8d4-218e-47a7-94ce-b30f4aabc38b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants complained that the security forces had been responsible for the disappearance of their relatives, who, in their opinion, should be presumed dead in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Under the same provision they also submitted that the national authorities had failed to carry out a meaningful investigation into their relatives\u2019 disappearance. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "16d1152e-67c3-4efd-add0-c1d15b317baf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government maintained that the prosecutor had conducted an investigation which was in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He had not ignored any small detail or evidence and had conducted the entire investigation swiftly within one year. The aim of the investigation had been to secure the effective implementation of the domestic law and to ensure the accountability of the State agents in respect of the deaths."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1c3f3808-5519-400a-a571-e9e6625d8763", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicants contested the Government\u2019s statement as incorrect. They pointed out that in fact they had lodged a court complaint about the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an effective investigation into the events of 27 October 2001, which had yielded no results. The applicants contended in this connection that they were not required to pursue that remedy, since it was ineffective and, in particular, incapable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court\u2019s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "05bb31f3-bd8f-4e11-ac08-b51012f83356", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants complained that the force used by the prison officers to immobilise their son had been neither absolutely necessary nor strictly proportionate for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the State had failed in its positive obligation under that provision to protect their son\u2019s life by administering treatment capable of averting a fatal outcome. Article 2 provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0ebfe496-ac9c-4140-b8d9-eadd6949487c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the use of force by the security forces against Murat Bekta\u015f and Erdin\u00e7 Arslan had been disproportionate and had resulted in their unlawful killing. They further maintained under the same head that the investigation and the criminal trial had been flawed and ineffective. They contended in this connection that the acquittal of Nurettin B\u00fclb\u00fcl, Fevzi Mustan and Muammer Topa\u00e7, and the deferral of the execution of the sentences imposed on Nurettin B\u00fclb\u00fcl, Haydar Erol, Ey\u00fcp Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya and Ali Erdurucan, had undermined the deterrent role of the judicial system in preventing violations of the right to life."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "40cecf58-d61b-41d6-9c2e-270f359cf8d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government contended that a thorough and effective investigation had been carried out in the present case, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. More than 200 witnesses had been heard, a number of expert reports made (including an autopsy, a post-mortem psychiatric report and a report on the samples of various substances gathered from the scene of the event). Three hypotheses had been verified: that of a suicide, that of a provoked suicide and that of murder, but only the first version was consistent with the various types of evidence gathered. As to the obligation to keep the applicant informed, this was not required by law since, in the absence of a crime, she had not been recognised as a victim's representative. Despite the absence of a legal obligation, the prosecutors had kept the applicant informed (see paragraph 8 above), thus complying with their obligations under Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e30fbc25-fff6-4a72-9777-32f955a48eb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government also argued that there had been no violation of the procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention. Further to the judgment of the Supreme Court in May 2011 (McCaughey and another, Re Application for Judicial Review ([2011 UKSC 20), the Coroner was legally obliged to, and did, conduct an inquest in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The investigation was effective because, inter alia, that Convention compliant inquest led to a jury verdict which was sufficiently focused as to assist with the identification of a person responsible and to ensure accountability: indeed the Coroner had referred the matter to the DPP. The applicants\u2019 reference to the lack of police witnesses was imprecise and, notably, did not indicate how that affected the conduct of the inquest. The investigation was independent as it was supervised by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (\u201cICPC\u201d) and, in any event, the applicant did not seek to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Police Ombudsman. As to public scrutiny, the next-of-kin declined to participate in the initial investigation in early 1998 but they did participate at other stages of the investigation and they fully participated in the inquest."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d0d35e6c-4ebf-42d5-a772-14b2170ea4d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in respect of their mother and close relative, Nura Luluyeva. They submitted that the circumstances of her detention and the discovery of her body in a mass grave indicated that she had been killed by federal forces. They further submitted that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 since no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of her detention and murder. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "62199603-3b3d-4fa5-8128-e3f207b12123", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicant has further criticised the limited scope of the enquiry and the alleged lack of full disclosure of documents to her. As to the former, she alleged that there could be no examination of the broader context of the riots taking place at the time and the allegedly disproportionate response of the security forces to events. It is true that the Coroner is required to confine his investigation to the matters directly causative of the death and not to extend his inquiry into the broader circumstances. This was the standard applicable in the McCann inquest also and did not prevent examination of those aspects of the planning and conduct of the operation relevant to the killings of the three IRA suspects (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 162-163). The Court does not consider therefore that the approach taken by the domestic courts necessarily contradicts the requirements of Article 2. Whether an inquest fails to address the necessary factual issues will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The Court is not persuaded that in this case the surrounding events in the streets of Derry over the three-night period are necessarily relevant to a determination of the cause of Dermot McShane's death. Nor, since the inquest is still pending, has it been shown that any significant elements would inevitably be excluded. The inquest is not required by Article <mask> of the Convention to provide a means of ventilating criticism of the overall handling of public order in Derry over the entire period."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6c3dcbd0-818b-4b1f-ba96-f0450014a6ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his son, Mr Maskhud Makhloyev, had disappeared after being detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. The applicant further claimed that he had no effective domestic remedies for those complaints. Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5a97d495-968f-4e9f-9f5e-77ff673c40ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as regards the alleged failure by the State to comply with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they put forward two arguments. Firstly, although the pre-trial investigation into the alleged murder had been suspended and restarted several times, the applicant had not appealed to a court against the prosecutors\u2019 decisions suspending the investigation, including the last suspension decision of 16 December 2002. The Government contended that appealing against prosecutors\u2019 decisions to the courts, notwithstanding the nature of those decisions, had been unambiguously possible since 2 April 2002 by an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had also been informed of the possibility of appealing against the prosecutors\u2019 decisions in the cover letters sent with the prosecutors\u2019 decisions dated 10 October and 3 December 2002. Nonetheless, the applicant had failed to avail himself of that right."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2093d7e1-362e-465f-bf12-f1e00e4f2587", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant complained that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in respect of Mr Sultan Isayev. She submitted that the circumstances of his detention, the absence of any news of him ever since and the discovery two weeks later of the body of one of the persons detained with him, showing signs of a violent death, indicated that he too had been killed by the federal forces. She further claimed that there had been a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect since no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of her husband's detention and disappearance."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d535f0d2-b614-4fb9-8dd1-8b6205eaa7c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["203.  The Government contended, inter alia, that the case was wholly unfounded and, therefore, there was no place to award just satisfaction. In any event, the claims were excessive, given the standard of living in Turkey of a teacher, like the applicant, and the Court\u2019s eventual award should not lead to unjust enrichment. They submitted that no award could be made in respect of the daughter as she had not been an applicant in the case. They relied on the Court\u2019s judgement in McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (cited above), in which no award of just satisfaction was made despite the finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. "], "obj_label": "2", "id": "593c32e6-e7d1-4cb2-bb66-64bef1cf5a63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government acknowledged that there had been significant delay but argued that it could be explained and did not breach Article <mask> of the Convention. They explained that it was initially thought that it was not a death requiring an inquest and the matter was then re-visited following receipt of the applicants\u2019 expert report. The RUC investigation then took place. The delay between 2001 and 2009 appears largely to have been caused by the litigation, initiated both by others and by the applicants. The delay between starting and ending the inquest (January 2010 and May 2011) was caused by the necessary discharge of the jury and by the time taken to consider a further report of the applicants. Awaiting the voluminous transcript of the inquest hearing and the establishment of the new DPP in his post explained the short delay in the Coroner referring the case to the DPP."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "85ce48bb-03e3-4328-84cc-c800d28df59d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant made a twofold complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended firstly that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligations in order to prevent the death of his son whilst the latter had been in prison. Secondly, the applicant argued that the State had failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of his son\u2019s death and that the culprits had remained unpunished."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "99ca829d-37a0-479e-ab17-740100b8451a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant argued in her observations submitted to the Court on 10 April 2002 that her son was arrested and detained by members of the Turkish security forces and that he is to be presumed dead, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of her son."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "32e36324-83ca-47be-8347-116702bbf7ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government argued that the circumstances of the present case did not disclose any breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on their version of the facts and on the principles laid down by the Court in the cases of Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI); Bubbins v. the United Kingdom (no. 50196/99, ECHR 2005-II); and Olah v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 56558/00, 14 September 2004)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e776d7a4-16bc-43ce-bee9-5a7ff247e38c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The applicant referred to her submissions concerning the procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate Article 13 required a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigatory procedure. She disputed that judicial review was an effective remedy in respect of the DPP's decision not to prosecute, as the cases showed that he has a wide discretion and the courts would only overturn aberrant, inexplicable or irrational decisions."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "eeb23398-567e-47cc-bfb8-e353715e3ffb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["152.  The Government submitted at the outset that the validity of the contention underpinning the applicant\u2019s complaint \u2013 that the entire course of her deceased husband\u2019s clinical treatment had been marked by a series of interconnected shortcomings and errors \u2013 had not been demonstrated in any of the proceedings at domestic level. It had never been proven that the death of the applicant\u2019s husband was attributable to medical negligence. They argued that the Chamber judgment had accepted that no medical negligence had been established and that the death of the applicant\u2019s husband had not been caused by an event occurring on 29 November 1997, an event identified and characterised by the Chamber as a lack of coordination between the ENT department and the emergency department of the first hospital. This, according to the Chamber, attested to \u201cfailings in the public hospital service\u201d and had \u201cdeprived the patient of the possibility of access to appropriate emergency care\u201d. Notwithstanding the absence of medical negligence and of a causal link the Chamber had deemed this finding to be \u201csufficient for the Court to consider that the State failed in its obligation to protect his physical integrity\u201d in breach of the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "74910fb0-8ce3-40dc-a168-28c723fbd618", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had apprehended and taken away their relative on 9 November 2002 had represented federal forces, and that, following this apprehension, Vakhid Musikhanov had been under the control of the State. The applicants also claimed that their relative had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, since it was widespread practice in Chechnya that people apprehended by State agents were deprived of their lives immediately, or shortly after being apprehended, rather than being taken to detention centres. They also pointed out that the Government had failed to give any plausible explanation as regards Vakhid Musikhanov's fate. The applicants thus argued that the fact that Vakhid Musikhanov remained missing for several years proved that he had been killed, and that therefore there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on that account."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "65bba279-a763-414f-be23-9c54f089adca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicants submitted that the withdrawal of Vincent Lambert\u2019s artificial nutrition and hydration would be in breach of the State\u2019s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, depriving him of nutrition and hydration would constitute ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. They further argued that the lack of physiotherapy since October 2012 and the lack of therapy to restore the swallowing reflex amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of that provision. Lastly, they submitted that the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration would also infringe Vincent Lambert\u2019s physical integrity, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3f6b6fe3-30aa-4e6c-89e6-b40b31e7c6d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant disputed the Government\u2019s arguments. He claimed that the fact that the investigation into the killing of his family members was still pending called into question its effectiveness rather than indicating that his complaints were premature. The applicant also contended that the Government had not demonstrated that the remedies to which they had referred were effective and, in particular, were capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court\u2019s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d9f6c8ae-3427-4c93-a553-3c6b5c6edea4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant submitted that the failure of the authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate or to protect his son whose forced disappearance had been reported to them, disclosed a failure on the part of the Government to comply with their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to take positive steps to protect the right to life."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a5626af6-3bab-40bc-9457-53439006a6e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants submitted that the State was responsible for the death of Alexei Vlasi since his shooting had not been warranted by the circumstances. He had not been armed and presented no threat to the life or health of the police officers. After fatally shooting him, the police officers had attempted to falsify evidence to make it appear like self-defence. For that purpose one of them had hurt the other with a knife and had planted the knife in the dead victim\u2019s hand. The applicants relied on the statements of the witnesses which supported that version of events. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the investigation into the circumstances of the victim\u2019s death had not been effective as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "90ae8d8d-e8d6-4018-b6a1-1d1e97160a97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government maintained that, since the domestic investigation established that the applicant\u2019s son had committed suicide, Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable. They relied in this respect on the Court\u2019s statement in the Pretty case that \u201c[Article 2] is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life\u201d (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011III)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "faa1b009-f9c6-45c6-b3d0-ca6ac43649a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The applicant submitted that it had to be concluded that the Coroner failed to appreciate the breadth of the inquiry required by Article <mask> of the Convention, since he excluded all evidence relating to the planning of the operation, with the result that the ambit of the inquest was restricted to the narrow issues of \u201cwho, where, when and how\u201d the deceased met his death. This deficiency was further compounded by the Coroner's decision to leave the jury with only one verdict, thus denying the jury the possibility of returning an independent verdict which may have been critical of the overall planning and execution of the police operation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a42e91c7-b972-4fd6-a93b-ec14382809a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants alleged that their relatives\u2019 right to life was violated in that they were deliberately killed by village guards. The applicants, \u0130brahim Akan and Re\u015fit Acar further complained that their right to life was violated as the village guards attempted to kill them. The applicants in addition claimed that the national authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligations to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the killings and attempted killings. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e53f4099-efed-4d64-b6ba-83a80137f994", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicants submitted that to comply with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention the State had to do more than adopt laws mandating the investigation and punishment of homicide. It also had to carry out effective official investigations of all instances of homicide. The investigation in the case at hand had not been effective; on the contrary, it had been tainted by a number of grave omissions, which had completely undermined its ability to establish both the exact circumstances in which Mr Ivaylo Zashev had been killed and the identity of the persons responsible for his death. The most serious error had been the loss of the cartridges impounded from the crime scene, as well as the failure to provide protection to Mr V.K., which had been both possible and indispensable, and the lack of which had led to his changing his statements several times. Other deficiencies had been the substandard inspection of the crime scene, the belated conducting of interviews with the neighbours, the belated commissioning of DNA and ballistic expert reports, and in general the excessive length of the investigation, which had lasted almost eight years. The applicants also criticised the passive conduct of the prosecution during the trial, in the course of which it had made only one \u2013 poorly substantiated \u2013 request for further evidence to be gathered. In addition, in its appeal against the acquittal the prosecution had not raised any additional arguments and had not made further evidentiary requests; nor had it sought later to appeal on points of law."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8a5b0da0-a997-42d5-b194-8bc7274f4e35", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["235.  The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, the applicant in Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) noted the Government\u2019s failure to provide the Court with an entire copy of the investigation file."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4652f0f4-f87d-48fc-ab0e-a1508cc57ddc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and argued that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of the unidentified persons who had abducted Artur Bersunkayev and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in the imputed offence. They submitted to that end that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic resorted to various methods of concealing the fact of their participation in such groups and that of recruitment of new members, such as \u201cdeliberate dissemination of false information concerning their disappearances from the places of their permanent residence and implication of the federal forces in such disappearances\u201d. Moreover, the aforementioned false information was also used by \u201crepresentatives of international terrorist organisations, leaders of illegal armed groups and their emissaries abroad for the purpose of propaganda against the State agencies of Russia\u201d. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Artur Bersunkayev\u2019s right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e1d1cc58-e1c8-4c0a-97dc-75d849141b01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted that they were aware of \u201cthe potential impact of the lack of a separate investigation into the killing of the applicants\u2019 relative on the obligation to conduct an effective investigation\u201d. The Government invited the Court to hold that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated under its substantive aspect and left the assessment of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention to the Court\u2019s discretion."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e1cccc26-c127-4a13-bd65-36cbbb24e2c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government considered that these complaints were inadmissible because of the applicants\u2019 non-compliance with the six-month rule. In particular, at the material time the law in force did not provide for a possibility to claim compensation from the State for any damage inflicted by a State official who was not acting in his/her official capacity. It had been established in the present case that at the time of the incidents D. had been off duty. Therefore, the applicants\u2019 claim for damages lodged against the State bodies had been devoid of any prospect of success from the very beginning. Consequently, the six-month time-limit should be calculated from the date of the incidents, namely, 22 November 1999. Given that the applicants had lodged their complaints on 29 September 2005, the Government considered that the applications were inadmissible in the part relating to the applicants\u2019 complaints about the absence of an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d9a4b01d-d09d-48a5-9b25-454a195f7549", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant maintained her complaints. In her opinion, it was beyond reasonable doubt that Isa Kaplanov and Ruslan Sadulayev had been detained by representatives of the federal forces, this fact having been confirmed by eyewitness statements and the findings of the domestic investigating authorities. The applicant stressed that her relatives had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, given that their arrest had been effected by a group of about 20 armed men who had arrived in six APCs and had not produced any documents to authorise the arrest. In this respect she referred to documents of the Council of Europe and of various human-rights NGOs reporting on a widespread practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, tortures and ill-treatment of detainees in Chechnya by representatives of the federal forces. She thus argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that her relatives had remained missing since 12 May 2001 proved that they had been killed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b1898c14-6dc3-411a-b2f1-26d6ba2b6ceb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply in the circumstances of the present case. They maintained that the applicants were no longer victims of a violation of the aforementioned provision following the redress provided by the authorities, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They further noted that in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III), which concerned the attempted expulsion of an AIDS sufferer to St. Kitts where he would have been deprived of the medical treatment he was receiving in the United Kingdom, the Court had examined the complaints of the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention rather than Article 2."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2981438b-4843-4754-b78b-05d767932304", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["193.  The applicant disputed the Government's submission and claimed that she had lodged her application with the Court within the six months' time-limit as required by the Convention. She stressed that she did not allege a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention only in respect of the murder of her husband, but complained of a continuing failure by the authorities in the \u201cTRNC\u201d, over which the respondent Government exercises effective control, to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into her husband's death, to bring his murderers to justice and to compensate her for his death. She also noted that, in addition to her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, she complained of continuing violations of her rights under Articles 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "14a65c54-3f31-4283-9b39-b8b988d9ce5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained that the officers from the Ventspils State Police were not sufficiently independent as they were colleagues of A.J. He accepted, however, that the Prosecutors were adequately independent and impartial for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court agrees with this concession, as it would appear that in Latvia the Prosecution Service has a hierarchy of its own, separate from the police, and in operational matters of criminal law and the administration of justice the police are under its orders."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a4dc8ce8-f127-4630-98f7-629deb8d810f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government claimed that immediately after the incident a preliminary investigation had been launched and charges mandatorily brought against G.A. According to the Government, the investigation had been prompt and effective. In particular, the authorities had showed initiative and had produced medical, forensic and ballistic reports within a short period of time. In addition, the administrative inquiry into the incident had been independent, since it had been assigned to an officer of the police department dealing with administrative investigations. It concluded that both inquiries took into account the different elements produced and satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2f2478ea-0b02-40c1-963f-c06b0f67c046", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government observed that, with regard to Article <mask> of the Convention, it was necessary to make a distinction between, on the one hand, cases where death had been inflicted deliberately or had occurred following assault or ill-treatment and, on the other, cases where death had been inflicted unintentionally, through negligence. This Article of the Convention required the Contracting States, in cases of fatal assault, to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (they referred to Tanr\u0131kulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, \u00a7 79, ECHR 1999-IV). That being so, an award of compensation could not suffice, in such cases, to make good the violation of Article 2 and to deprive the applicant of his or her victim status."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6fa12237-eba9-4936-a752-91b96d224ba9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had made every effort to satisfy the procedural obligation inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention. Three high-ranking officers with experience in military operations in that area had been appointed as experts to assist in the investigation. A number of soldiers who had since completed their military service and been discharged from the army had been summoned to give evidence."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9e84afc0-39d4-464f-992b-221c8fb33d17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State\u2019s general duty under its Article 1 to \u201csecure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention\u201d, that Germany did not provide for an adequate or effective official investigation into their father\u2019s death. They further complained that the German authorities had refused to allow U.\u2019s extradition to face trial in the United Kingdom. They relied in this respect on the procedural obligations inherent in Article 2 \u00a7 1 which provides in its first sentence:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cd85a3bf-6b55-4c2c-b1be-54fb61a593c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant\u2019s action against the State provided an appropriate remedy by which to establish liability for R.D.\u2019s actions resulting in a breach of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The fact that he did not seek compensation from R.D. is not decisive, since the object of his claim, as well as of his application before the Court, was to establish the State\u2019s responsibility as such."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "87e69489-8c65-4a82-a6ff-1e7c77331bb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government argued that the applicants had submitted their application with the Court twenty years after their relative had died. There had been a period of inactivity in the investigation in question between 2005 and 2015 and the applicants had not demonstrated adequate interest in the progress of the investigation but had instead remained passive. They had lodged their application after the conclusion of civil proceedings for damages before the national courts. However, such proceedings were of no relevance for the State\u2019s obligation under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention in the circumstances of the case at issue. Therefore, the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "54e69013-2109-4c13-bd9d-4ff4d042aa5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant maintained her complaint. She argued that the investigating authorities had failed to consider any other version of events in respect of her daughter\u2019s death aside from suicide. The applicant noted that between May 2007 and October 2011 twenty decisions had been taken refusing to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. on the count of incitement to commit suicide and between May 2008 and June 2010 twenty decisions had been taken refusing to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. on the count of inflicting regular beatings. The applicant contended that this was a strong indicator of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. It had been repeatedly noted by the supervising prosecutors and the courts that the inquiries had been incomplete and the decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings had been unlawful and unsubstantiated. The applicant outlined the major deficiencies of the investigation which had undermined the authorities\u2019 ability to establish the true cause of her daughter\u2019s death and to identify the perpetrator. She further noted that the investigators had been limited in their powers since the pre-investigation inquiry had never progressed to the stage of a criminal investigation and had therefore not been capable of meeting the requirements of an effective investigation under Article <mask> of the Convention. The criminal proceedings opened against Ch. in June 2010 had been limited to the beatings inflicted on Z. Lastly, the applicant noted that she had not been afforded an opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "25df3ff4-28f6-4b3f-a68e-4708448c72ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant submitted that her son, Hubert Mojsiejew, had been killed in the sobering-up centre and that his right to life protected by Article <mask> of the Convention had therefore been violated. The legal regulations in force had proved to be ineffective and theoretical as they had not afforded effective protection of Hubert Mojsiejew\u2019s life. It was beyond doubt that Mr Mojsiejew had died at the hands of employees of the sobering-up centre, who had abused their power by using an immobilisation technique or otherwise causing his death. Therefore, the employees of the sobering-up centre should have been prosecuted for murder and not unintentional homicide."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ed6dd2f0-04c3-4027-887f-2640cef55e5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government pointed out that J. had been shown to pose a serious threat to those present at the scene. He had previously been involved in a siege situation and in other violent crimes. He was known to have acted violently towards the police and even towards members of his own family, having shot at his own brother previously, and was also known to have had mental health problems. In addition, the circumstances at the scene were extremely difficult due to the weather and other conditions. The applicable law was in conformity with Article <mask> of the Convention. The police could interfere with a person's constitutional rights only if it was permitted by law. In the present case, as noted by the domestic courts, the police officers in question had had justifiable reasons for believing that J. had made an illegal threat and committed an assault and possibly a robbery. In addition, J. had been proven to be dangerous to the public at large and especially to those present at the scene. This entitled the police to apprehend him and take him into custody. The Government made reference to Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI, p. 2107, \u00a7 192) and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 58, \u00a7 200), in which the Court had stated that the use of force may be justified where it is based on an honest belief which is perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time but which subsequently turns out to be mistaken. In the present case the situation during the operation fulfilled the requirements of Article 2 \u00a7 2 (a) and (b). The police officers had been trying to effect a lawful arrest while protecting themselves, the other persons at the scene and the residents of the island. As concluded during the pre-trial investigation and the consideration of the charges and also during the proceedings before the domestic courts, had J. been allowed to escape armed, the lives of even more people would have been in danger. Therefore, the perception of the situation and the actions taken in the present case had not been proved to be mistaken."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0fd952a9-8cd9-4c10-bc5c-7367e2ec69cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant\u2019s representatives invited the Grand Chamber to \u201caffirm the judgment\u201d made by the Chamber but submitted no further claim for just satisfaction either as regards costs and expenses incurred before it or with respect to pecuniary or non\u2011pecuniary damage. The applicant also made a written statement confirming his interest in pecuniary compensation for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in the following terms:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d7f164ab-9c50-402d-a020-5f5362b8de22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["190.  The applicant does not complain that her cousin was killed by State agents in circumstances which breached Article 2 in its substantive aspect; consequently, she does not aver that his shooting was unlawful or that the conduct and planning of Operation THESEUS 2 was in breach of Article 2. Rather, her complaints fall solely under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention and relate solely to the fact that no individual police officer was prosecuted following the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ab6db48d-cb90-43cf-9014-af41a9c1a8af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["242.  The applicants maintained their complaints alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that had violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the investigation into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, the applicant in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08) noted the Government\u2019s failure to provide the Court with a copy of the investigation file."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "dfc15a94-90ac-4d8d-8f1d-7a216cbb7ca4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The applicant alleged that his brother, who had been arrested on 12 September 1994, had disappeared while in custody and had in all probability been killed by the security forces. He submitted that the respondent State had to be declared responsible for failing to protect his brother\u2019s right to life, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "488a5d67-2fb4-4b80-a8c0-a2a3b66a6543", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant alleged that the failure by the authorities to comply with their obligation to protect her life and that of her son, who was killed by her husband, had resulted in a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She submitted in that regard that the Italian authorities had failed to protect her son\u2019s right to life and that they had been negligent before the repeated violence, threats and injuries which she herself had endured."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4502dbfc-3c4d-4d41-b5f9-5f8014784937", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant maintained that an effective remedy for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention would have been a proper criminal investigation of the circumstances of the explosion which killed her husband and seriously injured her. She had lodged the application with the Court within six months, as soon as she had been able to realise that the investigation was ineffective. She had therefore complied with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 of the Convention (see Bulut and Yavuz \u03bd. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "fcbdaf18-08af-40a8-becb-ac41bdd75e02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicants further complained under the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had not taken reasonable and adequate steps to protect the life and health of V.P. It appeared from the investigation that V.P. had been escorted to the ground floor because the toilet located on the second floor had not been provided with bars. Thus, the police officers must have had grounded suspicions that V.P. would either attempt to escape or to commit suicide. Under such circumstances the police officers should have taken adequate measures during the escort to avoid any incident. The police officers acted with gross negligence if they had let V.P. run and reach such speed as to jump through the window. The applicants also expressed the view that there should have been bars on the windows on the mezzanine and the second floor in order to prevent such events."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "873979e3-c655-410f-b7fb-bfc903fba3c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.   The Government submitted that the criminal investigation had been opened immediately after the accident and that investigative measures were carried out comprehensively and promptly. The national authorities had taken all necessary steps in order to collect the evidence and to establish the circumstances of the death of the applicant\u2019s son. Certain delays had occurred during the proceedings but those had not been attributable to the State. The applicant had been given appropriate access to the case file and had been able to participate effectively in the proceedings. Overall, the procedural requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7a15689b-e445-4b6c-87fd-072dc01120fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant maintained her complaint. She submitted that her brother\u2019s death had been caused by the authorities\u2019 failure to provide him with medical treatment. Despite their knowledge of his condition, they had left him without any medical assistance for thirty-six hours. Their negligence had been the direct cause of his death, and had amounted to a failure on the part of the State to comply with the positive obligation set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been established in the course of the domestic inquiry that the guards of the temporary detention centre had shirked their responsibility to exercise surveillance over Mr Timin and monitor him. The guards and other inmates had witnessed his erratic behaviour; however, nothing had been done by the authorities to alleviate his condition. As was apparent from the authorities\u2019 decision of 29 February 2012, Mr Timin had also been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody from 10 to 13 March 2004. Lastly, the applicant asserted that the Russian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her brother\u2019s death. On numerous occasions the investigators had refused to open criminal investigation, the relevant decision being quashed each time by the superior prosecutor or a court for failure to carry out a complete inquiry."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "968e9611-fffb-4bc4-8434-691252924ab2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The applicant further submitted that there had been other instances of medical negligence, such as the four occasions on which her husband had been imprudently discharged from hospital (13 December 1997, 23 December 1997, 9 January 1998 and 3 February 1998). In addition, she argued that the direct cause of her husband\u2019s death on 8 March 1998 undeniably amounted to medical negligence. She alleged that there had been an inexplicable delay in performing surgery, which should have taken place on 6 March but had in fact not been performed until 7 March at 8 p.m., by which time it had been too late to cure the peritonitis which had set in. In this connection she contended that it was undisputed that peritonitis, attributable in her husband\u2019s case to a duodenal ulcer and the resulting perforated viscus, called for urgent surgery in order to avoid the onset of uncontrollable septicaemia, as in the present case. There was thus no reasonable explanation for the fact that the surgery had not been performed until 8 p.m. the following day. To that extent, the applicant submitted that this circumstance formed part of the series of unjustifiable delays in the delivery of appropriate medical treatment to her husband, which had deprived him of the possibility of access to such care. This constituted a further violation of the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection she argued that even if the need for surgery had not become apparent until 7 March, this still did not explain why a surgeon had not been called until 3 p.m., thus leaving the patient without effective assistance until that time, and why he had been taken to the operating theatre without the necessary preparation, with the result that he had to be taken out of the theatre and then returned there around 8 p.m., by which time he had been in a very serious condition, between life and death."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "728ae101-8e58-4d3e-b3de-516b14e8ec33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government disputed the complaint. They argued that the authorities\u2019 actions in the case had been adequate, and that the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with. It was important that the authorities\u2019 obligation to investigate was an obligation of means, not of result. Thus, the fact that the criminal proceedings related to Angel Georgiev\u2019s death had not led to the identification and punishment of those responsible did not mean that there had been a breach of Article 2."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7823d990-014f-41e2-84c5-2391ce7d14aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government thus contended that the use of lethal force in the present case had been no more than absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 (a) and (b) Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the deaths of Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been the result of \u201cthe local residents\u2019 failure to comply with the necessary rules concerning personal safety in an area where State agents were conducting a counter-terrorist operation, and to obey the servicemen\u2019s legitimate orders\u201d."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "11c53812-e9c5-46c8-b8e1-37e9cd6b974d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that the respondent State had fulfilled its procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention in that it had established the circumstances under which M.N. had been killed; and identified and punished I.S. as the perpetrator of the crime. The charges brought against Z.J., P.K., V.B. and D.I. had concerned an alleged abuse of office, failure to report a crime or an offender, and assisting an offender after the commission of a crime. Those charges had concerned alleged actions or omissions on the part of the defendants, which had not affected the investigation into M.N.\u2019s death. The offences with which those defendants had been charged had not been decisive for the identification and punishment of I.S., whom the courts had found responsible for M.N.\u2019s death. Lastly, the Government sought that the Court did not take the additional evidence submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 26 above) into consideration since it was neither submitted to any domestic authority nor have its authenticity and veracity been verified."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7e716f12-42f6-463e-a3d9-c1c8cf00be96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicants contended that the civil proceedings which they had instituted concerning the accidental death of their relative had failed to meet the requirement of promptness and effectiveness. They pointed out that the civil proceedings at issue had lasted for more than fifteen years and that during the proceedings the domestic courts had failed to elucidate the circumstances surrounding the accidental lethal injury and medical treatment of their son and brother. They were aware that they could not bring their relative back, but they had hoped that the liability for his death would be established. In their view, the failure of the domestic authorities to put in place an effective judicial system to deal with accidental death and medical malpractice represented a flagrant violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "79f09a6a-cd08-4e0d-a70c-76d9c5a05930", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["249.  The applicants maintained their complaint, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances violating Article <mask> of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that some of the case files submitted by the Government had not been furnished in their entirety, as had been requested by the Court."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6de49eb7-953d-49af-9ec8-7293b995667f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government argued that the investigation into the murder of the applicant\u2019s husband met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all the measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative actions had been carried out, this fact having been confirmed by a decision of the Urus-Martan Town Court of 29 March 2004 given upon the applicant\u2019s complaint about the refusal of access to the case file (see paragraph 36 above). The Government also argued that once the applicant had been granted the status of victim, she had been duly informed of procedural decisions taken during the investigation. The Government also referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, stating that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention did not require applicants to have access to police files, or copies of all documents during an ongoing inquiry, or be consulted or informed about every step (see Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, \u00a7 77, 27 November 2007), and argued that by virtue of her status as a victim, the applicant would be able to gain access to the case file once the investigation was completed. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2acfd796-b3c3-458f-aab3-fc76e62bdf91", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant agreed with the facts as laid down in the Chamber judgment as well as the reasoning adopted in finding a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She further submitted that the Court should also take into account at least one other aggravating factor. In this connection the applicant argued that, irrespective of the origin of the bacterium which caused the meningitis, the treatment had not been administered as promptly as the situation demanded. The emergency team which had taken charge of the applicant\u2019s husband at the CHNVG had been entirely unaware of, or else had disregarded, the fact that a nasal polypectomy had been performed two days earlier in the same hospital, and instead had treated the patient on the assumption that he was suffering from psychological problems. The applicant contended that the patient had not received any treatment between his arrival at the emergency department at about 1.30 a.m., and 10 a.m., when the lumbar puncture had been performed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "46b296be-b385-4748-bd95-6fe90576df50", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government maintained that the authorities had complied with their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to secure the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s right to life and that they could not be held responsible for his death, which had been a tragic incident. They referred to legal regulations which had been put in place in order to ensure the safety of patients in sobering-up centres. The manner and circumstances in which means of physical coercion could be applied to patients were also specified by domestic law. The employees of the Tychy Sobering-Up Centre had received relevant training, the centre was properly equipped and there was a continuous presence of a doctor. No evidence of intentional killing had so far been disclosed. Since the criminal proceedings against four employees were still pending before the domestic courts it would be premature to assess the conduct of the employees of the centre during the events in question."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "af576a21-b761-42df-abd9-1471192a5c4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative measures had been taken, including sending numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence, or to check whether the applicants' relatives were being kept in any detention centres. The Government also argued that the first and seventh applicants who had been acknowledged as victims in the case had received explanations concerning their procedural rights. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "32712b4a-b230-49f1-910a-6ac56773ca00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained of the lack of an effective, impartial and thorough investigation, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest, Timi\u0219oara, Slobozia, Vi\u0219ina and \u021a\u0103nd\u0103rei, when they had been injured and their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1db5be3c-cdac-4802-bea2-953c5cb346c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["142.  The Government contended that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. They pointed out, first of all, that the second, fourth and fifth applicants had not been at home during the flood and that there was no evidence that their lives had been put at risk at any time. The Government then argued that the first, third and sixth applicants, who had been at home when the flood had occurred, had never claimed in the civil proceedings brought by them that their lives had been in danger. In particular, the third applicant had been able to leave home with her child and make her way to a safe place. The Government contended that the circumstances of the present case were different from those in Budayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, 20 March 2008) or Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain ((dec.), no. 76973/01, 28 November 2006), where the applicants\u2019 relatives had died and a number of the applicants had been injured as a result of the natural disasters concerned \u2013 a mudslide and a flood respectively \u2013 whereas in the present case none of the applicants had lost any relatives or sustained any injuries during the flood of 7 August 2001."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a66e0334-f712-42b7-8d16-7416a9793732", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government argued that the Croatian authorities had taken all the appropriate steps, interviewed everyone who could have had any information about the events at issue and had followed up all leads as soon as they had learned about the abduction of the applicant\u2019s husband in 2004. They had thus satisfied their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "84f810cb-16d9-469c-92eb-b6a15cdbc600", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government submitted that the legal remedies at the domestic level had afforded appropriate redress for the applicants' complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further asserted that the national authorities had conducted an effective investigation into the applicants' complaints. In their opinion, both the civil and administrative courts had taken a protective approach towards the applicants when establishing their victim status and granting them redress for their grievances. The courts had awarded the applicants sufficient compensation and these judgments had been executed by the authorities. They added that, following the impugned incident, the K\u0131z\u0131lay had decided to give the first applicant a scholarship in order to support his education."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0df23af4-eb63-4650-ab8b-a7eeab354cb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence that Adam Ayubov was dead, or that representatives of the federal military or security agencies had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They contested the oral evidence given by witnesses during interviews by the investigating authorities as unreliable, stating that witness statements had been controversial and that the investigating authorities had checked the information given by the witnesses by sending queries to law-enforcement agencies and power structures, but that information had not been confirmed. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Adam Ayubov\u2019s right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a2164378-3c2d-4451-9eb4-c7297035aa4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government maintained that the State cannot be held responsible for the death of the applicant\u2019s husband. They submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the present case as his death had been a tragic accident. Moreover, at the time of making their submissions the issues surrounding the incident were still in dispute before the domestic courts. The Government maintained that the criminal court alone could be considered competent to establish the facts and to assess the alleged responsibility of the Inspector for Environmental Protection for the applicant\u2019s husband\u2019s death."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d7ae665e-73f4-4f97-8ded-38a565ca7fae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that the criminal investigation had been opened promptly and that comprehensive investigative measures had been carried out. The national authorities had taken all the necessary steps to collect evidence and to establish the circumstances of the death of the applicant\u2019s son. Delays in the proceedings had not been attributable to the State. Most of the delay had been caused by D., who had been hiding from the authorities. As regards the first period of his absence between November 1997 and April 1998, the police authorities had checked D.\u2019s addresses and other possible places of residence following which they had eventually found that he had moved abroad. As regards the second period of D.\u2019s absence, between 1999 and 2010, the Government could not provide information because the police file containing material on the search for D. had been destroyed. Overall, the procedural requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f9a82767-8ba8-409a-8e00-e168a06401e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant did not allege that the death of her son had been caused intentionally. Nor do the facts of the case suggest otherwise. Therefore, Article <mask> of the Convention did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, \u00a7 90, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII). In so far as such a remedy was provided and the applicant availed herself of it, the Court observes that she appears to be challenging the termination of criminal investigations against the doctors involved in her son\u2019s treatment. In other words, the applicant complained about the outcome of the criminal investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "fe8bef39-d5e8-4ca0-b791-37a493fb8582", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government have not referred to any other procedure whereby the liability of the authorities can be established in an independent, public and effective manner. While they laid weight on the inquiry, the Court has found above that, although it provided, in many respects, a thorough and useful investigation, it failed for reasons of procedural defects to comply with the procedural obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. And as pointed out by the applicants, it did not provide any possibility of obtaining damages. "], "obj_label": "2", "id": "234511a8-483a-4c51-b46b-2c5563f484ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government argued that there had been no violation of the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention by reason of the delay. They were of the view that the inquest process which had now taken place showed that even if the inquest had taken place earlier, the result would have been no different. The jury at the inquest heard evidence on all matters pertinent to Mr McDonnell\u2019s death from prison officers, other prisoners, prison medical staff and expert witnesses. The passage of time had not in any way diminished the capacity of the inquest to resolve all of the issues required for it to comply with Article 2."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3250474e-4e80-48fc-9d69-567f6e744a79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants noted that the investigation following the arson attack on the first applicant\u2019s house suffered from a number of crucial omissions which made it ineffective. The conclusion that Major I. was not involved in the arson attack was reached without interviewing key eyewitnesses. According to the applicants, the first applicant was questioned by investigating officers only a month after the events in question and because he went to the investigator on his own initiative, without being summoned. The applicants also underlined that the national authorities, and in particular the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal in its decision of 11 December 2002, pointed out numerous shortcomings in the investigation and remitted the case for additional investigation. The applicants concluded that the authorities had not complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "28592f1f-41e8-4831-a46d-8da53788e038", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of lack of compensation for his disability. He also alleged a violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the courts' assessment of evidence and interpretation of the national law and challenged the outcome of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5ff91380-fbf0-402d-8375-f85fb6383286", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police had refused to institute criminal proceedings following her initial complaint of 15 October 2009 and that when proceedings were finally initiated, they had been unreasonably lengthy. All the steps necessary to secure possible evidence in the case had not been taken. No independent autopsy had been performed and the results of the tests performed in the hospital had not been independently verified. The applicant put into question the official explanation for the cause of her son\u2019s death and considered that the medical staff had failed to carry out a sufficiently profound medical examination of her son and to give due consideration to other possible reasons for the deterioration of his health, besides the cancer. For example, they had failed to diagnose pneumonia in due time and to assess whether the deterioration of O.\u2019s condition could have been attributed to a tick-borne disease. Other possible causes of death had also been overlooked by the investigative authorities. The applicant further argued that the experts and authorities had failed to duly consider whether the administration of certain medicines, including sedatives, penicillin and medicines lowering the blood pressure, had been justified and in accordance with clinical safety guidelines. Nor had they considered whether such treatment had in fact had negative effects on O.\u2019s condition, including causing his breathing to stop on 12 October 2013. Not all of the medical staff concerned had been questioned in the course of the investigation, and many of those who had been questioned had lied under oath. In the criminal proceedings the authorities had failed to ascertain whether depriving a person of food and treatment, in spite of objections from his immediate family, could be considered to be manslaughter. The procedure for determining brain death had not been followed and O. had been deprived of any treatment or food on 13 October 2009 without the brain-death procedure even having been commenced as required, let alone having been completed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7d7ac56b-c14a-458b-8fda-942ade8cef99", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government referred to the results of the forensic examination according to which the remains of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been found at the cemetery where bodies of the illegal armed groups\u2019 members killed on 7 and 9 March 2002 had been buried. They submitted that he had been involved in the fight on 9 March 2002. The Government stated that the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002 had been properly planned and carried out by competent State bodies in compliance with the applicable legislation, in particular with Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on Suppression of Terrorism, Federal Law no. 1026-1 of 18 April 1991 on the Police and Presidential Decree no. 1255c of 23 September 1999 on Measures Enhancing the Efficiency of Counter-Terrorist Operations in the Territory of the North Caucasia Region of the Russian Federation. They further submitted that the force applied had been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and, therefore, there had been no breach of the above provision."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f98306b6-d5e2-4a6d-ae2e-42f47e78a544", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government argued that all complaints in respect of the death and medical treatment of the applicant\u2019s sister were outside of the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction. They pointed out that the Convention had entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 and that the applicant\u2019s sister had died in 1994. Therefore, the Government concluded that any substantive complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione temporis."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1567253a-fb4f-46c2-b44f-88049acbf51d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government further contented that the taking of Mr Apti Dalakov\u2019s life had been in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention, namely that it was in defence of others from unlawful violence and in order to effect a lawful arrest. In their submission the Government referred to the findings of the investigation in criminal case no. 27520028, according to which Mr Apti Dalakov had refused to obey the law-enforcement agents\u2019 orders, and therefore the FSB officer had opened fire in order to eliminate the threat to his own life and health and that of the others. The Government further submitted \u201cthe investigation of criminal case no. 27520028 was effective and in compliance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention\u201d."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d7ff2c44-8881-4a1a-b042-1665d05a5025", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant emphasised that twenty-four years after her husband had been killed, the related criminal investigation had still not identified those responsible and sent them for trial. She considered that the duration of the investigation had been excessive and that the authorities had not complied with the requirements set forth in the Court\u2019s case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention, or with those set forth by the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "95352b0b-1519-496c-8a61-8acff02fa3d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained that he had been unable to obtain compensation for harm suffered as a result of an aircraft accident from the various third parties involved (see paragraph 75 below) and that the State should bear responsibility for any shortcomings in the legal regulation of the safety of private flights. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3a8580a5-2a81-455f-a223-9c08d535255a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["290.  The applicants complained that, on 20 February 1993, the security forces had opened fire on the houses in Ormani\u00e7i without advance warning, that Abide Ekin and Ali Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m had been killed and the latter's sister Emine Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m injured as a result of the explosion of devices used by the security forces on that day, and that Ibrahim Ekinci, one of the apprehended villagers, had been injured while being tortured in custody and had subsequently died as a result of his injuries. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8c8b31e0-70bb-45a0-aabc-bba28bcae758", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to protect the right to life of her son in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she argued that the hospital had been negligent in so far as it had not supervised him sufficiently, had not installed adequate security fencing to prevent him from leaving the grounds and had not provided for an adequate emergency procedure. Under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention she complained about the length of the civil proceedings she had brought against the hospital."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4bbdb8b3-76bf-4e53-898c-9fbd5998e2dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government argued that the investigation was prompt and exceptionally thorough. The police arrived at the scene immediately after the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s body was discovered. The circumstances of his death, including any possible omission on the part of the prison staff, were investigated by the police and the Prosecutor. A number of forensic reports were obtained in order for all aspects of the case to be explored. The applicant was involved in the proceedings and was notified of the actions taken during the investigation. She was also given access to the file at the Prosecutor\u2019s office and was able to copy documents from it. The State therefore fully complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8a677576-fb52-4683-8426-8345af239a6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant contended that his son had died as a consequence of the prison authorities\u2019 failure to protect his life. Moreover, the pre-trial investigation into the events had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The investigation had been suspended and restarted on numerous occasions. Upon seeing that the investigation was not being conducted promptly and thoroughly, the applicant and his lawyer had repeatedly visited the offices of the Kai\u0161iadorys District Prosecutor. He had persistently complained in writing to the Kai\u0161iadorys District Prosecutor\u2019s Office, the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor\u2019s Office and even to the Attorney General. The applicant emphasised that on his initiative the investigation had been restarted several times, because the Kai\u0161iadorys District Prosecutor\u2019s Office had failed to take the necessary investigative actions by itself."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3647ebe3-abf6-4fb9-a4b6-5379f2b2a418", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants alleged that the respondent State had failed in its obligations under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. They alleged that those provisions required the State to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the army operation, in the course of which Ms Melnichuk \u2013 the first applicant\u2019s wife and the second applicant\u2019s mother \u2013 was killed by gunfire, and the third and fourth applicants were severely injured by bullets."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a07a3a71-2139-4e94-8c92-c9ed047a8288", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the Russian investigating and judicial authorities had conducted a thorough, comprehensive and objective investigation into the applicant's allegations concerning the cause of her son's death. The forensic experts, on whose findings the authorities had based their findings, had been independent and impartial and had presented their opinions after having reviewed all the pertaining materials. As it had been established, the applicant's son had received due and proper medical treatment conducted by competent medical professionals and his death had not resulted from medical negligence. The investigation had been effective as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "dd6f3a79-29db-4ce3-aed9-df748783f751", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant further maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her daughter\u2019s death. She submitted that the initial investigation had lasted from 7 June to 7 August 2003. During these two months the investigator had questioned her and granted her victim status in the proceedings and had sent out a number of requests, following which the investigation had been suspended. There had been no investigative activity between August 2003 and December 2006. The cooperation between the investigative and other State authorities had been insufficient. In particular, none of the requests addressed by the investigator to the military prosecutor, the central archives of the Ministry of Defence, the temporary district police, the commander of the UGA or the district military commandant with a view to establishing whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District had led to results capable of shedding light on the events in question. The applicant further pointed out that it had taken the District Prosecutor\u2019s Office nine months to comply with the court\u2019s decision of 14 April 2008 instructing it to resume the investigation. The decisions suspending the investigation had contained very scarce information as to the evidence collected. The applicant had had a feeling that the investigation process had been a mere formality with a predictable outcome, since over a span of several years the investigating authority had failed to carry out all the possible investigative measures that could have been taken in the absence of the accused. Not all eyewitnesses had been identified and questioned. The official who had given the order to use mortars without a precise calculation of the target area or cordons being formed around that area beforehand had also not been identified. As a result, many issues remained unascertained. Lastly, the applicant had been completely denied access to the case file until 2010. In view of the foregoing, the applicant concluded that the domestic authorities had not complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "67ae58b8-bbed-43d8-93d5-acd637d2efda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government submitted that the police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training had been disciplined or criminally prosecuted, in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention to ensure, where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, an adequate response so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see \u00d6nery\u0131ld\u0131z v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, \u00a7 91, ECHR 2004\u2011XII)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b2b2120c-12d5-4e63-9443-0189b91182ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that the killing and the physical injury suffered by the applicants and their relatives, as well as the opening of the criminal investigation, happened prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention for Romania on 20 June 1994. Moreover, according to the principles set out by the Court in the case of Ble\u010di\u0107 v. Croatia ([GC], no. 59532/00, \u00a7\u00a7 63-69, ECHR 2006-III), the obligation under the Convention of the Romanian authorities to conduct a prompt and effective investigation is derived from the aforementioned unlawful acts and cannot be severed or examined separately by the Court. Consequently, the Government considers that the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the applicants' complaints falling under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2f1f21ff-9acf-42ca-9bae-6959517740cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their close relatives, Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. The applicants submitted that the circumstances of their disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish their whereabouts indicated that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relatives' disappearance. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ed59136d-658b-4442-acab-d48a1feb9ffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the positive obligation imposed on them by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she alleged that the explosion resulting in her injuries had been possible due to the lax security at the Domodedovo airport. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, she complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the actions of the airport security personnel and the police deployed at the airport. Lastly, she alleged that she had been unable to participate in the investigation. The Court will examine the applicant\u2019s grievances from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "13bebac1-6ddc-4662-8574-c81dfe28895b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation because the investigation had categorically established that Mr Todorov\u2019s death had been self\u2011inflicted and not the result of actions taken by the police. It had therefore not engaged the State\u2019s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention, and the applicants could not claim to be victims of a breach of that provision."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8f50c0cd-9db1-4b3c-8ebb-86b58932e8d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicant submitted that she was entitled to damages in respect of the unlawful deprivation of the life of her husband Dermot McShane and in respect of any failure in the investigation process, referring to the previous Northern Ireland cases, where non-pecuniary damages of 10,000 pounds sterling (GBP) were awarded to applicants for breaches of the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention (e.g. Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom and Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, cited above)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c33fed4a-21cc-45c5-8595-dcb645d70401", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government further noted that, as established by the domestic courts, the applicant\u2019s son had committed suicide. They asserted that this action had been his own choice, to which Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable. The Government referred in this connection to the case of Pretty v. the United Kingdom, in which the Court held that \u201c[Article 2] is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life\u201d (no. 2346/02, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011III)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cdd669c6-9209-4120-bd06-cb0c30851ecb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant alleged that the circumstances surrounding the abduction and disappearance of Mehmet \u015eah \u015eeker gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further contended that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of his son\u2019s disappearance. Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1e84b01c-0acf-4796-8510-149bf9ec3bda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained that she had been unable to secure the conviction of the doctor whose medical negligence had caused her to have to undergo a therapeutic abortion. It has not been disputed that she intended to carry her pregnancy to full term and that her child was in good health. Following the material events, the applicant and her partner lodged a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties, alleging unintentional injury to the applicant and unintentional homicide of the child she was carrying. The courts held that the prosecution of the offence of unintentional injury to the applicant was statute-barred and, quashing the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment on the second point, the Court of Cassation held that, regard being had to the principle that the criminal law was to be strictly construed, a foetus could not be the victim of unintentional homicide. The central question raised by the application is whether the absence of a criminal remedy within the French legal system to punish the unintentional destruction of a foetus constituted a failure on the part of the State to protect by law the right to life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e41db61d-79b9-4145-9916-545826bf90b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicant claimed damages on behalf of himself and his parents. The Court observes that Article 41, except in certain specific cases mostly related to complaints being brought on behalf of a deceased person under Article <mask> of the Convention, provides for the payment of just satisfaction to only the direct victim of the violation. It follows that the Court will only consider claims which have been lodged in the name of the applicant himself."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "98a4756d-47a3-4f69-b9dd-bd0648e6d6a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["213.  The applicant contended that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention by both the Russian and Cypriot authorities on account of the failure of the Cypriot authorities to take steps to protect the life of his daughter and the failure of the authorities of both States to conduct an effective investigation into her death. Article 2 provides, inter alia, that:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8545d32d-8bcf-43fc-bafb-735fd61ed6f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government finally submitted that by ordering the applicant\u2019s release they would have breached their positive obligation under Article 3 and possibly even under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect potential victims from further violent offences. According to the findings of the domestic courts, it was very likely that the applicant would commit similar offences as those at issue in the 1996 proceedings before the Munich I Regional Court against his ex-wife or other persons if released."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "04d51d50-d53c-4d8d-801a-1e36e94c47ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicants restated their complaint referring directly to Article <mask> of the Convention and argued that Aslanbek Khamidov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for more than eight years. The applicants submitted that they had not immediately informed the authorities of the kidnapping because in 2000 a large-scale counter-terrorist campaign had been under way in the Chechen Republic and they had feared to leave their village to visit a prosecutor\u2019s office. At the same time they had not had any confidence in the law-enforcement agencies located in the village of Alleroy since those had been responsible for the identity check of 25 October 2000."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cd794a26-f581-4eb5-9286-6ba250c5d04e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["152.  The Government maintained that the criminal proceedings relating to the murder of the applicant's husband had been initiated on 27 February 2001, and the applicant recognised as an aggrieved party within those proceedings. The Government argued that the applicant should have raised her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention within six months of that date, but had failed to do so."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f8166fae-b43a-4542-96c2-37d3d67b1e5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government did not accept the applicant's claims under Article <mask> of the Convention that her husband was deprived of his life intentionally or by any excessive or unjustified use of force. Indeed, in this case, there was no question of force being used against the applicant's husband. The events which led to his death were simply a tragic accident. It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Convention that Article 2 would come into play wherever there happened to be an accident which was allegedly caused by a person who was acting in an official capacity at the time. Article 2 was therefore not engaged."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0ac435ee-fe25-42f3-93ed-d86bb34b8160", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government argued that, given the exceptional circumstances of the case, the authorities had carried out an effective investigation and emphasised that every effort had been made by them to identify and punish those responsible, in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, which did not impose an obligation on the authorities to reach a particular outcome."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c982f9a6-f933-4480-9cf2-c9631d902a77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the gendarmes had acted in complete disregard of the right to life by using explosives and firearms and that it was only by pure chance that he had survived. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant further complained that, having been shot at, beaten up and exposed to tear gas, he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that his allegations had not been investigated in an effective manner at the national level."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8ada9b98-d26b-4fce-9db9-cf839e9a4690", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants further considered that, even under the \u201cnew material test\u201d which had been developed and applied in the Chamber judgment, the Court could be competent to examine Russia\u2019s compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2, assuming that the required new element was not limited to important new evidence becoming known in the post-ratification period but also included new and sufficiently important procedural facts. This test should also encompass cases where the domestic authorities had failed to collect new evidence or where they had adopted conclusions that starkly contradicted previous findings or historical facts. Although a decision to close the investigation was not as such new material for the investigation, it could constitute a new procedural development of relevance in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention, especially since it marked a sudden change in the investigation. Moreover, when a significant portion of the investigation file became classified and the same status was given to the final decision in the investigation, there existed good reasons to presume that the sudden and radical change in the investigation must have resulted from relevant new findings."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1c7a415a-b5f3-4aea-b5a2-cfb19b881ea0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their relative, Vakhid Musikhanov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Vakhid Musikhanov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ac95f471-949f-414b-b734-6846c4d89ef1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicants complained that Mr Ka\u0142ucki had been killed in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They alleged that the police officers had used machine and other guns from very close range on unarmed men who were panicking because they thought they were being robbed. Thus the police had used lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary and in an excessive manner. They also complained that the police operation, which had been initiated on the basis of an unconfirmed anonymous call, was not properly prepared and was badly directed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2da1bf6c-cebb-40ea-a3ee-7d7b6106e733", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government argued firstly that the investigation into the murder of the applicant\u2019s husband was still ongoing, and that therefore the domestic remedies had not been exhausted. They further claimed that the investigation in the present case had met the requirements of effectiveness, enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the incident of 6 January 2000 had been received by the authorities on 17 February 2000, and the criminal proceedings had been instituted on 27 February 2000, which had been in full compliance with the time-limit established by Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 then in force. Also, in the Government\u2019s submission, all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the alleged perpetrator."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "dd67dddc-b1f2-4c13-936f-f7d3252d172c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicants complained that Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev had been arrested by Russian servicemen and then disappeared and that Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had been shot and taken away by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into these matters. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "dd5eb78e-57e4-4c12-b0cc-75f413e71797", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government, recounting in detail the facts described above, argued that the various national authorities had done everything they could in the present case and had consistently established the cause of Mr Dejan Petrovi\u0107\u2019s death. An independent prosecutor had carried out the investigation, and the police officers involved in the investigation had been hierarchically independent and/or superior to the police officers present during the incident. The Government submitted that the investigation into the death of the applicant\u2019s son had consequently fully met the requirements of impartiality and thoroughness laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "af885b34-ce13-4ff7-bbb4-734d69731803", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants complained that the police had failed to ensure the safety of the participants in the training exercise which had resulted in their son\u2019s death and which they claimed, moreover, was intentional. The applicants further complained that the investigation into alleged negligence on the part of police officers had been very lengthy and inefficient. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a7126d66-28f5-4007-84a1-b974d558f874", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government contended on one hand that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning the disappearance of their brother and that their complaint under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 101-09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011III. On the other hand, they submitted that the complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigation obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 brother had been held under State control or that he was dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "56cc14be-2b71-446a-8fc3-c0854af2c88a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicants also submitted that the doctors had been aware of the patient\u2019s critical condition. Referring to the case of Jasinskis v. Latvia (no. 45744/08, \u00a7\u00a7 67-68, 21 December 2010), they argued that the Government were responsible for her death, in that the necessary care had not been provided, and had therefore breached Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive aspect."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5a199377-7a3f-4790-bc12-aeb861867c68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their relative had been killed unlawfully by the soldiers. They submitted that the fact that his hunting rifle was still fully loaded at the time of the killing, coupled with the absence of any bullets or bullet cases which might have been discharged from the soldiers\u2019 weapons, had shown that no armed clash had taken place at all. The applicants added that a policy of impunity prevailed in Turkey in respect of breaches of the right to life by law enforcement officials. Everything in this incident indicated that their relative Murat Tekdal had been an innocent civilian. However, in the documents drawn up by members of the security forces attempts had been made to portray Murat Tekdal as a member of an outlawed organisation so that members of the security forces would not be prosecuted and punished."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c3d457f9-c37a-49a5-afdc-1d180346203e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained that Police Officer Apostolidis had used a weapon during the course of his arrest. He also complained, under the same provision, that the investigative and prosecuting authorities had failed to launch a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation into the legitimacy of the use of force by Police Officer Apostolidis. He argued that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4e88f4ae-e0e9-475d-8151-e3f9d9916381", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that the present application is inadmissible as regards the applicant\u2019s complaints about the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, on account of the lengthy investigation of the traffic accident which resulted in bodily injuries to the applicant, since this part of the application fell outside the Court\u2019s jurisdiction ratione temporis. The traffic accident took place on 26 January 1993, while the Convention entered into force in respect of Ukraine on 11 September 1997, which was more than four years after the accident. The Government referred to the Court\u2019s decisions in the cases of Moldovan and others v. Romania (no. 41138/98, 13 March 2001), and Kholodovy v. Russia (no. 30651/05, 14 September 2006)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f04f1496-8db1-4654-b90d-d691f7857602", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained that all the relevant facts concerning the death of his sister had not been properly established in the unreasonably long criminal proceedings against Dr V.B. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2edce4d5-9764-42d9-a432-ed8dcfef158c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicants maintained in reply that they had been submitted to ongoing harassment which also included acts of physical violence against the first applicant and verbal violence against both applicants. Such harassment had disrupted their daily lives and caused them a significant level of constant stress and suffering, in particular in view of the first applicant\u2019s medical condition. They argued that the ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse met the requisite intensity standard under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and that Article <mask> of the Convention was also applicable given the escalation of violence against the first applicant in view of his extreme vulnerability and also in view of the likelihood, as demonstrated by research on disability hate crime, of low-level harassment turning into full-scale violence if left unchecked, possibly resulting in extreme circumstances in death or severe ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9ddb21b0-3356-4dfb-873f-725333d6901f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Muslim Nenkayev had been kidnapped by representatives of federal forces. They further stressed that their relative had been abducted in life-threatening circumstances and argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that he had remained missing for more than six years proved that he was dead."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d72b7c9a-fd23-4751-8541-5310e043fb41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant submitted that the State had violated its procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention by failing to carry out an effective investigation of the circumstances surrounding the applicant\u2019s daughter\u2019s death. Even if a civil remedy would have been an appropriate remedy in this case, the flawed investigation carried out after Y\u2019s death rendered a possible civil remedy ineffective."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "33c0925e-83a8-4753-bbd7-292b0195413e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government further noted that, following inquiries conducted by the prison administration, the initiation of an investigation had been refused on 10 August 2001. The refusal had been reiterated on 24 August 2001. However, that decision had been quashed by a prosecutor and an investigation had been instituted on 4 June 2002. It had established that the prison officers were not responsible for Mr Shumkov\u2019s suicide. Accordingly, on 28 May 2003 the investigation had been discontinued for lack of corpus delicti. Following the applicant\u2019s appeal against that decision, the domestic courts had found that it was lawful and well-founded since the investigating authorities had established the causes of Mr Shumkov\u2019s death and conducted a proper assessment of the actions of the doctors and prison officers. Therefore, the Government concluded that the investigation had been effective for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "251633dc-9f6b-4416-b9a9-3cc31e86343e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government further maintained that in the present case, unlike in the case of Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII), the State authorities had not known of the existence of a real and imminent risk to the life of the applicants\u2019 relatives. Moreover, D. had not been acting in his official capacity. Although the internal investigation had established \u201csome flagrant violations and shortcomings in the organisation of the working processes of the relevant police department\u201d, the national courts had not established any causal link between these shortcomings and D.\u2019s actions. Therefore, the Government considered that in the present case the State had complied with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8daaddb7-67a9-4a94-b641-af71fc0e13b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention of the lack of effective and adequate measures taken by the police and prosecutor's office to investigate her son's death. She maintained, in particular, that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to comply with their positive obligation to carry out a proper and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances in which E. had died. She alleged in this respect Article <mask> of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "33971a0e-8151-4332-9996-f16a99a4b8e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained about her father\u2019s death following his arrest by the police and his deprivation of liberty in Argenteuil police station. She argued that the necessary measures for the protection of his right to life had not been taken. She further argued that the investigation into the facts had not been effective. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "80549903-cda9-4a86-901d-4a6a14501e7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that the investigation into her son\u2019s death had not met the requirements of effectiveness under Article <mask> of the Convention, given the decision of the prosecuting and judicial authorities not to investigate all aspects of the incident or to attach any responsibility to all of the persons concerned. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cb13e914-0398-4134-b1ed-94d25e71f913", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government acknowledged that the State\u2019s duties under Article <mask> of the Convention encompass a positive obligation to take preventive measures in order to protect an individual whose life is at risk from criminal acts of another individual. Nonetheless, Pravieni\u0161k\u0117s Prison authorities and its medical staff had not been aware of the risk to A.\u010c.\u2019s life and could not have known that the risk to his life was real and immediate."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0d9a0caa-ab5a-49ac-8d57-502247d94493", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of the accident which had resulted in the death of her husband. She also complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, claiming that the criminal investigation of the accident which had caused her husband\u2019s death had not been fair. The Court, however, considers it more appropriate to examine the case solely from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "508e9df8-d209-4083-aa92-807c1a6ce9d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that the relevant circumstances had been effectively examined at the domestic level and that there had been no procedural violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They admitted that the civil claim had been closely linked to the determination of the criminal charges against Dr G. However, the civil courts had been prompt in their consideration of the applicant\u2019s claims in a separate set of civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4adb67d6-0f02-4897-9760-a95c75cd4c20", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government pointed out that Bulgarian law made provision for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products. However, they emphasised that such products carried serious risks, which required them to be carefully regulated. The State was entitled to refuse permission for the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, and this did not breach the right to life, but safeguarded it. The positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had limits, and could not exceed what was reasonable. The applicants had been given conventional medical treatment. There was no further duty to allow them to use a product which was not authorised in any member State of the European Union or had not been subjected to a clinical trial. A State could not be obliged to make available all possible drugs, let alone products whose contents and origins were not clearly known, and which had not been authorised in developed countries with strong health care systems. The product at issue did not comply with the requirements for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004. If its producer met the applicable requirements, the authorities could envisage allowing its use in the future. In that sense, the applicants were not left with no hope at all."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9dc50720-94cf-459a-bc12-9e48981b25b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants complained that Mr Mihaylov had been killed by the police in circumstances in which the use of lethal force had not been absolutely necessary. They also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into that matter. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "62b87505-cd92-48a5-b2ed-d849dc99c005", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants alleged that Adnan Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m had been tortured and killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State or by persons acting under their express or implicit instructions. They also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his killing. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f5f4e541-02d5-41ff-9da3-7030cd71810f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government claimed that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention were incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, as the first applicant, who had alone been responsible for the accident that had claimed his wife\u2019s life, could not be considered to have victim status. They further argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies in relation to their complaints, as they had not applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for rectification of its decision dated 25 January 2011."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "37ab46b1-899e-4008-9d9b-a40e323eb942", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of her son, Artur Bersunkayev. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Artur Bersunkayev had been killed by the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son\u2019s disappearance. She referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e0c9edcc-e7a4-4acb-a4c0-8685c0c19801", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["148.  The applicant submitted that, according to the more recent understanding of Article <mask> of the Convention (she referred to Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008; Mehmet \u015eent\u00fcrk and Bekir \u015eent\u00fcrk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, ECHR 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013; Asiye Gen\u00e7 v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, 27 January 2015; and Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016), for the Court to find that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb, it had to be established that in concrete terms the promptness and diligence which could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances of the case had been lacking and, further, that this failing had contributed to putting the victim\u2019s life at risk. The applicant noted that in the aforementioned cases the factor which had weighed most heavily in the Court\u2019s judgment was the absence of the timely medical treatment which, in the circumstances of each case, could reasonably have been expected and whose absence had contributed significantly to the chain of events which put at risk the life of patients who, in the end, had died. She stressed that in these various situations the Court had emphasised that there was no call to speculate on what the victims\u2019 chances of survival might have been if the failings identified had not occurred; what counted was the unreasonable risk to which, in the circumstances of each case, the patient had been exposed and which had contributed to the chain of events leading to his or her death. The applicant observed that, in determining the relevant facts, the Court had applied the \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d test, according to which the requisite proof could follow from a sufficiently persuasive combination of inferences and presumptions. She submitted, contrary to the Portuguese Government\u2019s view, that the Chamber judgment provided a concrete application of these principles to the facts of the case. The applicant emphasised in this connection that the Court had subsequently applied the same principles in the Elena Cojocaru case, cited above."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "99e05931-11e3-4791-8c3f-3aba6b034973", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that her son had been killed as a result of the unnecessary use of firearms by a State agent and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her son\u2019s death. The Court will examine the present complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d134ba30-dae3-4837-b123-5695a173f365", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government considered that, given the leading judgments delivered by the Court in the case of the Association \u201c21 December 1989\u201d and Others (cited above), it was clear that every similar case which satisfies the admissibility criteria could raise a problem under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court should note that, following that judgment, the Government had undertaken steps to redress the situation in line with the action plan submitted to the Committee of Ministers on 24 July 2012. In such circumstances, the allegations made by the applicants should only be considered from a purely historical standpoint."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e7c0d373-10a8-4843-a2c2-c61ed6fb1863", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that the \u201cTRNC\u201d authorities had been fully justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention in taking all necessary precautions and using necessary force in order to avert the danger and protect the lives of others. An assembly of 150 persons throwing missiles at a patrol of soldiers to the point that they risked serious injury had been considered a \u201criot\u201d by the Commission in the case of Stewart v. the United Kingdom (no. 10044/82, Commission decision of 10 July 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 39, p. 162). In that case, the Commission had also pointed out that the authorities had no obligation to retreat when quelling a riot. In any event, as no death had occurred in the present case, there could be no question of a violation of Article 2. The positive obligations arising from this provision entailed protecting \u201cby law\u201d the right to life, and there was no allegation that the laws of the \u201cTRNC\u201d failed to afford such protection."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bf52a9c0-282e-4b70-b242-acd57c9ea504", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant disputed that objection. He claimed that the fact that the investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance and death of his son was still pending cast doubt upon its effectiveness and that, in any event, he had not been informed of the conduct of the investigation, and therefore had been unable to appeal in time against decisions taken in the context of the investigation. The applicant also contended that the Government had not demonstrated that the remedies to which they had referred were effective and, in particular, were capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court's settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "57b57585-cbc0-4ed6-822a-b4159ec5ca9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 which occurred in Bucharest, Slobozia, T\u00e2rgovi\u0219te and Re\u0219i\u021ba, during which they were injured from gunfire or their close relatives were killed. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c09ad7b2-ce24-458b-ae53-f7f152d496b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government, acknowledging their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction, submitted that \u2013 as radio and power lines constitute a source of increased danger \u2013 special instructions, rules and regulations regulate such installations in order to ensure adequate safety standards. The prescribed inspections and maintenance on the installation at issue in the present case were carried out within the defined intervals, and the necessary repairs were made. Before the incident of 19 July 2001, none of the users had complained of any power failures. However, an exceptional situation had arisen in that, some days before the incident, a severe thunderstorm had damaged numerous radio and power lines in the region. In this connection, the Government submitted \u2013 referring to the evidence given by a number of Ayvove villagers in the domestic proceedings \u2013 that the radio wire had broken on 18 July 2001 and not on 5 July 2001 as alleged by the applicant. As nobody had reported the damaged wire to the authorities or requested its repair, the Network had remained unaware of the problem at the material time."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e60436eb-0b5e-4a1d-ae23-87b03a887433", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to comply with their positive obligations to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to their lives against the natural hazards. The first applicant complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of her husband in the mudslide of July 2000. She and the other applicants also complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for putting their lives at risk, as they had failed to discharge the State's positive obligations and had been negligent in the maintenance of the dam, in monitoring the hazardous area and in providing an emergency warning or taking other reasonable measures to mitigate the risk and the effects of the natural disaster. They also complained that they had had no redress, in particular they had not received adequate compensation in respect of their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "96e8209d-c5c9-40f7-bf55-5edbcb50c503", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had not undertaken reasonable and adequate steps to protect the life and health of V.P. and that the State had not provided sufficient explanation of V.P.\u2019s death. Alleging that the investigation into the latter\u2019s death had been carried out by an internal department of the Ministry of the Interior and by the police units implicated in his death or stationed in the area, the applicants also complained that no effective and independent investigation had been carried out on the authorities\u2019 own initiative. According to them, the State authorities had not started investigations of their own motion. Indeed, the officer who had arrived at the scene of incident had stopped the investigation too quickly and with no plausible reason. The Supervision Department had only started to act upon filing of a criminal complaint by the applicants. The applicants further complained of various shortcomings during the investigations which had been led with insufficient diligence and promptness. Furthermore, the applicants had been repeatedly denied access to the investigation file and had had no adequate remedy in respect of the breaches of their rights under the Convention. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "fccb280a-3371-4e50-a51f-05b51ec0f02e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to protect the life of her son and were responsible for his death. She also complained that the investigation into her son's death had not been adequate or effective, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. This provision reads in its relevant part as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "83d46459-cd00-4df1-aaaf-b73243b79e63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted firstly that the applicant had failed to properly exhaust the available domestic remedies. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law on the subject of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, they argued that the criminal-law avenue was not the one to be pursued by the applicant. On this point the Government admitted that within the framework of criminal proceedings the applicant had brought a civil action, and had been recognised as a civil claimant who had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. However, in each of the subsequent decisions to discontinue the criminal investigation of the death of the applicant\u2019s son the prosecutors suggested that she bring a separate civil claim against the Vilnius city municipality under Article 6.266 of the Civil Code. Moreover, by a decision of 3 July 2008 and subsequent decisions the prosecutors established that the Vilnius city municipality had been the de facto owner of the derelict building the collapse of which had caused the death, and that it thus had absolute liability. Referring to the practice of the Lithuanian courts (see paragraphs 40-42 above), the Government thus insisted that Article 6.266 of the Civil Code was an effective remedy the applicant should have pursued. Whilst noting that the pre-trial investigation did not establish physical persons liable for the accident, the Government also argued that the applicant could have alternatively claimed redress for the damage on the basis of Article 6.271 of the Civil Code, which sets forth a more general provision, namely liability to compensate for damage caused by unlawful actions of institutions of public authority. Again, the applicant could have relied on the prosecutor\u2019s conclusion that the Vilnius city municipality, which had learned about the poor state of the building in question in 2004, did not act promptly enough to eliminate the threat. Even so, the applicant had never lodged any separate civil claim under the rules of civil procedure in respect of the damage caused by her son\u2019s death."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "fd63415c-07d4-46e0-aac2-a6be358b4a93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention and his subsequent placement in a disciplinary cell had been lawful, having complied with the provisions of national law laying down responsibility for disciplinary offences committed by servicemen. The use of force by Mr L. had been absolutely necessary to prevent the escape of the applicant\u2019s son, who had been lawfully detained. Thus, Mr Putintsev\u2019s loss of life could not be regarded as having been in contravention of the Convention, being covered by the exception in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 2 to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government insisted that, having decided to abscond and having refused to comply with the order to stop, Mr Putintsev had himself placed his life in imminent danger. He had been warned and he had fully understood the consequences of his actions. The deadly force had been used for a lawful purpose and had been a measure of last resort. The Russian Federation could not therefore be held responsible for Mr Putintsev\u2019s death."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5572163b-aaef-4e5d-98e6-af5b34cade9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.   The Government submitted that the criminal investigation was carried out comprehensively and promptly. The national authorities had taken necessary steps in order to collect the evidence and to establish the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s husband\u2019s death. Certain delays during the proceedings had not been attributable to the State. The procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "61cc6771-5ac9-4fdb-8777-d0e39d83df14", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["196.  The applicants stressed that their relatives, Serdar Tan\u0131\u015f and Ebubekir Deniz, had disappeared in circumstances in which their lives were in danger. They submitted that account should be taken not only of the specific context in which the men had disappeared, but also of the broader context of a large number of such disappearances in the province of \u015e\u0131rnak. In their submission, there had been a grave violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the Government had been unable to furnish a plausible explanation for their disappearance."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f0893538-12a5-4975-8782-5abdca366120", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The applicant asked the Court to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that the investigation into the disappearance and the subsequent killing of her husband had been so fundamentally flawed as to amount to a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of that provision. The applicant identified, in particular, the following shortcomings in the investigation into the killing of her husband:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "47f05690-60da-4076-ae15-ad2e8371eb24", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The applicants submitted that the domestic authorities had never informed them of any orders or decisions introducing a curfew and stressed that the Government had failed to produce any documents which would confirm that a curfew had been introduced in the Chechen Republic or indicated either its start or end dates or the conduct to be adopted by the local population in that connection. They furthermore argued that the documents submitted by the Government suggested that Z. had not been entitled to stop and inspect civilian vehicles and that he had acted in excess of his powers, which fact had been indicated by higher-ranking prosecutors. Moreover, there was no indication that the servicemen under his command had been entitled to stop and inspect the vehicle. It followed from the statement by A.K. that the incident had taken place when it had been dark and accordingly the passengers of the VAZ-2109 car could hardly have seen any signals to stop allegedly made by the servicemen. Moreover, the statement by A.K. that he had fired two warning shots was contradicted by the statements of K.M. and the third applicant, who submitted that the servicemen had directly shot at the vehicle and that they had not heard any single shots but continuing bursts of automatic gun fire coming from the side of the servicemen. During the first minutes after the skirmish a police officer had inspected the vehicle but no weapons or ammunition had been discovered in it. Moreover, it had been inspected again on 24 October 2001 and no spent cartridges or guns had been found close to it. Hence, the allegation that the vehicle passengers had fired at the servicemen did not stand up. More importantly, all the spent cartridges seized from the crime scene were found on the side of the road where the servicemen had been stationed. In sum, the applicant claimed that the death of their relative had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f809e4a5-7cc0-4610-bff1-0986b0d7bafd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government acknowledged that Article 201 of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, in force at the material time, had not indicated that the use of force had to be absolutely necessary. However, that legal norm had indicated that deadly force could only be used in specific cases and as a measure of last resort. The Government observed that the wording of Article 201 of the Statute had afforded the same level of protection of the right to life as Article <mask> of the Convention. They further noted that in assessing the circumstances of the case the Court should not overlook the fact that the events in question had occurred in the army, a very specific setting characterised by extreme limitations on the rights and freedoms of individuals performing military service. The specific responsibilities of servicemen to respect discipline and the regulations of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, as well as the fact that military service was inherently characterised by unquestionable compliance with orders of higher-ranking officers, had justified the use of deadly force against a serviceman to prevent his escape."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8c0160c1-b87e-461f-abbd-616646641e7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicants argued that the treatment to which the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev had been subjected should be characterised as torture. To support their argument they referred to the severity of the injuries both of them had sustained and which in Mr Bashir Velkhiyev\u2019s case had resulted in death. The applicants also contested the Government\u2019s assertion that the investigation had been effective, on the same grounds as set out in paragraph 94 above in relation to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9ae6b7c7-9889-416c-a774-bb169cc567c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["160.  The Government maintained that the State had not been liable for the death of Aslan Maskhadov and that the investigation had fully complied with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government reiterated their earlier request to declare the case inadmissible as the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies by bringing court proceedings under Articles 123 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the relevant decisions and replies of the investigation authorities. They pointed out that copies of the case-file materials and documents could have been obtained by the applicants if they had made the relevant requests before the courts."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a31c7587-de4e-456a-bb81-4e3511100bd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government referred to the fact that in April 2009 the applicant had received compensation in an amount equivalent to about EUR 7,066 at the time. As to the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention, it is noted that the civil courts explicitly dismissed the applicant\u2019s arguments supporting her monetary claim on the grounds of an ineffective investigation. As to the substantive aspect of Article 2, it is sufficient for the Court to observe that this amount is substantially less than it has awarded in similar cases (see Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, \u00a7 92, 30 March 2017; Maslova v. Russia, no. 15980/12, \u00a7\u00a7 61-62 and 106, 14 February 2017; Lykova v. Russia, no. 68736/11, \u00a7 135, 22 December 2015; Rudakov v. Russia, no. 43239/04, \u00a7\u00a7 71-73, 28 October 2010; and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, \u00a7 79, 15 January 2015; see also paragraph 114 below). Given that \u2212 as established by the Court below \u2212 the investigation into the circumstances leading to the victim\u2019s death was ineffective and that the compensation awarded was insufficient, the applicant had and continues to have standing to complain about a breach of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see Nagmetov, \u00a7 89, with further references). Accordingly, the Government\u2019s objection must be dismissed."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1a04df85-ceb3-4e7b-ad8a-e7f5c52db7cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The applicant complained that her husband was killed in circumstances indicating that agents of the Turkish State were in one way or another involved. She further complained of a failure by the authorities to protect her husband's life and to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his killing. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1a9c8978-e9c8-4ed2-b78c-925ce07cf26e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that Nura Luluyeva had been deprived of her life by State agents in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that she had been detained on 3 June 2000 during a \u201cmopping-up\u201d operation in Mozdokskaya Street in the northern part of Grozny and then killed. They relied on the findings of the investigation that she had been detained by a group of armed men who forced her into an APC \u2013 a military vehicle. They referred to the witnesses' statements and to the information received from the officials of the Leninskiy VOVD about the hull number of that APC. They further argued that the discovery of her body in a mass grave in close proximity (less than one km) to a large military base in Khankala, access to which was restricted almost exclusively to Russian military forces, confirmed the participation of State agents in the killing of Nura Luluyeva. The applicants further noted that the authorities had failed to provide an explanation or an alternative version of the events."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "907dbf00-51d8-4d9c-9919-ef19d1a52d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government raised two combined preliminary objections. On the one hand they contested the Court\u2019s competence ratione temporis to examine the applications under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention and, on the other hand, they argued that the applications had been lodged out of time, as the applicants had lacked diligence both before the domestic authorities and the Court."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bff713f3-8f64-4da9-9e9a-142f8ea6cdfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicant also submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the State's failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into his son's death. In support of his allegation the applicant contended, in particular, that the autopsy carried out on the body of his son was wholly inadequate, that there had been a failure to properly inspect the crime scene at the petrol station as well as a failure to keep custody records in relation to Kadri Ate\u015f, and, finally, that the Prosecutor had failed to take statements from a number of potentially important witnesses."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d16cbcbd-5a8c-4a21-835c-94652caafaf9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see G\u00fclec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, \u00a7\u00a7 81-82, and \u00d6\u011fur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, \u00a7\u00a7 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, \u00a7\u00a7 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, \u00a7 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, \u00a7\u00a7 106-107). In order to identify the persons involved in the explosion, the preliminary investigation team had demonstrated a sufficient effort to allow it to assert that the authorities of the Russian Federation had fulfilled their positive obligation to conduct an effective investigation as required by Article <mask> of the Convention (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, no. 26307/95, 8 April 2004, \u00a7 220)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8415aee7-6e44-43c3-a288-a2327595f1e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants complained about the killing of their father and deficiencies in the investigation in that respect. They also claimed that their father had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "72cf8401-a00d-4739-81aa-5d799530ed16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants alleged that the killing of their son had been the result of deliberate acts by members of the Turkish armed forces. The circumstances of the case strongly suggested that the persons who shot Stelios Kalli Panayi had intended to kill him. Moreover, even assuming that this had not been the case, the use of force had not been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection the applicants emphasised the following:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bb5b67dd-c36c-4f69-b75f-60e9bf06ba7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother, Mr Abubakar Tsechoyev, had been abducted and subsequently deprived of his life by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. He also alleged that the domestic investigation\u2019s failure to take rapid and effective measures amounted to a violation of the obligation to protect Mr Abubakar Tsechoyev\u2019s life. The applicant further claimed that he had no effective domestic remedies against the above violations. Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "19530f6f-9981-4533-83a9-9801092d932e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government acknowledged that the applicants' eight relatives had been abducted from their homes and later found dead. They argued, however, that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of the unidentified persons who had abducted the applicants' eight relatives and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the federal armed forces or law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the imputed offence. They submitted that the applicants' relatives could have been abducted and killed by members of illegal armed groups, since some of them, for example Apti Murtazov, had cooperated with authorities during the armed conflict in Chechnya in 1996. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that the right to life of the applicants' eight relatives secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b166c798-dbcd-4b72-829a-f7e5fa4755b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicants Mr and Mrs Vlase alleged that their son, Nicu\u015for Vlase, was killed at the end of the December 1989 following the use of lethal force by State agents. They criticised the relevant authorities for failing to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. In that respect, they submitted that the criminal investigation concerning their allegations of an infringement of the right to life was still pending, and complained about the Romanian authorities\u2019 lack of diligence. They also complained about the draft amnesty law in respect of acts imputed to servicemen in the Armed Forces which occurred at the time of the events of December 1989, transmitted on 18 July 2008 to the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for consultation, by the Legal Directorate at the Ministry of Defence. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ab1275a8-a101-448c-88fb-4d53c0c48462", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government contended that the application was out of the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction because the event in question had taken place on 12 December 1996, whereas Croatia had only ratified the Convention on 5 November 1997. Because the State\u2019s procedural obligation under Article 2 had been to conduct an effective investigation, which in the instant case had ended on 3 July 1997, the applicants\u2019 complaints did not fall within the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction. On the same grounds the Government argued that the application had been lodged out of the six-month time-limit because that six-month period was to be calculated as starting at the end of the police enquiry. The civil proceedings instituted by the applicants were irrelevant since such proceedings did not constitute an adequate response to the alleged violation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "16c8fdf9-b79f-4dac-951b-253901c19c4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["201.  The Government contested that allegation. Relying on Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, \u00a7 171, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI), they argued that the use of force by the police was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention, which allowed the use of force which could lead to the unintentional deprivation of life. It was likewise in accordance with section 14 of the Law on Police, which authorised the police to use force and special tools in particular situations. As it had been established that at the time of the events Mr Shchiborshch had posed a danger to himself and others, and had resisted the lawful demands of the police, the use of force had been justified. Furthermore, it had also been established that a number of his injuries, including those leading to his death, had been self-inflicted either intentionally or negligently through actions resulting from his mental state."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2a7824e1-df6f-4818-be5d-3b051a59bc98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants in the instant case did not contest the domestic courts\u2019 finding that the first applicant bore the primary responsibility for the occurrence of the accident. They nevertheless made two claims which may engage the respondent State\u2019s concurrent responsibility for the death under Article <mask> of the Convention. They firstly claimed that the result of the traffic accident in question had been significantly aggravated due to the defective state of the crash barrier, which had failed to stop the car falling down into the canal, and to possible structural problems with the road. They secondly argued that neither of those contentious matters had been duly examined by the \u0130zmir Administrative Court, which had not even ordered an expert report to assist with the determination of such technical matters."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2adf2e00-9ef0-447f-8576-844c63f27a65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government stressed that in the course of the domestic investigations it had been established that driver Br. had not been working for the police at the time of the accident. The Government contended that acts committed by a private individual could not in any way engage the State\u2019s liability under the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "968501bb-975d-4bb3-ba7e-cfe30879eede", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that her husband died as a result of the insufficient health care during his detention in St Petersburg and the conditions of his detention and of his transportation to Moscow. She further complained that no adequate and effective investigation was conducted into her husband\u2019s death. She argued that there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, as far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f50e69ed-6e50-4e85-a589-bbf990e5b340", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["160.  The applicant alleged that his two sons had been taken away by the security forces and that it must be presumed that they were now dead in circumstances for which the authorities were responsible. He complained that no meaningful investigation had been carried out into the disappearance and subsequent death of his sons. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "144d2afc-266f-40fb-bee3-30eb85aeb539", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government further submitted that since the applicant had failed to institute separate civil proceedings against K, as the owner of the car, \u201cany of his civil-law claims under Article <mask> of the Convention were inadmissible in view of his failure to exhaust domestic remedies prior to his application to the Court\u201d. In their further observations the Government added that after K\u2019s death such a civil claim could be lodged by the applicant against \u201cthe owner of the vehicle\u201d."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c4d5fbbb-95d9-4587-bd8e-e4b03544d098", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government argued further that the applicants had not complied with the six-month time-limit. In this connection they contended firstly that the applicants had not reported the killing of Milan Zdjelar to the relevant authorities for almost six years. Moreover, the applicants should have become aware of the deficiencies in the investigation no later than 2004, when they lodged their civil action for damages, in which it was alleged that the Republic of Croatia was responsible for the war crimes committed by members of the Croatian Army. Further to this, the criminal complaint lodged on 29 May 2005 had been the result of their frustration at the lack of results in the investigation, in connection with which one of the applicants, Dragica Zdjelar, had been interviewed by the police on several occasions. Also, the applicants\u2019 application to the Court was linked to their civil action for damages, but these proceedings could not be taken into account in connection with their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "17378102-4680-4a5b-9b05-745d1202ffb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicants maintained their complaints. They submitted that the arrest operation carried out by the FSB servicemen had not been properly planned. Referring to the case of Karagiannopoulos v. Greece (no. 27850/03, \u00a7 61, 21 June 2007), they emphasised that the very fact that Beslan Arapkhanov\u2019s handcuffs had been removed demonstrated the failure to organise the operation in a manner compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8681b6ce-0490-48bc-8653-89170adb7853", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["313.  The Government contended, on the one hand, that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the disappearance of their relatives and that their complaints under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 101\u201109, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011III). On the other hand, they submitted that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control, or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a874e667-d201-4f07-9833-3c56ca666ef6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government accepted that, in the light of the Court's previous judgments (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001, and Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001), the RUC investigation, the inquest and the Stevens inquiries did not cumulatively satisfy the procedural requirement imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out, however, that the reports following the first and second Stevens inquiries were not made public as this would have prejudiced national security. "], "obj_label": "2", "id": "91c71496-017b-42b6-8328-0c26b4ee4ac2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance and murder of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative actions had been taken, including inspection of the crime scenes at the houses from which the applicants' relatives had been abducted, medical examination of the corpses and the sending of numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "35d4fd21-fecf-46b3-9443-8579e3e7579a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["224.  The applicant claimed that Cyprus and Russia had violated their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Ms Rantseva\u2019s death. He pointed to alleged contradictions between the autopsies of the Cypriot and Russian authorities (see paragraph 50 above) and his requests to Cyprus, via the relevant Russian authorities, for further investigation of apparent anomalies, requests which were not followed up by the Cypriot authorities (see paragraphs 52 and 62 above). He also complained about the limited number of witness statements taken by the police (see paragraphs 31 and 33 above), highlighting that five of the seven relevant statements were either from the police officers on duty at Limassol Police Station or those present in the apartment at the time of his daughter\u2019s death, persons who, in his view, had an interest in presenting a particular version of events. The applicant further argued that any investigation should not depend on an official complaint or claim from the victim\u2019s relatives. He contended that his daughter clearly died in strange circumstances requiring elaboration and that an Article 2-compliant investigation was accordingly required. The Cypriot investigation did not comply with Article 2 due to the inadequacies outlined above, as well as the fact that it was not accessible to him, as a relative of the victim."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f7c74f7e-7209-4f36-af15-f693e88a3415", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicant claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: EUR 100,000 on account of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of her husband; EUR 25,000 on account of the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband, the indifference shown by the authorities towards him and the failure to provide any information about his fate; and EUR 25,000 on account of the violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of her husband."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c80e51f1-08c8-43d6-866e-3a124c6e5bac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government argued that there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They contended that there was no conclusive evidence that the applicants' relatives were dead and that the investigation had obtained no evidence that representatives of the State had been involved in the abduction of the Yansuyev brothers. They referred, in particular, to the replies of various State bodies obtained by the investigating authorities stating that none of those bodies had detained the Yansuyev brothers or brought criminal proceedings against them, and that they had not been detained in any detention centres."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "d03fa661-e17c-44f2-aa32-c9383ad90c63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["255.  The applicants maintained their complaint, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances violating Article <mask> of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigation into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that in breach of Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention the Government had failed to duly comply with the Court\u2019s request for the investigation files."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c285803b-dbb9-4aaa-b8d6-dae198b8c918", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The Government referred to the results of the forensic examination according to which the remains of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr Ibragim Magomadov had been found at the cemetery where the bodies of the illegal armed groups\u2019 members killed on 7 and 9 March 2002 had been buried. They submitted that the above persons had been members of paramilitary groups and had resisted the representatives of federal forces with arms and that the latter had had to apply force in response which had led to the killing of those persons. The Government stated that the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002 had been properly planned and carried out by competent State bodies in compliance with the applicable legislation, in particular, with Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on the Suppression of Terrorism. They further submitted that the force applied had been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and, therefore, there had been no breach of the above provision."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "341560f5-8eaf-4651-90aa-a84fb99024c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government argued that the domestic authorities had set up an adequate legal framework for protecting patients\u2019 lives, for regulating the medical profession and for punishing any faulty behaviour. They underlined that all medical documents and reports had shown that the applicant\u2019s son had been given the appropriate treatment and that no medical errors had been made in the case. Lastly, the Government contended that the criminal investigation had been comprehensive and thorough, in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. At the initial phase of the investigation the authorities might not have gathered all the evidence considered necessary by the domestic courts, but had nevertheless fully complied with the instructions given by the courts."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4a60ff29-eda3-4a4d-aa4d-041eaf50c579", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government indicated that no direct reference to Article <mask> of the Convention had been made in the application form submitted by the applicants. Further, they contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Aslanbek Khamidov was dead or that any State servicemen had been involved in his kidnapping or alleged killing. The Government pointed out that the applicants\u2019 failure to promptly inform the authorities of the crime had entailed destruction of evidence and rendered the investigation more complicated. In sum they claimed that the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants\u2019 relative met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f28cd7ad-678f-47d7-8d76-f6a428ded1e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant invoked Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention. However, since it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, \u00a7\u00a7 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints should be examined only under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9302d9d0-d18b-47d3-bcf9-89b12c68dc98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["212.  The Government conceded that the proceedings had been lengthy. However, they considered that this had not stood in the way of effective observance of the procedural obligation. They argued that the length of the criminal and civil proceedings and those before the IGS could be attributed precisely to the efforts made by the competent authorities to address with rigour all the facts of the case and all the doubts expressed by the applicant. In such circumstances, the Government considered that the duration of the proceedings could not be a ground for finding a violation of the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. At most, they argued, the lengthy proceedings might breach Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which was incidentally the complaint lodged by the applicant."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b8f7cfa5-e742-4eef-89e3-4cb79ec55f4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The applicants each claimed: 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards the procedural aspect of Article 14 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards Article 13 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; and HRK 26,250 (about 3,500 euros) in respect of pecuniary damage as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0204247c-bdd9-427d-b3df-6fbf44de226d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that the failure of the relevant State authorities to take the necessary protective measures in respect of the road in question, such as repairing the damaged roadside barrier, had aggravated the outcome of the accident and had resulted in the death of their wife and mother, Ye\u015fim \u00c7ak\u0131r. They stressed in this connection that some time after the accident, the authorities had not only repaired the barrier, but had added another tier, in order to increase its capacity to protect against cars leaving the road."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "15b6e468-35a9-4664-8f91-11642d1d9cfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government asserted that that remedy had been effective and adequate in terms of the positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above) and that the applicant had, through her own inaction or negligence, deprived herself of a remedy which had nonetheless been available to her for four years from the time when the damage had occurred, and in respect of which she could have received advice from her lawyers. In Calvelli and Ciglio there had been no doubt that Article 2 of the Convention was applicable to a newborn child. In the instant case, in which the applicability of Article 2 was questionable, there were therefore additional reasons for considering that the possibility of using civil or administrative remedies to establish liability was sufficient. In the Government\u2019s submission, such an action for damages could have been based on the taking of the life of the child the applicant was carrying, since the relevant case-law of the administrative courts did not appear thus far to preclude the possibility of affording embryos protection under Article 2 of the Convention (Conseil d\u2019Etat (full court), Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration nationale des associations familiales catholiques et autres, judgment of 21 December 1990 \u2013 see paragraph 47 above). At the material time, in any event, the issue had not been clearly resolved by the Conseil d\u2019Etat."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "839a5ad4-26c8-4331-bc31-17e6cf2ec56e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government argued that the use of force by the soldiers had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention and lawful under the national legislation because the soldiers had thought that they had encountered members of a terrorist organisation and had returned fire to apprehend the terrorists and to protect themselves from the fire opened by the terrorists."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "54e679ba-5107-4a70-a5e4-f5a77f2d0b4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["202.  The applicant further alleged that the level of scrutiny that the domestic courts applied to a decision not to prosecute was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. This was because, pursuant to the dicta in Manning, even if a court considering a claim for judicial review concluded that a prosecution was likely to succeed, it would only have to order such a prosecution if there had been an error of law. Such an approach was inconsistent with Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c9ad701f-2a1a-48d7-8851-80090c7a02bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants claimed BGN 10,000 for the non\u2011pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Nikolov on account of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and BGN 10,000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by him on account of the alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Ms Nikolova further claimed BGN 50,000 for the anguish which she had experienced as a result of Mr Nikolov's death. She submitted that the loss of her husband and her becoming a widow at the age of fifty\u2011five had caused her considerable grief. Ms Velichkova claimed BGN 30,000. She submitted that the early loss of her father had caused her sorrow. The applicants also jointly claimed BGN 20,500 in respect of the frustration sustained by them on account of the slow and ineffective investigation into the death of Mr Nikolov."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "74e37dd6-fabb-4f8f-b741-b5c1a00521db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been infected with HIV as a consequence of negligent actions by the medical staff of detention facilities, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the incident. The Court will examine the present complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, \u00a7 39, 10 April 2012, with further references). Article 2, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cf0cd476-c755-4b24-b0af-05102a7e280b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant did not lodge a civil claim with the courts seeking compensation for the alleged medical malpractice. Meanwhile, as noted above (see paragraph 66 above), Article <mask> of the Convention does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case of medical negligence. The question is therefore whether in the present case the applicant should have raised the matter before the civil courts, as the Government contends in their objections on admissibility."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e3b3a255-cc15-4aca-a4b3-ec7f1e2e4950", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their relatives' disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for several years but had not brought any tangible results thus far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicants of the decisions concerning the adjournment and reopening of the investigation or its progress. The applicants' numerous requests to the authorities throughout the investigation had remained unanswered or only produced standard replies. The applicants had not been granted access to the case file. In support of their argument regarding the ineffectiveness of the investigation, the applicants also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file in the criminal case concerning their relatives' disappearance. The applicants also argued that the investigation could not have met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention since civilian prosecuting authorities were not competent to conduct investigations involving the military and military prosecuting authorities could not be considered to be independent from the military."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1bb903b2-cde4-405e-baf6-1d50cef28706", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that his deportation to Iran had exposed him to various deadly hazards, such as being kidnapped by people smugglers and being shot by border guards. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by security forces during his deportation to Iran on 12 September 2008. He claimed under Article 8 of the Convention that his deportation had infringed his right to respect for private and family life. He complained under Article 14 that he had been discriminated against by the State authorities because of his nationality. Lastly, he contended under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that he and the other Uzbek asylum seekers had been deported collectively and in breach of the procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "981641ef-9a77-49e4-99c6-dd52912931dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants alleged that the respondent State had failed to ensure appropriate medical treatment for their daughter, which had led to heart and lung damage and finally to her death. The civil proceedings they had instituted had not resulted in the effective and prompt establishment of the cause of death and the liability of the medical profession. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0f94683a-1454-4df6-9543-63fbdf1199a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the delay in transferring To\u011fay G\u00fcltekin to the hospital from his regiment had delayed his access to appropriate treatment and had thus caused his death. They argued that, as To\u011fay G\u00fcltekin had been under the authority of the military administration during his compulsory military service, the State should be held responsible for his death which, they believed, had been caused as a result of the authorities\u2019 negligence. The applicants also relied on Article 6 of the Convention and argued that the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Military Court had not been conducted fairly. In this connection, they stated that their objection to the medical expert report had not been taken into account and that the Military Administrative Court had failed to interpret the facts of the case correctly and that no effective investigation had been carried out."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5661fe22-b5f9-4944-9d08-19badc495f01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government submitted that there had been no doubt that the death of the applicants\u2019 relative had been the result of an accident which had occurred while the children had been playing. In their view the domestic authorities had reacted properly and expeditiously, and the applicants\u2019 relative had been provided with appropriate medical treatment, particularly given the general social situation and the war in Vinkovci at the time, which the Government analysed in great detail. Therefore, the Government considered that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "99f87f60-7267-4721-9662-bca46fa886f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant submitted that, in view of the grave danger to life which an enforced disappearance involved and the urgent need to locate the person, the authorities' failure to initiate a prompt and effective investigation into the disappearance of his son had directly endangered his son's life and constituted a violation of the State's positive obligation to protect life pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f890d268-838c-4798-9027-06f9eabd5ec6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicants Sonia Biga, Augustin Biga, Carol Ciorcan, Sorin Ciorcan, Costel Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga) and Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga), namely the sons and daughters of the deceased Susana Ciorcan, complained that the State agents had used excessive force against their mother, which had put her life in danger, and that the national authorities had failed to subsequently conduct an adequate and effective investigation. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5344301b-5e8b-47a2-be3b-1f2cb1ae673f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that the use of force employed by the security forces against \u0130smet Erdo\u011fan and Elmas Yal\u00e7\u0131n was disproportionate and resulted in their unlawful killing. They further complained, under the same head, that the investigation and the subsequent criminal proceedings brought against the four police officers were fundamentally flawed and, as a result, were not capable of being effective, in violation of the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. They further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings in question were not concluded within a reasonable time."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ced805e6-7462-4607-a546-8ce7e40b7624", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant submitted that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention concerned all aspects of an incident involving the unlawful killing of a citizen by a State agent. That Article imposed a duty on the State to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of abuse of power by the police \u2013 particularly if there was reasonable suspicion of accomplice liability, as in the present case. There had been serious shortcomings in the investigation, which had affected the determination of the circumstances that had led to M.N.\u2019s killing and the role of Z.J., P.K., V.B. and D.I. The effect of those shortcomings on the effectiveness of the investigation could have been established only in adversarial judicial proceedings. Therefore, the charges brought against those persons were to be considered as falling within the ambit of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. This was so since the procedural obligation concerned not only the direct perpetrator of the crime (I.S.), but also the other four persons who had allegedly acted as accomplices by helping I.S. avoid criminal liability and obstructing the investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bd16f3bb-918e-49f8-b4ab-588af06a8697", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government, referring to the case of Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000\u2011I), submitted that applicants who had received compensation for the breach of their Convention rights could no longer claim to be victims of a violation. The possibility of obtaining compensation for the death of a person constituted in principle sufficient redress for an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Not only had the applicants been awarded the compensation they had asked for in full, but the authorities had charged and convicted the police officers responsible for Mr Nikolov's death. Concerning the officers' penalties, the national courts had had regard to the gravity of their offence, their motives for committing it, and all other aggravating and mitigating circumstances. All levels of jurisdiction had given full reasons for their rulings on this point. The penalties were adequate if compared to the constant practice of the domestic courts in respect of such offences, where the average sentence was three years and two months, as could be seen from the published case\u2011law of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The sentences meted out to the officers could thus not be considered unduly lenient."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "30a51f94-91a5-4aed-94ae-83f304248ad1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that the State authorities were responsible for the accident of 30 November 1998 and had violated her daughter's right to life. She also complained that the State authorities had failed to investigate the accident of 30 November 1998 effectively and to punish those responsible for it. In this respect she relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3e608aee-c345-4c00-a4cc-5b42c9de743d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies with regard to her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, she had not started separate civil proceedings against the State, which she should have done if she considered that its authorities, including the police, a prosecutor or the courts had not acted with due care when examining the circumstances of her son\u2019s death, or had not ensured the proper and timely execution of the judgment convicting A.G. In support of their argument, the Government relied on certain provisions of the Civil Code, as well as on the Supreme Court\u2019s case-law to the effect that the State\u2019s civil liability might arise because of a failure on the part of one of its officers to act diligently."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cf5b690b-fc80-42c1-8547-ea6f2f979b11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained about the death of her son, Yevgeniy Geppa, while he was serving his prison sentence. She alleged that his death was caused by a combination of regular beatings by the colony officials, a lack of medical care in respect of the injuries sustained, and his previously acquired medical conditions. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads in so far as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "505a8d0d-1df0-4043-89b9-ec2629c97a7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government attributed the delay in commencing the investigation to the applicants arguing that the first applicant had filed a complaint with the city prosecutor\u2019s office only on 5 August 2002. The Court considers in this respect that the issue of whether members of Aslanbek Khamzayev\u2019s family or others have lodged a formal complaint about his disappearance with the competent investigating authorities is not decisive. The mere knowledge of the disappearance in life-threatening circumstances on the part of the authorities gave rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, \u00a7 82, Reports 1998\u2011IV, and Ya\u015fa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, \u00a7 100, Reports 1998\u2011VI). The Government did not contest the applicants\u2019 assertion that the lawyers from Memorial had reported the crime to the city prosecutor\u2019s office on 28 June 2002. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that the competent investigating authorities were notified of Aslanbek Khamzayev\u2019s disappearance shortly after it took place. In such circumstances, they and not the applicants were responsible for the substantial delay in commencing the investigation. In the Court\u2019s view, this delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation into the disappearance in life-threatening circumstances, when crucial action was required in the first days."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "44e4dc2c-e530-44ea-b989-de3c72882b43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The applicant alleged that her husband had been tortured and killed, following his abduction by agents of the State, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his killing. She made these claims on behalf of her late husband and, as indirect victims, on behalf of herself and her daughter. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1037bf58-1383-4ea6-baf5-ff6d3540634e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicants submitted that the refusal to allow them to use the product had been in breach of their right to life. They highlighted the similarities and differences between their case and previous cases in which the Court had dealt with complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to health care. They argued that, properly framed, the issue in their case was whether the State had taken appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those under its jurisdiction. In their view it had not, because the rules governing \u201ccompassionate use\u201d were not adequate, in that they did not allow the authorities to have regard to specific circumstances. All individuals in Bulgaria who, like the applicants, had cancer which was terminal and which was no longer responding to conventional treatment, were being denied access to experimental medicinal products. In the applicants\u2019 case, this was not justified by lack of budgetary resources, because the company which had developed the product was willing to provide it free of charge. There were indications that the condition of some cancer patients had improved as a result of its use. This had given the applicants hope that it might help them as well."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "66810799-533e-4c7b-bd84-41c231812375", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant disputed that objection. In her view, the fact that the investigation had been ongoing for seven years with no tangible results proved that it was an ineffective remedy in this case. She further claimed that she could not effectively challenge actions or omissions of the investigating authorities because she had not been duly informed of its progress during the five years that it had been under way. Furthermore, those complaints that she had lodged remained unanswered. The applicant also contended that the Government had not demonstrated that the remedies to which they had referred were effective and, in particular, were capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court\u2019s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "92b5d923-0199-43d8-a723-b1095b240d85", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants emphasised that twenty-six years after the death of their relatives, the related criminal investigation had still not identified those responsible and sent them for trial. They submitted that the duration of the investigation had been excessive and that the authorities had not complied with the requirements set forth in the Court\u2019s case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "657700ad-b409-4518-b3df-89f7e01c9257", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of their parents and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also claimed that their parents had been killed because of their Croatian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0b650dff-c313-40ac-ae04-bc4ca5671ded", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government denied the factual basis of the applicant\u2019s allegation under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that Mehmet \u015eah \u015eeker was not taken into custody by the police as alleged. They contended that there was no reason to arrest the applicant\u2019s son since he had not been involved in any criminal offence. However, in their post\u2011admissibility observations, the Government maintained that a search was conducted for the applicant\u2019s son, both as a missing person and as a suspect, and that, had he been arrested, this fact would have been entered in the custody records. The Government submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to take effective steps to discover the whereabouts of the applicant\u2019s son."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "909a29b8-b67e-4606-858f-22976cad0692", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The Government contended on one hand that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the disappearance of their relatives and that their complaints under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 101-09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011III. On the other hand, they submitted that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "843e59aa-54ed-4df9-ba6c-092b150cf12c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their relatives had been deliberately killed by the security forces and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths. The applicants also maintained that they had not been provided with an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "2cd35917-35c4-4c38-8acf-63893885e91c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant submitted that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him and that he had lodged the complaint with the Court within the time-limit set by Article 35 \u00a7 1. He made reference to the Court\u2019s case-law in this regard, with particular emphasis on the Court\u2019s approach to applying the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The applicant submitted that he had officially asked the judicial police officer in charge of investigating his brother\u2019s death to carry out an investigation with a view to clarifying the circumstances of his brother\u2019s death. This had constituted a formal request to bring charges under Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, the mere fact that his brother had died, had given rise ipso facto to an obligation on the part of the authorities under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b9932b80-827b-4856-809b-583dbf776ce3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of J.T. and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also claimed that J.T. had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "16cddd6e-2853-4909-becf-49353165fa96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government pointed out that the remedies to be exhausted under the Convention included not only judicial ones, but also administrative ones. The Court had taken into account police inquiries in the \u201cTRNC\u201d in cases similar to the present one and had examined whether such investigations were effective and sufficient. It would be illogical to argue, as the third-party intervener had, that, in violation of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention, no inquiry had been carried out in the \u201cTRNC\u201d into the death of Anastasios Isaak and that the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not carry out such an inquiry because it was not a legal State. In any event, an inquiry had indeed been carried out. However, it had not been possible to complete it since the Greek-Cypriot authorities had refused to cooperate, claiming that such cooperation would amount to recognition. For instance, no autopsy report had been forwarded to the Turkish-Cypriot authorities. In this connection, the Government pointed out that in a criminal prosecution the State should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that everyone should be presumed innocent until proved guilty."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4e0690b6-93f0-4039-9fa7-676ea8944b66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant alleged that the death of his son had been caused by an excessive use of force. In his view, domestic law did not regulate, in a manner that was compatible with the Convention, the use of firearms by State agents. The latter had allegedly been authorised to use lethal force against his son without it being absolutely necessary. He further complained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the death. He relied in this connection on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f62a0518-4370-4058-bcbe-ef3730671402", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government submitted that the first head of claim was exorbitant and far above the awards made by the Court in previous cases in which it had found breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention due to actions of the police. The second head of claim was likewise exorbitant. In the Government\u2019s view, in the present case the finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ca0c7416-50b2-4ee4-81df-126859cd78cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant submitted that her son, Said-Khuseyn Imakayev, was detained by servicemen on 17 December 2000 and that he was killed by servicemen in circumstances that lacked any justification under Article <mask> of the Convention. She based this assertion on the circumstances surrounding his detention, the fact that more that five years after his apprehension no information was available about his whereabouts and the failure of the authorities to provide a plausible version of his disappearance. The applicant further drew the Court's attention to the specific features of individual disappearances in Chechnya, whereby many persons detained by the military or security forces were later found dead without any records of their detention or release ever being produced. The applicant referred to the reports by human rights NGOs and to the individual applications alleging such violations pending before the European Court."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "845a1105-1ece-4901-93e3-4b714348957e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government finally reiterated that an effective investigation implied an obligation of means and not of result. In their view, in the present case the investigation authorities had taken all possible steps for the investigation into the applicant\u2019s wife\u2019s death to be an effective one. Therefore, there was no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4585ee62-e028-46bd-94d6-e6f84a6854c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Government have referred to the fact that there are pending civil proceedings which the applicant is not taking steps to expedite. While, civil proceedings would provide a judicial fact finding forum, with the attendant safeguards and the ability to reach findings of unlawfulness, with the possibility of an award of damages, it is however a procedure undertaken on the initiative of the applicant, not the authorities, and it does not involve the identification or punishment of any alleged perpetrator. As such, it cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the State's compliance with its procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention (see also Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7 141)."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8268520b-1dcd-4a76-bb16-39c1c63022b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The applicant maintained that, at the time of lodging her application with the Court, she had not been certain of her husband's fate or the identity of the body found in Tarashcha. Therefore, she had based her complaint on his disappearance. Whilst she no longer claimed that her husband had disappeared, she alleged that he had been killed in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "72011e54-7afd-4c1b-8304-72acfa88c88a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Ms Aleksandrovich had died as a result of intentional mistreatment in the police custody and that the State authorities had not discharged their obligations to provide medical treatment for her and to undertake a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death. Article 2 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "206ec1ef-094f-4221-8700-40de3b7b08ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained of the lack of protection of the unborn child under French criminal law and argued that the State had failed to discharge its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention by not allowing the offence of unintentional homicide to cover injury to an unborn child. She further submitted that the remedy available in the administrative courts was ineffective as it was incapable of securing judicial acknowledgment of the homicide of her child as such. Lastly, the applicant asserted that she had had a choice between instituting criminal and administrative proceedings and that, while her recourse to the criminal courts had, unforeseeably, proved unsuccessful, the possibility of applying to the administrative courts had in the meantime become statute-barred."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8e702ce8-73be-4152-9d01-208238143915", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["283.  The applicants further submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention should not be understood as outlawing only deliberate homicide; there did not exist a right or authorisation to take somebody\u2019s life under any circumstances. The death in question should engage the responsibility of the State irrespective of the classification of the impugned acts by the domestic courts (see, for example, Leonidis, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 58 and 59). The applicants also stated that, despite the internal investigation\u2019s refusal to elucidate O.M.-ov\u2019s role in Sandro Girgvliani\u2019s death, the Government\u2019s failure to submit to the Court the relevant criminal case materials in their entirety further corroborated the assumption that the homicide had been committed on orders given by the offenders\u2019 superiors from the Ministry of the Interior who had been present in the Caf\u00e9 Chardin on the night in question."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f777999e-d157-4b2e-972e-392783e5875a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention that the inquiry into the circumstances leading to the serious deterioration of her health was not effective. Regard being had to the seriousness of the applicant\u2019s condition and the damage to her health, the Court will examine her grievances from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, \u00a7 45, 9 November 2010), which, is so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "fa826875-d02e-4932-9e69-9368e5785b59", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["279.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention given that, firstly, the results of the meticulous investigation of the case conducted by the relevant domestic authorities had established that the life of the applicants\u2019 son had not been taken \u201cintentionally\u201d, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that provision. The absence of intent was confirmed by the fact that when, at Okrokana cemetery, the applicants\u2019 son had escaped his attackers, one of them had fired a gun in the air and not in his direction."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "bb43f7b8-885b-4477-a13d-8a2404ed7c26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The Government, referring to the Court\u2019s case-law (Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, \u00a7 104, 27 June 2006; Eugenia Laz\u0103r v. Romania, no. 32146/05, \u00a7\u00a7 68-72, 16 February 2010; Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, \u00a7 130, ECHR 2014; and Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000\u2011V), maintained that in the area of health care the positive obligation arising for the Contracting States under Article <mask> of the Convention with a view to preventing death caused by medical negligence was essentially of a procedural nature and involved a duty to put in place a regulatory structure requiring that hospitals, be they private or public, take appropriate steps to ensure that patients\u2019 lives were protected. In view of the facts of the case and the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government submitted that the conclusion of the Chamber judgment raised serious doubts in that regard."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4423eb8e-d868-46f1-a905-fb7693c4bc7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicants claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage as regards the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention; EUR 10,000 as regards the complaint under Article 5 of the Convention; EUR 10,000 each as regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention; and EUR 12,000 as regards the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "cda34f37-d3dd-475a-bca4-f86e4e722204", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The applicant maintained that the imposition and/or execution of the death penalty constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention \u2013 which should be interpreted as no longer permitting capital punishment \u2013 as well as an inhuman and degrading punishment in violation of Article 3. He also claimed that his execution would be discriminatory and, therefore, in breach of Article 14. The relevant parts of these provisions provide:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "04a26602-2baa-4d00-bd65-c13e184d58d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate P.M.\u2019s death and bring his killers to justice. They also submitted that P.M. had been killed because he was of Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. They relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "45c3cbfb-f356-4fbf-8bf9-ca4bc1ec428c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant contended that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov could be presumed dead, given that he had been taken away in life-threatening circumstances, that he had remained missing for several years and that there had been no news of him since the date when he was abducted. She submitted that the Government had advanced no reasons to justify the taking of her son\u2019s life, and that therefore they should be held responsible for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1edfd6ce-8cf8-4c42-8d0d-3ae567bcb1a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant argued that there could be no reasonable doubt that State servicemen had been responsible for the killing of her relatives, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She relied on numerous documents submitted to the Court in the course of the present case and other cases which supported this allegation. She also submitted that there existed overwhelming and compelling evidence that extrajudicial killings by soldiers had been widespread in Grozny at the beginning of 2000."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a4693230-a7f7-48fd-acae-f8bac257ebf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant thus stressed that her husband had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances and argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that he had remained missing since 29 April 2001 proved that he had been killed. She also claimed that the special operation carried out on the aforementioned date had not been properly planned and supervised by the authorities to ensure that it met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "1aebc10a-3145-4147-ae75-4b3259edae44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant submitted that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, established a positive obligation on States to investigate complaints of disappearance effectively and to apply effective sanctions against the perpetrators of enforced disappearances."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "38b15007-432b-4c81-b17d-dbc3bf20cc8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been the victim of a life-threatening action taken by R.D., a State official. He also complained under Article 6 that the domestic courts had failed to recognise the State\u2019s responsibility. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, \u00a7 88, 31 May 2005), considers that the applicant\u2019s submissions under this head raise an issue only under Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "6e489b09-60ec-4eea-968a-d108ee50c763", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government acknowledged a violation of the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that \u201ca violation of Shamkhan Abubakarov and Badrudi Abubakarov\u2019s right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention is confirmed by the criminal case material\u201d. They further contended that the investigation into the deaths of the applicants\u2019 husbands complied with the Convention requirement for an effective investigation."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "71f9a071-35a4-4cb8-ae23-478a36e52148", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into her son\u2019s death. She claimed, in particular, that she had been excluded from the investigation at its initial stage as a result of the investigator\u2019s refusal to grant her victim status, and that, even after the decision granting her victim status had been taken, her requests to be informed of the progress of the investigation had been refused. The applicant referred to Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention in connection with her complaints. The Court shall examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4b80c6f6-65f7-43e1-bfcf-fc0b0a74a804", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant argued that he had exhausted all domestic remedies. He pointed out that he had had two sets of proceedings at his disposal \u2013 civil and criminal \u2013 and that he had opted for criminal proceedings. He noted that after the death of his sister he had suffered profound grief that could only have been alleviated by establishing all the circumstances of the case and not by compensation of damages. He also argued that, even if he had not expressly cited Article <mask> of the Convention, his complaints both before the Court and before the Constitutional Court had in substance concerned the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "84c7aa50-53dd-4508-9802-81125b42c893", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants made a twofold complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended firstly that the State had failed to comply with their positive obligations in order to prevent the deaths of M.T. and V.T. and secondly that the State had failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the possible responsibility of their agents for the deaths of M.T. and V.T."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "3e4ab761-a799-4882-b2cc-4311ad4950df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that there was no evidence proving the State agents\u2019 involvement into the killing as \u201cnothing in the present case speaks of a possible violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive limb\u201d. They further contended that the investigation into the incident was effective as the authorities \u201cdischarged their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ef835bdc-12bc-4f2f-86b5-0dddbade6e77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government also contended that the investigation of A.\u010c.\u2019s death had complied with the State\u2019s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The criminal investigation had been promptly opened upon the prosecutor\u2019s initiative. The applicant and his wife had been involved in the proceedings. Although the investigation had been suspended and reopened several times, the suspensions were warranted because the perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. Nonetheless, the suspensions had only been temporary and for objective reasons. For example, on one occasion blood samples from two suspects had been unsuitable for expert examination and new samples had therefore had to be taken. Moreover, given that suspension of criminal proceedings was abolished with effect from 1 May 2003, the investigation has not been suspended since that date. On the contrary, the case shall remain in progress until new circumstances come to light."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "5db7f2e0-94d0-4b17-9200-9ea5c9516c94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government submitted that, as was clear from the results of the domestic investigation, Private Alekseyev had died of a stab wound that he had inflicted on himself with a bayonet, which had constituted suicide. At the same time, the materials obtained by the investigation, including statements of numerous witnesses, had contained no evidence that Private Alekseyev had been subjected to any form of pressure. In particular, it had not been shown that he had been asked to pay for the car. On the contrary, he had been aware that under the applicable regulations College students did not bear financial liability for the cars at the aerodrome parking lot. Hence, it had not been possible to hold someone responsible for Private Alekseyev\u2019s suicide, and therefore, the State\u2019s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been engaged."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9d0ae0df-43ca-4d5b-8014-a75c7fd98329", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that if extradited to Belarus he could be subjected to capital punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that there was a risk of his being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment by the Belarusian law-enforcement authorities. In particular, the applicant complained that the prospect of possible capital punishment caused him intense moral suffering. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus he would face an unfair trial."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "11ddc513-a48a-4722-ae26-86ee9037470b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant further maintained that the State agents had deliberately and unlawfully prevented timely medical aid from being given to her and her husband, despite the serious injuries they had suffered. Due to the Government\u2019s failure to provide the entire criminal investigation file to the Court, the burden of proof shifted from the applicant to the State to demonstrate that its agents were not responsible for the death of the applicant\u2019s relative and her own injuries (see \u00d6zalp and Others v. Turkey, no. 32457/96. 8 April 2004, \u00a7 35). The deprivation of the life of her husband was arbitrary as it did not result from \u201cthe use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary\u201d according to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "c725c808-4b4b-4fc2-8c6b-e2bc1323f006", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants argued that the investigation into the killings of their relatives was neither impartial nor adequate for the purposes of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the applicants submitted, in particular, that the autopsy had not established which specific weapon had caused each of the injuries. Furthermore, neither the military prosecutor, who carried out the investigation, nor the Diyarbak\u0131r Military Court, which upheld the military prosecutor's decision not to prosecute, could be regarded as independent or impartial. The military prosecutor had, in effect, investigated a possible offence committed by his hierarchical superiors."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "918e8ea8-2508-4cb0-ad3e-2cd852d9fbc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government argued that there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They contended that there was no conclusive evidence that the applicant\u2019s son was dead, as his corpse had never been found, and that the investigation had obtained no evidence that representatives of the State had been involved in his abduction. They referred, in particular, to the replies of various State bodies obtained by the investigating authorities to the effect that none of those bodies had detained Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov or brought criminal proceedings against him, that he was not held in any detention centres, and that no special operations had been conducted in Goyty during the relevant period."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b60dd0b4-199c-430c-b3ff-d706ee862cd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicants complained that the domestic authorities have not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 occurred in Bucharest, Bra\u0219ov and Vi\u0219ina, during which they were injured or their close relatives were killed by gunfire. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8f26afd7-006b-4b5c-9b3c-847a0908d70f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the allegedly inadequate investigation of the death of Ms P. Referring to Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (a), (b), as well as Article 13 of the Convention, he further complained about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about his inability to challenge on appeal the rejection by the investigator and by the trial court of his numerous petitions. He next complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the confiscation of his gun. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 about the lengthy restriction on his liberty on account of the obligation not to leave his place of residence."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f4b5f9b5-44db-44e2-8394-efa49be12b0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The Government maintained that the prosecutor had conducted an investigation which was in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and that in doing so he had not ignored any small detail or evidence and had conducted the entire investigation swiftly, completing it within one year. In doing so, the prosecutor had taken into consideration all the allegations made by the relatives of the deceased and had met all their demands."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ab2f766a-9a01-4013-9904-818cd042d1c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government argued that the circumstances of the attack of 12 September 1999 had been duly investigated by the domestic authorities, which, having carried out the investigation, had decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings \u201cin the absence of any lawful grounds for holding anyone criminally liable\u201d. The Government submitted that the fact that the investigation had been discontinued did not prevent any of the applicants from seeking compensation in civil proceedings for the damage caused, this right having been explained to the individuals who had been declared victims in the present case. The Government further pointed out that the first three applicants had availed themselves of that right and had obtained compensation in connection with their relatives\u2019 deaths. The Government thus insisted that in such circumstances the investigation in the present case had met the standard of effectiveness established in relation to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "669085f5-f42d-4993-b748-6f827d516a7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant\u2019s son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to find Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative actions had been taken, including sending of numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence, or to check whether the applicant\u2019s son was kept in any detention centres. The investigation was repeatedly suspended and reopened, which, in the Government\u2019s view, was evidence of the authorities\u2019 effort to resolve the crime rather than of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. According to the Government, the investigation was ongoing at present. The Government also argued that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov\u2019s relatives who had been acknowledged as victims in the case had received explanations concerning their procedural rights, and in particular of the opportunity to gain access to the case file upon the completion of the investigation. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7b380e3c-dfe3-4b67-9709-58a3ffd1c874", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained firstly of acts of torture inflicted on her husband by the authorities responsible for his custody and which led to his death in 1980. Secondly, she complained of various shortcomings in the criminal proceedings which came to an end in 2003, resulting in the de facto impunity granted to her husband\u2019s torturers and murderers. According to the applicant, such impunity in itself contravened the very essence of the right enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and the absolute prohibition laid down in Article 3. These Articles are worded as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ec491c84-0de0-41b2-93de-7ef0a9c34771", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicants submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that their relatives had been intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. Basing themselves on the Government's admission that on 5 February 2000 a special operation had been carried out in the neighbourhood by the federal forces, they asked the Court to conclude that the \u201cunidentified men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons\u201d must have been the same members of the federal forces who had conducted the operation. They referred to the eyewitnesses' accounts, to the press and NGO reports, to the videotape filmed on 9 February 2000, and to the official documents, which all pointed towards the servicemen of the federal forces as the perpetrators of the killings. They argued that the Government had not suggested any other version of the events. They submitted that the failure to identify the servicemen responsible lay with the deficient investigation and did not exempt the State from responsibility under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "7b497839-991c-4093-85c7-4240e42203ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about ineffective investigation into the accident and insufficient funding of his medical, educational, rehabilitation, and other needs and under Article 13 of the Convention about lack of the effective remedies in this regard. Lastly he complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "87772d0f-381b-462d-94f3-f4995bdd42c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government contended that the applicant could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, since the authorities had acknowledged the breach and afforded him redress. The case was therefore inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of Article 34 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f6aa87fe-a23d-42c2-a1d1-1952a666618f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["221.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the death of the applicants\u2019 son had fully met the requirements of impartiality and thoroughness, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The obligation to conduct that investigation was one of means only, not of result. As regards impartiality, they argued that the Ministry of the Interior had been competent to carry out the investigation between 28 January and 5 March 2006 by virtue of Article 62 of the CCP, given that not the slightest suspicion implicating an agent of that Ministry had existed at that time. Such a suspicion emerged only on 5 March 2006, and the case was then immediately transferred to the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a94ea3d2-2f1f-4cf1-9abf-3ca2f0018114", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government argued that the applicant did not have an arguable claim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She was not suggesting that the medical personnel knew or ought to have known of a risk of suicide but rather, as alleged before the County Court, that they had been negligent in their assessment and care of her son. However, even if there had been medical negligence, the Powell decision made it clear that this would be insufficient to establish a violation of Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8f47c2f1-245e-4d01-a2b7-d732886b5167", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants argued that the force used by the soldiers against their two relatives had not been absolutely necessary and that the excessive nature of the use of force showed that the soldiers had in fact intended to kill them. Indeed, the conclusion reached by the three experts appointed by the military prosecutor, i.e. that \u201cthe soldiers had carried out their duty satisfactorily\u201d, was another indication of the existence of an intention to kill their relatives in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "af7eff0c-d813-487b-b330-c439da135a87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of her son, Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son\u2019s disappearance. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "e3a69e94-7133-4db7-a726-aa6a9f2f25d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government added that limitation periods were the strongest possible affirmation of the right to a speedy and equitable trial, as they prevented undue delays before conviction and expired when it was no longer imperative for a sentence to be imposed for the purposes of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. In that regard, the Government referred to the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in Dujardin and Others v. France (no. 16734/90, Commission decision of 2 September 1991, Decisions and Reports (DR) 72, p. 236). The Government said that it would make no sense to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the instant case, since the fact that the prosecution of the offence had become time-barred had not prevented the facts from being established, or the doctor being held liable and ordered to pay damages."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "eccbe17d-3583-4eeb-a21e-7a1ac57c9850", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government contested, firstly, the applicability of Article 13, disputing that the applicant had an arguable claim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they relied on the Commission's finding, which was endorsed by the Court above, that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that any State agent had been implicated, directly or indirectly, in the events at issue. In any event, as regards the issue of compliance with Article 13, the Government prayed in aid, as they did with respect to the duty to investigate under Article 2, the Commission's finding that the supplementary investigation measures ordered by the prosecution during the phase of the proceedings before the State Security Court had been appropriate."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ee3861b3-312c-4916-b912-f601a127e1f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office and argued that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of unidentified persons who had abducted Vakhid Musikhanov. In their submission, there was no evidence in the materials of the criminal investigation file that representatives of the federal forces or security agencies had been stationed, or that any special operations had been carried out, in the vicinity of the Musikhanov family's home during the relevant period. The Government also argued that the second applicant had never informed the investigating authorities about his conversations with local officials who had allegedly confirmed the fact of Vakhid Musikhanov's detention (see paragraph 13 above). The Government insisted that until the circumstances of his abduction, and the identity of the persons involved, had been established, there were no grounds to claim that Vakhid Musikhanov's right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached by the State. They submitted to that end that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic resorted to various methods of concealing the facts of their participation in such groups and recruitment of new members, such as \u201cdeliberate dissemination of false information concerning their disappearance from the places of their permanent residence and the implication of federal forces in such disappearance\u201d. Moreover, the aforementioned false information was also used by \u201crepresentatives of international terrorist organisations, leaders of illegal armed groups and their emissaries abroad for the purpose of propaganda against the State agencies of Russia\u201d."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "20b01c28-1ab7-405f-9c61-aa5a1c3288e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant alleged that his brother had been tortured and killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State or by persons acting under their express or implicit instructions. He also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his brother's killing. Finally, the applicant alleged that he received life-threatening messages from unknown persons and as a result he had to leave Turkey and go to Germany to live. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "a2f975e3-843a-4232-905f-a6924e94b7f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government observed that the investigation and criminal proceedings had constituted an effective domestic remedy for the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. If she found them to be inadequate, she was able to, and did, lodge respective complaints with the prosecutors or a domestic court. Following such repeated complaints, the prosecutors and courts had overturned the impugned decisions. Therefore, the Government asserted that the applicant had had at her disposal accessible and effective domestic remedies for her complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention and that she had successfully availed herself of such remedies."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "02c1b4a4-4df6-4a98-b9cb-04776e9b8162", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her son\u2019s life was in peril; under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been subjected to degrading treatment while waiting in queues to get into the circuit bailiffs\u2019 office premises; and under Article 10 of the Convention that journalists willing to cover her story had been experiencing pressure from State officials."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "62dd6b3f-6fbe-4f5b-9710-4c74dd1fcc82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the Russian federal forces had been involved in the abduction of Abu Khasuyev. They argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Abu Khasuyev\u2019s right to life, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been breached by representatives of the Russian power structures. The Government further claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant\u2019s son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "b9431466-59ad-4cb1-b83a-9cd3e84c7548", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants argued that the Russian authorities had failed to establish the circumstances of Mr Antonov\u2019s death and, as a result, had not fulfilled the obligations imposed on them by Article 2. In their opinion, there had been sufficient evidence to show that Mr Antonov had not hanged himself and that he had been killed by unidentified perpetrators. In particular, the forensic medical expert had documented several injuries on Mr Antonov\u2019s body. The Government had not provided any explanation as to their origin. The official date of Mr Antonov\u2019s death had been different from the one indicated in the course of the authorities\u2019 inquiry. There had been no official records confirming that Mr Antonov had been provided with the bed linen that he had allegedly used to hang himself. It had not been established with certainty in which cell Mr Antonov had been held at the time of his death. In any event, the applicants considered that the authorities, having been aware of Mr Antonov\u2019s unstable condition, had failed to take all reasonable measures in order to secure his life. He had been left in a cell alone without any supervision or medical aid. The applicants further argued that the investigation conducted by the authorities had not met the minimum standards of effectiveness and had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The investigation had not been speedy or effective. The initial inquiry had been perfunctory. Subsequently, the prosecutor had quashed refusals to open a criminal investigation into Mr Antonov\u2019s death on nine occasions, stating each time that the inquiry had been incomplete or that the dismissal of the case had been premature. At no time had an official criminal investigation been instituted. The evidence had not been secured effectively immediately after Mr Antonov\u2019s death and with the lapse of time it had become virtually impossible to establish what had really happened. The applicants had been unable to participate in the investigation. They had been repeatedly denied access to the case file. Lastly, the applicants submitted that they had not had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "762cb676-c679-4c85-a5a2-fb32ef8ec919", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government submitted no comments on the issue of compensation being paid to twelve applicants. On the other hand, they agreed that, should the Court find violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case, the applicants could be awarded just satisfaction, with the exception of the applicants in complaints nos. 21200/09 and 24693/09. These two complaints concerned deaths which had already been the subject of findings and awards in Musayev and Others, cited above."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "8d84d848-b37e-40c8-95c4-58720b0c52e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that, in having instituted a criminal investigation into Ayub Salatkhanov\u2019s murder, the Russian authorities had admitted that there had been a violation of his right to life. However, the violation had been the result of the actions of a particular individual and not of State agencies. The investigation conducted had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. Its long duration had been due to the fact that the suspect had absconded and it had taken some time to establish his whereabouts. Serviceman Ch. could not have been arrested directly after the incident, because it had been necessary to establish the circumstances of the incident first. In particular, another serviceman was under suspicion and certain versions of the events advanced by the accused, such as the claim that the bullet had ricocheted, required time-consuming investigative experiments. In the Government\u2019s view, the long duration of the investigation alone could not lead to the conclusion that it was ineffective, especially taking into account that it had led to the culprit being convicted and sentenced by domestic courts."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "0e4fc2c2-fac6-413a-835c-9e1255d86803", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government contended that the national authorities had complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.  The applicants\u2019 parents had been killed in territory outside the control of the Croatian authorities. Once those authorities had regained control over the territory, an investigation into the killing of the applicants\u2019 parents had been launched. However, the evidence gathered by the authorities of the \u201cSerbian Autonomous Region of Krajina\u201d had been the result of police inquires which, under Croatian law, could not serve as valid evidence in criminal proceedings in Croatia. The Croatian authorities had taken all available steps in order to identify the perpetrators. However, the two suspects, X and Y, were unavailable to the Croatian authorities."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "4b28a305-7d41-4411-ba4b-b4aa1bc35ba0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant submitted that the criminal investigations in the case had not been conducted efficiently, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had failed to take appropriate measures in order to establish the circumstances of his wife\u2019s death. The investigations had been discontinued several times and it was only the applicant\u2019s determination and his repeated efforts to have them resumed which had resulted in their being conducted anew."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "f845a420-ada9-4ebd-81af-24a8b59319cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their close relative, Isa Zaurbekov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Isa Zaurbekov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relative\u2019s disappearance. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "2", "id": "ca5db53d-a338-4d85-9f41-31a8ee800610", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government submitted that a legal distinction should be drawn between two situations: one in which a violation of the Convention occurred during a period falling outside the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction, and a second in which a violation of the Convention \u201cdid not legally exist at all\u201d because at the material time the Convention had not existed. In their view, this distinction was crucial, as only a \u201clegally existing\u201d violation of Article 2 in its substantive aspect \u2013 which might nevertheless have taken place outside the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction \u2013 could trigger the State\u2019s procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1. In the cases previously examined by the Court, the events that triggered the duty to investigate had occurred after the adoption of the Convention. In the instant case the alleged violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb not only fell outside the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction but also had not existed de jure, since the \u201cKatyn events\u201d had preceded the adoption of the Convention on 4 November 1950 by ten years and its ratification by Russia on 5 May 1998 by fifty-eight years. In the Government\u2019s view, this precluded the Court from examining Russia\u2019s compliance with its procedural obligations. Furthermore, the Government asserted that the Court had no competence ratione materiae to characterise the Katyn massacre as a \u201cwar crime\u201d from the standpoint of international humanitarian law."], "obj_label": "2", "id": "9b7c25aa-7228-408b-8a8b-003f53f3794d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to prove he had actually sustained pecuniary damage. They also averred that the non\u2011pecuniary damage should be limited to the object of the case, that is, Article <mask> of the Convention, and considered that the amount requested by the applicant was excessive. In their view the finding of a violation could constitute sufficient compensation in the case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fedb650f-4828-4f54-89d9-d88dd136857c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government submitted that the penalties imposed on the three officers had been proportionate and fully in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had first carried out a prompt and effective investigation. They had gathered and duly assessed all relevant evidence, and had on its basis carefully considered what penalties to impose on the officers. In fixing the penalties, the Kazanlak District Court had taken into account the requirements of both domestic law and Article 3 of the Convention. On appeal, the Stara Zagora Regional Court had, of its own motion, examined the proportionality of the penalties, including with regard to the point that the officers\u2019 act had infringed the applicant\u2019s human rights, and had not found them manifestly unjust. That, coupled with the disciplinary penalties imposed on two of the officers and the award of damages obtained by the applicant, showed that this was not a situation in which police officers had been able to encroach with impunity on the rights of those under their control."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bd3330fd-9c99-45d1-9fea-383fa83ed7cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicant complained that the unlawful taking and demolition of his house, accompanied by pressure and threats by government officials, had amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained that his eviction from his house and forcible removal to the new flat given to him against his will had been in breach of his right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and had also amounted to a violation of Article 18 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ee421344-3aa5-44ea-a517-609846295b54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant further complained under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the outcome of the proceedings instituted in 1996. Under the same heading, she alleged a violation on account of the events that allegedly took place on 13 September 1995 and 15 April 1997. Additionally, she claimed a violation of Articles 5 \u00a7 1 and 17 of the Convention as regards the latter event. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, she also complained on account of the criminal prosecution brought against her. Under Article 4 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, she complained that she was unlawfully dismissed from work. She further alleged a violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the courts\u2019 assessment of evidence and interpretation of the national law challenging the outcome and reasonableness of length of all the proceedings. Additionally, relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, she complained of the Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to examine her second appeal in cassation. The applicant further complained, referring to Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, that no disciplinary proceedings were instituted against unspecified persons. Lastly, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, she complained on account of not being redeployed to another post in 1996."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a46ca74a-2977-40e9-90b3-d69a72cce018", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["327.  The applicants alleged that the lack of immediate assistance after Carlo Giuliani had fallen to the ground and the jeep had driven over his body had contributed to his death and amounted to inhuman treatment. They referred to paragraphs 5 and 8 of the UN Principles (see paragraph 154 above) and relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "997a8e60-690b-435b-9e89-d561a1a48386", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government went on to observe that, in an order of 7 April 2010, the Varna regional public prosecutor\u2019s office had decided not to commence criminal proceedings against the police officers who had entered the applicants\u2019 home. The prosecuting authorities had noted, inter alia, that the police officers\u2019 actions had not constituted any criminal offence. They further argued that the actions in question had in no sense been intended to undermine the applicants\u2019 dignity or cause them any psychological harm; accordingly, they did not amount to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicants could not therefore claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under that Article."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a3bce8ab-7da8-4b1e-a046-48db9f52fbbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained that his prolonged detention on remand in poor conditions, leading to liver disease and tuberculosis, had amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Before he had been sent to a prison to serve his punishment, he had been kept in detention on remand for about three years and seven months. He had been detained for almost five months in the J\u00f5geva Arrest House and for 38 months in the Central Prison (including ten months in the Central Prison hospital)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f6f95c06-e435-4b9e-a34e-ad935c235676", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant maintained that he had suffered severe mental distress and anguish falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that for several months he had had no information about his son and that his attempts to find Aslanbek Kukayev and later to have his death investigated had been paid scant attention by the State authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bc658f94-8264-4992-8423-2ddef6995efa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicant referred to the relevant case-law of the Court arguing that he had not had a fair trial, because his conviction had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence, namely his statement of 16 August 2005 obtained in violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Despite the fact that the courts had admitted other evidence, the authorities had failed to take reasonable measures to adduce evidence in order to establish the credibility of the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2e289522-bac0-4be2-a17c-f41aa75c7755", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the leader of a collective protest. He had never been charged with or convicted of such an act. He admitted to having refused, on one occasion, to eat his breakfast while at the Opole Lubelskie Prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5b54c0ca-4548-45ea-9b72-1d3b8acc5ac2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government asserted that the applicant\u2019s asylum claim had been examined in substance at two levels of jurisdiction based on extensive country reports that allowed for an evaluation of the security and human rights situation in the country of origin. The Federal Asylum Office and the Asylum Court had both thoroughly considered the applicant\u2019s arguments and concluded after examining all the statements and evidence that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if returned to Togo. The information on the general situation in Togo after the parliamentary elections in 2007 had not suggested that there was a real and concrete risk for the applicant. The applicant had not succeeded in the domestic proceedings in sufficiently substantiating his reasons for fleeing Togo."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "06dc32a4-c3ff-4ef4-b463-4c5f35150aba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention as it had not attained a minimum level of severity. They further stated that the said treatment had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as pointed out by the 19th Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court of General Jurisdiction. In this connection, the Government maintained that the doctor who had examined the applicant had not had a work permit. They indicated that in any event, the applicant had stayed at the Security Headquarters merely for one hour and had not wanted to see his lawyer during that time."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "22be47eb-cf9f-418f-84c9-7d90588f923f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicant submitted that she had reasons to believe that Mr Sultan Isayev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention following his arrest and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. The applicant also complained that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish amounting to ill-treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "29ba1580-cebf-457c-bfd9-04cfb03242d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of his alleged ill-treatment in custody. He further complained under the same provision and under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation into his complaints had not been thorough as its conclusions had been based on the statements of the implicated police officers. The authorities had not examined any individuals who could have confirmed or refuted the above statements and had made no effort to identify any eyewitnesses of his apprehension."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "289d17f7-ac45-43b3-ba3d-fdc33ed9944f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained of a violation of both the material and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to her son. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, \u00a7 161 in fine)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f4356f7b-2332-4a3e-82a0-85f71b385c46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government have not sought to invoke convincing security reasons requiring the applicant\u2019s isolation and have not said why it was not possible to revise his regime so as to permit adequate possibilities for human contact and meaningful occupation outside the cell. It appears also that this situation is to a great extent a result of the automatic application of the legal provisions regulating the applicant\u2019s prison regime. In its recent judgment in Harakchiev and Tolumov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 203-09), the Court found that such automatic isolation, in application of the relevant provisions of the Execution of Punishments Act 1969 and later of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009, as well as the regulations for their application, was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a53ffab8-7322-4bcf-9321-6f1a14f91279", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant submitted that despite numerous complaints to the SIZO administration regarding his medical condition, he had had no medical assistance between 26 February and 21 March 2008. On 21 March 2008 he had been examined by a SIZO general practitioner for the first time, yet the doctor had only given him an anaesthetic. The applicant further maintained that during his detention in the SIZO he had suffered from severe pains, but had only been provided with treatment for his symptoms. In response to the Government\u2019s observations, he submitted that he had refused to be treated at the Emergency Hospital on 4 November 2009 (see paragraph 56 above) because he had not trusted the hospital doctors, having previously had a negative experience of treatment there. After the operation performed in January 2010 (see paragraph 68 above), his rehabilitation had been difficult and lengthy, since his navel area had been purulent all the time. Lastly, the applicant noted that the Government\u2019s failure to provide medical documentation for the period after 26 February 2010 relating to his medical rehabilitation (see paragraph 69 above) was another reason to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "164c4579-5685-4678-bbd9-e52b29e8fcc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant submitted that the proceedings against the police officers had been flawed in several respects. The courts had failed to convict the officers and had rejected his civil claim despite the availability of clear and overwhelming evidence of the unjustified use of force against him. The courts had also failed to properly examine the causal link between the beating and the ensuing surgical removal of his kidney. The approach adopted by Supreme Court of Cassation, leading to the officers' acquittal, had been in clear conflict with the standards under Article <mask> of the Convention, whereas the investigation required under this provision had to be based on criteria comparable to those developed by the Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2a649415-ce42-4834-bed5-2ada1ba31d86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant claimed 113,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, consisting of EUR 100,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, EUR 7,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 5, EUR 1,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 and EUR 5,000 for the breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. He argued that he had suffered very serious physical pain as a result of his ill-treatment at the hands of the police. He had also endured severe mental and emotional suffering as a result of the treatment he had been subjected to and the injuries sustained."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4ceab214-5fa0-403a-91b5-833cfeefb9b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that the refusal to grant him drug substitution therapy in prison, which had made him suffer considerable pain and had caused damage to his health, and the refusal to have the necessity of drug substitution therapy examined by an external medical expert amounted to inhuman treatment. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "01e42a10-e92e-40e6-aebe-183f98812cb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, they maintained that he did not make use of the provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Code to claim compensation for the alleged poor conditions of detention. Moreover, he could have invoked directly Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their submission the Government relied on the case-law of the domestic courts (see paragraphs 19-22 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5ea1d361-945a-4a11-8075-2d89c381149b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained that, taking into account the conditions created in the punishment cell in Gr\u012bva Prison while he was under the disciplinary penalty imposed on him on 5 September 2000, he had been subjected to inhuman treatment and torture. He furthermore alleged that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b32ef02a-d78d-4a5c-980b-b7b12cfbf448", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of being made to wear handcuffs whilst being taken from official buildings to court during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered that this treatment had been disproportionate and had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "053723af-bdc6-4356-b0db-f0ef60a4c637", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that when he had been deported from Sweden to Estonia he had not been granted a residence or work permit and thus had had no possibility of getting social aid for subsistence or medical expenses. He further argued that his deportation to the Russian Federation had also been in breach of Article 3 because of his lack of ties with that country and owing to his illness and need for continuous medical treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "48ddf976-556f-4de3-8466-264975961d52", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government also claimed that in accordance with domestic rules in force at the material time, it was necessary to separate the sanitary unit from the rest of the cell with a partition of at least 1.5 metres high (see paragraph 17 above), and in the applicant\u2019s case the sanitary facilities had been separated from the rest of the cell by a brick partition. The Government thus were of the view that the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention in Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison had not reached the threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fe94d9af-6baf-4a01-a68c-6a37e5477150", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant submitted that from 11 December 2007 and, at least, until 19 September 2008 he had been constantly handcuffed to his bed while in the hospital \u2013 with one hand during the day and with both hands during the night. He further noted that he had been constantly guarded by three SIZO officers and had been in a ward with a barred window, which significantly reduced the likelihood of his escaping. Moreover, neither in the SIZO nor in the hospital had the applicant attempted to escape or behaved aggressively. Therefore, in the applicant's opinion his handcuffing to the bed had not been justified and constituted inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "09969be8-2116-47c4-8f05-088a85ca2427", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants submitted that they could still be considered victims of the ill-treatment, despite the conviction of the three police officers. Given the intensity and the aim of the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected (namely, to extract confessions), it had to be recognised as torture, within the meaning of Article 3. They argued that the investigation into their ill-treatment had been slow (having lasted for almost four years), contrary to the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also submitted that the authorities had not complied with their positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, namely to ensure the preventive effect of legislation prohibiting ill-treatment. In particular, the officers had been sentenced to the minimum penalty provided for by law and even that penalty had been suspended, so that they had never been deprived of their liberty. Moreover, the officers had not been convicted of torture, but of the less stigmatising offence of abuse of power."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "97278191-b829-4148-aec3-7a2f5c97ea92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was premature. They pointed out that he had raised the same complaints in his constitutional complaint of 17 August 2010 and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were still pending. The Government also argued that the applicant had failed to bring a civil action for damages against the Republic of Croatia although it had been open to him to do so under the Civil Obligation Act and the State Administration System Act. Moreover, he had failed to seek protection of his rights by lodging an action under the Administrative Disputes Act although he could have done so under domestic law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4f730de1-7893-4f06-907f-8e943f7f37db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that it was highly probable that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "040227fe-fbfd-4b74-a4b7-4a47ddf8da27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant argued that the circumstances that he will face in Afghanistan will amount to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the poor provision for and ignorance surrounding persons with disabilities there. He argued that his case could be distinguished from N. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, because it did not involve a naturally occurring illness or merely the consequences of the lack of sufficient treatment available in Afghanistan. He argued that the Court should consider his case in light of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, and his inability to cater for his basic needs to Afghanistan."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2e624cfc-a56d-4d94-8d25-45572e97df6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government maintained that the treatment that the applicant complained of had not attained the level of severity proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, as the applicant had resisted the police officers during the arrest, the force used had been justified. As to the procedural limb of Article 3, the Government contended that no responsibility could be attributed to the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "039cdf6e-0b61-414d-97e7-469be38fb6b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated and humiliated during his arrest in the street and at Kentron Police Station after he had been taken there on 1 March 2008. The violence he had faced was above the required threshold to be qualified as torture under Article <mask> of the Convention and was attributable to the police officers. Being in a very bad condition as a result of ill-treatment, he had not even been able to give testimony to the investigator who had come to question him. He had consistently raised the fact of his ill-treatment in all his submissions to the domestic authorities, including the courts and the prosecutor\u2019s office. The Government did not deny that the police officers had been responsible for his injuries but, relying on the statements of the alleged perpetrators, simply doubted that those injuries had been inflicted during his arrest."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d9472677-ff27-4c48-b16c-af5babe23ab4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention and the health care in the prison hospital had been so inadequate as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also contended that the respondent State should be held liable for having failed to investigate his allegations and that the domestic inquiry had fallen short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a40bba1b-a74e-49ae-afbd-3d94b6118827", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government maintained that all medical reports concerning the first applicant concluded that there had been no traces of blows on her body. Moreover, although the medical report dated 29 July 2001 concerning the second applicant concluded that he had an abrasion on his upper lip and a hyperaemia on his chest, the Government argued that this was not sufficient evidence to show that the treatment had attained the level of severity required for there to be a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a61c4da7-a49e-4f76-8d72-80ba03061a3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government acknowledged that during some periods of detention in the remand centre the statutory requirement of floor space of four square metres per detainee had not been complied with. However, this had not necessarily entailed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The other material conditions of detention (such as an individual bed, ventilation, access to natural light, and food) complied with the requirements of Russian law (see, for details, paragraphs 40-42 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0d1004ec-f697-4713-b419-6d0bd48c7e4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant also complained, referring to her health problems since March 2002, that the search of her house had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained under Article 6 that she had been wrongly denied access to the file in respect of her criminal complaint and that her complaints in that regard had not been addressed with due diligence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1e5556a9-f1d9-4b52-a34a-3ba1222ddfe3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government notes that the applicant\u2019s unstable health and old age might have placed him in a more precarious situation compared to other detainees and might have increased his feeling of distress or anguish, but they noted the fact that the applicant had by that time already been charged with and convicted of premeditated murder at two levels of jurisdiction. In spite of this, the actions of the medical experts led to the applicant\u2019s release from detention. Accordingly, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s detention could not be construed to have constituted inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c0dc04ea-65e7-438f-9286-5dcb2dee1d21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The Government submitted that the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary damages for an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his detention conditions on death row and the alleged lack of effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the Court to determine the just satisfaction on an equitable basis taking into consideration its case-law on similar issues and the economic situation in Ukraine. In addition, they found the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary damages for alleged ill-treatment unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2f8fc282-7402-414e-ab5f-8fc23e40c0fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government submitted that, following NA., cited above, in order to establish a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant would have to show that there were serious reasons to believe that he was of sufficient interest to the authorities to warrant his detention and interrogation, either because he was likely to be detained and interrogated at Colombo airport, or because he had such a high profile as an opposition activist or as someone viewed by the LTTE as a renegade or traitor so as to be at risk more generally in Colombo. The Government argued that it was clear from the evidence before the Court that the applicant did not fall into the second category. In particular, they noted that he had been allowed to leave the LTTE and return home, and that he had subsequently led a normal life until his detention in 1996. The question of whether the applicant was likely to be detained and interrogated at the airport had to be assessed by reference to the risk factors identified by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in LP and approved by the Court in NA (cited above, \u00a7 13)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ed2f1e85-6909-4429-9bfb-0c3814354f4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage and that his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was therefore inadmissible and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention. They emphasised that the administrative courts at two levels of jurisdiction had adjudicated on the applicant\u2019s complaints on the merits, and that the fact that the judgment had not become final would not preclude the application of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bbabef02-8f6e-4c85-b240-d563b83829fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant further stated that his case was even stronger than Soering v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) where a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was found on account of the effects of the \u201cdeath row phenomenon\u201d. In particular, he was not merely a potential victim of the \u201cdeath row phenomenon\u201d but actually suffered it by spending many years awaiting execution. Secondly, unlike Soering, there was no justification for this protracted detention, such as pending appeals: the only reason for his suffering was the existence of a temporary moratorium on executions and the inability of the Bulgarian Parliament to decide on the application or abolition of the death penalty. Thirdly, the applicant's situation had been exacerbated by fluctuating attitudes and policies in Parliament, especially when influential politicians supported the death penalty."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "93e6ec22-0906-485a-bf13-73e2c72ab010", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated while in police custody. She alleged that she had been beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls, which had brought about intense mental suffering leading to a suicide attempt, considering in particular her age at the material time. The applicant also maintained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that the respondent State had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment as her request to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused police officers had not been dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e7568704-1041-402b-8199-ba41a23747c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Lom-Ali and Umar-Ali Aziyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention or that State agents had participated in the beating of the first applicant. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the applicants\u2019 sons had been abducted by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 mental suffering."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "08e95ed1-e87f-487b-a176-d29744b089d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government claimed that the applicant himself had been partly responsible for being placed in B wing, because he had stated that he did not want to work. The applicant did not deny this fact. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that conditions of imprisonment could be determined according to whether an inmate was working or not, since all inmates should be afforded prison conditions which are in conformity with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "06e09960-0bf2-4a56-9f43-fbbbc018c428", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant alleged that the search and seizure in his office and its sealing had amounted to degrading treatment. He said that these events had been widely publicised in the press and seen by several of his clients, which had had a negative impact on his professional reputation. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, as relevant:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8baf23b9-ff85-41ae-af2e-e95adf7e3b0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government referred to the conclusions of the pre-investigation inquiry, asserting that the applicants\u2019 allegations were unfounded. Given that they were provided as a result of a domestic pre-investigation inquiry falling short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, which was later quashed by the supervising prosecutor as unlawful and unsubstantiated (see paragraph 28 above), the Court finds that they cannot be considered as satisfactory or convincing explanations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d22186f7-4039-4097-a92f-c19b03b3d7f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant alleged that the poor conditions of his detention were in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The parties\u2019 submissions as regards the material conditions of detention have been summarised in paragraphs 56-59 and 66-67 above. The main facts relevant to the assessment of the conditions of detention, in particular the size of the cells, the number of inmates detained there concurrently with the applicants, and the sanitary and hygiene arrangements were not in dispute between the parties. Nevertheless, they disagreed whether these conditions had amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant maintained, in particular, that four square metres of personal space had been insufficient to avoid overcrowding, and that it was aggravated by other factors, such as inadequate ventilation and lighting, incomplete separation of the lavatory from the living space and the daily one-hour limit on outdoor exercise per day. The Government, on the contrary, contended that the applicant\u2019s detention conditions had been in conformity with the standards applicable in respect of personal space, light, room temperature, sanitary facilities and hygiene arrangements."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3866842-cc25-42d9-8f48-46f3e6cb3fc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relatives had most likely been tortured after their abduction and that such a possibility had not been investigated. The applicants also claimed that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d0a3ff85-559b-452b-b26b-8eba93ad7ff3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Gilani Iriskhanov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of the disappearance of their son Zurab Iriskhanov and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a3147f7d-efba-495c-b821-bbc0daf6b4d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged infection with tuberculosis in prison was inadmissible for non-exhaustion. Notably, in line with the Court\u2019s conclusion in the Goloshvili case (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 32-33), they maintained that there were several effective civil remedies that had not been used by the applicant in the present case, in particular those under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code. The applicant did not comment on the Government\u2019s non-exhaustion plea."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b4b58365-273c-481e-82bc-1992ec7ffbc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant conceded that he had undergone a course of chemical treatment in the hospital of remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow. However, the hospital did not have all the medicine required and his mother had to send him antihistamines and badger and bear fat. Besides, the chemical treatment had been interrupted due to his transfer to medical correctional colony no. LIU-10 in the Omsk Region. The conditions of his transfer were incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention since he did not receive any medical assistance during the whole time of the transfer."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "85db08f9-caf2-41cd-8171-b98fa4ae3f0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. According to the Government, the applicant could have argued that he was a suicide risk and raised Article <mask> of the Convention in the context of his appeal against deportation, but did not do so, relying instead only upon Article 8. He could also have raised the fact of his risk of suicide in his application for judicial review but, again, did not do so. He also failed to renew his application for judicial review. The first time that the applicant claimed to be at risk of suicide was in his request to this Court for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7bdfdd2a-716b-4dc8-8c9d-0927cd7f1dfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government contended that the investigation had obtained no evidence confirming that the applicants' eight relatives had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the reports on the forensic medical examination of 12 April 2004 did not attest the presence on the corpses of any injuries other than multiple gunshot wounds."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "17ec4d75-797b-49e9-b5cb-a1cc7ce3fe73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant complained that on 5 September and 17 October 1999 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3 of the Convention, cited above."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2a7f9ac6-687f-4448-9a96-3939277a7ea9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants maintained that the mutilation of their relatives' bodies, before or after their death, had been in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further contended that their own suffering as a result of that disfigurement amounted to a breach of this provision. The applicants lastly alleged that the investigation initiated into their allegations by the Turhal public prosecutor had been inadequate."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "75ce934a-4fa8-4e7b-9f92-ad0d70c82ef4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant contested the Government\u2019s view that he had lost his victim status in connection with the Warsaw Regional Court\u2019s judgment. He stressed that it was impossible to answer the question of whether he had lost his initial status of a victim of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention without having first established how the applicant\u2019s case had been treated by the authorities in the context of their positive obligations under Article 3 (cf. G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], \u00a7 116). In his view, these positive obligations were not respected. Defects of the investigation were not rectified in the course of the private prosecution proceedings or civil proceedings against the State Treasury and against P.O. and T.G. Accordingly, he could still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. He found it incomprehensible that in the private prosecution proceedings the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decisions of the lower court four times, yet the lower court eventually decided that the private prosecution was time-barred."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d01604e6-0fed-41a9-b566-825d22b12815", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant\u2019s injuries (as described above) were confirmed on numerous occasions by the findings of forensic medical experts. It is not contested by the Government that the treatment described by the applicant reached the threshold of severity necessary for the events in question to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. It remains to be determined whether the State authorities treated the applicant in the way described and therefore should be held accountable under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f70cad98-2853-4d3a-8a07-84910dc755bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicants complained that as a result of their relative's killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured profound mental suffering. Furthermore, referring to the forensic expert examination report, the applicants alleged that Umar Zabiyev had sustained an injury to his lower jaw prior to his death and that no investigation had been carried out in respect of his ill-treatment. Lastly, the first applicant complained that on 10 June 2003 she had been seriously wounded by State agents and that no effective investigation had been conducted into the incident. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b94b5b01-92e3-4fb1-90d0-954978d8fa6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 complaints of ill-treatment were largely unsubstantiated and exaggerated. Instead of providing sufficient details to illustrate in what manner each of the applicants had been individually ill-treated, they focused on the general events that had taken place during the march of 17 May 2012. Referring to the degree of the injuries that some of the applicants sustained during the altercation with the counter-demonstrators, as well as other circumstances surrounding the incident, the Government submitted that even if a certain amount of physical assault and verbal insults against some of the applicants had taken place, it had not reached the requisite threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also added that two separate criminal investigations had been launched with respect to the alleged ill-treatment of the sixth and fourteenth applicants on 19 May and 24 October 2012, and a number of investigative measures had already been carried out."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bcd22f76-9d46-4c36-9b4a-ff7378c4495d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been degrading; under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that his arrest and detention between 28 February and 26 June 2005 had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons; under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention before conviction had been excessive; and under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention that the conditions of his detention had impeded his ability to prepare his defence properly in the criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ddf3f697-6e0c-4998-ae0b-a906740a44c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant argued that the medical evidence indicated that the ill-treatment he had been subjected to on 4 July 2009 amounted to torture. In particular, he referred to a broken rib, scratches, abrasions and bruises, crepitation in the area of the eighth and ninth ribs and blood in the urine. The ill-treatment had been particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing \u201csevere\u201d pain and both physical and mental suffering within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "925d6426-6ba1-4500-b7e2-4737b1573c7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicants complained that Isa Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment while being apprehended. The applicants further claimed that they had serious grounds to believe that he had also been ill-treated in custody. They also complained that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative\u2019s disappearance. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "59106162-727c-420d-b60e-b41f15edf3f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant complained of having been ill-treated by his cellmates while in detention pending the outcome of the investigation into his case and the failure of the domestic authorities to protect him, and of the absence of an effective response on the part of the domestic authorities in that regard. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "184d5683-a7e4-4a96-9cec-89c18a567138", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government stressed that the issue of whether the first, second and fourth applicants\u2019 mental health should entitle them to residence permits on grounds of exceptionally distressing circumstances (Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Aliens Act) had been considered by the domestic authorities. In their view, the concept of exceptionally distressing circumstances offered a wider protection than Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a1d07b87-03cb-4bd1-b31e-69aefb41eaf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government requested the Court to declare the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted that the 1999 Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act envisaged a number of remedies for the protection of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, including judicial protection against proceedings and decisions of the prison administration. The applicant should have firstly addressed his complaints to the prison administration. The applicant had, however, addressed only some of his complaints directly to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "84542d9c-5425-43b4-be99-99669e2eea2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["158.  The applicants submitted, with reference to the medical documents they had furnished, that Zelimkhan Isayev had been ill-treated in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the treatment to which he had been subjected had amounted to torture. They also stated that there had been a breach of Article 3 in its procedural aspect on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to investigate their relative\u2019s torture."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3c09549a-1791-4810-b28f-0f5bd142bb0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The applicant submitted that the conditions under which he had been detained at the three police stations for such a long duration had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Those establishments had been inadequate for the purposes of custody exceeding a few days. The CPT in its reports of 2012 and 2014 on Cyprus had expressed its concern regarding the detention of persons under the Aliens and Immigration legislation in police stations. Furthermore, those police stations had not been specialised detention facilities designed for third-country nationals, pending their deportation in accordance with the domestic law \u2013 specifically, the Law and the Regulations for the Establishment and Regulation of Premises of Illegal Immigrants (respectively Law no. 83(I)/2011 and Regulations 161/2011). More specifically, the Minister of Justice had never declared them to be facilities in which third-country nationals found to be illegally staying in the country could be detained; moreover, the facilities had not complied with the minimum standards provided in the above-mentioned Regulations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7ca1cf07-636b-4fde-a664-9b282cd7bcc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that his punishment by solitary confinement had been excessive and that the conditions in Rahova Prison\u2019s solitary confinement cells were inhuman and degrading. He also alleged that on 27 January 2006 he had been beaten by members of a special intervention unit wearing masks, and that the investigation that followed had been ineffective. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2b6f662d-45e9-44f8-a826-174c05e4e442", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["183.  The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if returned to Uzbekistan he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. His representatives further supplemented his complaint, submitting that there had been a violation of Article 3, as his illegal transfer to Uzbekistan could only have been achieved with the active or passive involvement of the Russian authorities, and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ba7cb58b-3ff0-465c-beb3-6dddbf673aae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government noted that from May to December 2007 the applicant had participated in nine court hearings. When scheduling the hearings the court had periodically verified whether the applicant was fit to participate in the hearing. When being transported to the court hearings the applicant was accompanied by a medical professional. The Government further noted that the applicant had insisted on participating in the hearing of 5 October 2007. Moreover, he had refused to be examined by a doctor at the court hearing of 5 November 2007. Therefore, the Government were of the opinion that the conditions in which the applicant was transported to the court hearings did not attain the minimum threshold of severity necessary for Article <mask> of the Convention to apply."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "179d1c74-baee-45a7-96b0-393c92d1e64d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government further submitted that a thorough investigation was necessary not only to determine if the alien in question has adequately established that he can expect to be subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 upon returning to his country of origin but also because it was necessary to ensure that the State is not simply forced to resign itself to the alien's presence which may represent a threat to the fundamental rights of its citizens, particularly in cases like the present one where national security was at stake. Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, \u00a7 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos. 6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004), the Government considered that the guiding principle here was that the \u201cmere possibility of ill-treatment\u201d is insufficient to assume that expulsion is incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3c473d9c-1173-4076-a653-2fddc5007048", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant's situation is comparable with that in the Kalashnikov case, in which the applicant had been confined to a space measuring 0.9\u20111.9 sq. m. In that case the Court held that such a severe overcrowding raised in itself an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, \u00a7\u00a7 96-97, ECHR 2002\u2011VI). In the Peers case even a much bigger cell \u2013 namely that of 7 sq. m for two inmates \u2013 was noted as a relevant aspect for finding a violation of Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, \u00a7\u00a7 70-72, ECHR 2001\u2011III). By contrast, in some other cases no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the day-time (Vala\u0161inas, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 103 and 107; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2d6fc7de-bdad-4727-a52d-84d34a681ee3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government denied that the applicants had been subjected to any treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the claim that the applicants had been kept outside for a long period without being allowed to get properly dressed was not true. Moreover, they pointed out that in their initial submissions to the authorities the applicants had not mentioned this, or the claim that the fifth applicant had been threatened with a gun."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9892fd0d-48bb-4a43-88ca-bbf85b8094a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand prisons in Moscow and Volokolamsk and in the Dmitrov detention centre, as well as the conditions in which he had been transferred to the courts and back, were compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted their account of the conditions of detention in the above-mentioned facilities (see the \u201cFacts\u201d part above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c6fcd7dc-c575-401f-bba1-31ee34586aab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant pointed out that, according to the medical report compiled after he had arrived at the police station, he had not had any injuries at that time. However, after his release from police custody he had undergone a medical examination which had confirmed the presence of injuries on his body. He also alleged that the injuries had been sufficiently serious to attain the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant argued that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment in police custody had not been effective. The investigation had been ongoing since 2007. Practically no action had been taken by the investigative authorities between 1 March 2007 and 24 December 2014. The opening of the investigation had been delayed: the applicant had been prompt in reporting the incident of ill\u2011treatment on 11 January 2007, but the criminal case had not been opened until 19 February 2007 and the applicant had been questioned only on 1 March 2014. No perpetrators had been identified. Those police officers who had taken part in the applicant\u2019s arrest or had been present at the police station on 11 January 2007 had not been questioned. The statements made by the police officers and submitted by the Government had been recorded in the course of the criminal investigation against the applicant on the charge of possessing a grenade. The Government\u2019s argument that the applicant had been unavailable for questioning was completely without foundation. The applicant had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an unrelated offence two years after the events in question. For another twenty months he had remained in State custody serving a prison sentence. In 2015 the prosecutor\u2019s office had identified all the shortcomings in the investigation but the Government had presented no evidentiary material showing that those shortcomings had been remedied."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0319c0a4-a5f9-4505-a1d4-b16b0e8cc5e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that their relatives had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to that provision. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f35af38c-4c90-40f5-b565-e05bc41f6e75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he was subjected to acts of police brutality which caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities failed to proceed with a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that, contrary to Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no effective domestic remedy for the harm suffered while in police custody."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ac9dd996-a3f9-49c0-b7eb-2d7ce43f5138", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that the applicant could have had recourse to administrative authorities i.e. a complaint to the penitentiary authorities. They further stressed that on 26 October 2006 the applicant had been released from the Gdansk Remand Centre. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and that the applicant should have brought a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "095a3863-6b3c-4c4c-8350-4fd2cccbe912", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicants submitted that the allegations of ill-treatment rested on a solid evidentiary basis which included their original complaints to the authorities in May 2001, the reports on the use of rubber truncheons and materials of the criminal investigation. It was undeniable that the treatment complained about had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they had not had an effective remedy for their grievances. All of them had complained to the authorities, but the investigation had been neither comprehensive nor adequate because it had not led to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Many detainees had been pressured into withdrawing their complaints or giving false testimony; the third and fourth applicants had been unlawfully refused recognition of their victim status in the domestic proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "11042e79-06c9-4ab4-aebd-618978ca0794", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicant maintained that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension as he had been ordered to get half undressed, to kneel on the rails and to stay in this position for over two hours while his hands had been tied behind his back with iron wire. She further contended that the State had failed to conduct an effective investigation into these events. The applicant also contended that the anguish and suffering she had endured amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "88c09759-e2a0-418b-a46a-71e36c86f4b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government argued that the treatment provided to the applicant in detention facility no. IZ-24/1 had been in accordance with the applicable domestic legal norms and Article <mask> of the Convention. They further pointed out that the applicant had undergone a number of medical examinations, tests and procedures. He had regularly received prescribed medication and followed a special dietary regimen. They also stressed that test results had revealed no pathology, and that the CD4 cell count tests had shown \u201cpositive dynamics\u201d. The Government concluded by noting that the applicant had been provided with adequate care during the entire period of his detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4f110d2b-bbc9-4893-9308-78f5a283e969", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He had never made any such allegations before the domestic authorities. They considered that his reference to the reports describing the general human rights situation in Belarus were insufficient and that evidence was needed that the applicant himself ran a personal risk of facing ill-treatment in Belarus. They noted that the applicant had not challenged the decision on his extradition before the administrative courts under the Code of Administrative Justice."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "47986fbc-55a6-4b15-bb4e-3ac535fc88d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government conceded that the entry of the police into their home, and the search of the house, had undoubtedly aroused negative feelings in the applicants. However, they submitted that these were the normal and inevitable consequence of this kind of investigative measure; hence, the unpleasantness caused had not exceeded the threshold of severity beyond which Article <mask> of the Convention applied. This was borne out, for instance, by the fact that the elder of the two girls had been taken to school as usual. The Government also maintained that if Mr Gutsanov had opened the front door of the house, the police officers would not have needed to resort to special measures to enter his home, which would have spared the members of his family the unpleasantness they had experienced."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a8fee8e3-0c22-447b-9da4-4efd80d419f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention, including the time during which he had been detained in a disciplinary cell, had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. At all times he had received necessary medical treatment. The Government submitted a copy of the applicant\u2019s medical case-file in support of their argument. They further argued that the applicant failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. In particular, he could have lodged a civil claim before a court. However, he had not explained why he considered such recourse to be futile in the circumstances of his case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e8829bda-8f28-4c6d-b230-1837b643252a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention were inhuman. In particular, he submitted that he suffered from heart, stomach, kidney and liver pain, was constantly at risk of contracting tuberculosis and was not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention. He further complained of lack of food, leading to significant weight loss, and inadequate heating and light in the Colony. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "38cf9990-bee4-4335-aea4-9b80f61452d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government insisted that the tissue removal had been carried out in accordance with domestic law. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the removal of tissue from her husband\u2019s body had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. With reference to Sel\u00e7uk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, \u00a7 78, Reports 1998\u2011II), the Government argued that the applicant had failed to demonstrate \u201canguish and suffering\u201d on account of the removal of tissue without her prior consent. With reference to Ireland v. the United Kingdom (18 January 1978, \u00a7 167, Series A no. 25), they likewise argued that she had failed to demonstrate that she had experienced \u201cfeelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing\u201d her. The Government reiterated that only dura mater had been removed from the body. Even if the applicant might have experienced a certain level of emotional suffering and distress on account of the removal of tissue without her consent or knowledge, accompanied by the suffering and distress inherent in losing a close family member, such suffering did not attain the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government also argued that during the autopsy, the heart had also been removed from the applicant\u2019s husband\u2019s body and that dura mater had in any event had to be removed and examined in order to assess whether his skull had been damaged. This could also be said to have caused emotional suffering, but would not attain the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 to apply."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1eee44fe-01a1-42b3-9413-d660910bd857", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicants next alleged that their relatives had been ill-treated after having been detained, which constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to the medical certificate of death issued on 8 October 2001 in respect of Umar Musayev, confirming that there had been multiple stab wounds and bruises on the latter's head and chest. They further submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in this respect, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cc82f12f-4647-4fcc-b307-fcd790507ee8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant further complained that, as a result of the repeated refusal by the Ministry of Labour of his requests for retirement benefits in 1996 \u2013 1997, the ensuing civil proceedings and the quashing of the judgment in his favour, he suffered severe anguish and distress which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3da83ca3-8354-4d7c-ad0f-23d0a9281a22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant claimed that the conditions of his detention in the EPKT, the disciplinary cells and the old wing of the prison hospital had been appalling; that he had not benefited from proper medical care; that he had been beaten up by the guards and that these incidents of ill-treatment had not been duly investigated. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "739da42a-6b67-4902-8bc8-10deb660bfed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["316.  The applicants' representatives alleged that there had been a violation of the right to life in respect of Mr Aziev. They considered that the Georgian authorities had exposed the extradited applicants to the risks of imposition of the death penalty, extra-judicial execution and ill-treatment in Russia in breach of the requirements resulting from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They also alleged that, were the other applicants to be handed over to the Russian authorities, they would be exposed to the same fate. In addition, they claimed that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants had been subjected to treatment that was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1b69c05d-4c38-41da-91e8-47df2ee60835", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant stressed that under the legislative scheme currently in force in Cyprus there was no parole board system and no provision was made for the granting of parole to prisoners or for the protection of their rights during the execution of their sentence and their readmission to society. Thus, the principal purpose of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Cypriot courts and subsequently enforced by the relevant authorities was punitive. This, in the applicant\u2019s view, coupled with the mandatory nature of the sentence, was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention (relying, inter alia, on Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2002-VIII). The procedure currently in place granted unfettered discretion to the President and was arbitrary in its nature. In this context the applicant referred to the ex officio report of 26 May 2004 by the Cypriot Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) on the penitentiary system of Cyprus and the conditions of detention in the Central Prisons (see paragraph 63 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2de9db07-5f70-4b4f-bf59-8da33ddd2010", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants complained that the first applicant's removal to Kazakhstan amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) on account of his detention between 17 January and 15 April 2003. Under the same heading he alleged a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5. The applicants claimed that the decision of the Golovinskiy District Court of 17 January 2003 had been adopted in breach of the fair trial guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They claimed a violation of Article 14 in so far as the above violations had occurred on account of their Chechen ethnic origin. Finally, the applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, because the first applicant had been expelled in breach of its guarantees for aliens lawfully residing in the territory of a Contracting Party."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1f2abea0-e253-40f9-b5c0-57daad858b44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government did not comment on the merits of the complaint under the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the procedural aspect, they argued that the prosecution authorities had carried out a thorough investigation, and that its discontinuation as a result of the expiry of the statutory time-limit had to a considerable extent been due to the applicant, who had not lodged his complaint with the prosecution authorities until almost a year and a half after the alleged assault on him."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a9fecf73-ca8a-497b-a807-1581b96648b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["9.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prison no. 13 and Prison no. 8. In his reply to the Government\u2019s observations dated 15 July 2011, the applicant also complained for the first time about the conditions of his transportation during the criminal proceedings and the conditions of his detention in the courts. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1168924e-3ae8-4140-a9a8-f3154bd952a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had been released from prison on 2 February 2009 and that the second applicant had been moved to a prison in which he had been secured at least the statutory minimum standard space of 3 square metres per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicants should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "baf631a6-e42a-482e-a644-79fba973811e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["144.  The Government submitted that on no occasion had the applicant been subjected to treatment which would result in a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant might have felt some stress or discomfort, but the treatment complained of had not approached the threshold of severity sufficient for it to fall within the ambit of this provision. Even assuming that the applicant\u2019s conversations with some doctors could have been stressful or unpleasant, or that the doctors had expressed their views in a rude or impolite manner, as the applicant seemed to consider, this did not raise any issue under Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a92cbb93-6462-46a5-9489-d4342b409a27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the examination of the applicant\u2019s refugee status application by the migration authorities and domestic courts, including at the appeal stage, had had \u201can automatic suspensive effect\u201d in respect of the extradition order. If the applicant had applied for and been granted temporary asylum, his extradition would have been suspended. Examination of an application for temporary asylum would also have had \u201can automatic suspensive effect\u201d vis\u2011\u00e0-vis the extradition order."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "772b02e2-e85b-4d79-8c2c-8aa5a89a4f3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants submitted that they had less than 3 square metres of personal space per cell. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of an extreme lack of personal space for detainees (see, for example, Ananyev and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 143 et seq.; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, \u00a7\u00a7 88-97, 25 June 2009, which also concerned the conditions of detention in remand prison no. IZ-61/1; and L\u0103utaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, \u00a7\u00a7 99-104, 18 October 2011)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e4dc5ea0-2881-4861-a455-edb0b735e528", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it had not been proved by the applicant and was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all possible measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute in itself just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "19cb422f-b5e3-48f3-be15-c83e83ca6f46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained under Article 3 about the conditions in which she had been held throughout almost the entire duration of her time in government custody, that is, the period from 5 February to 17 May 2009, when she was held at Ta\u2019 Kandja Detention Centre; the period from 17 February to 17 June 2011, particularly when she was held in the Female Forensic Ward, which like the Asylum Seekers\u2019 Unit, forms part of a ward known as M8B at Mount Carmel Hospital; and the period from 17 June 2011 to 30 August 2012, when she was held at Lyster Barracks, Hal Far. She claimed that the conditions of her detention had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "54e8a4e1-8c73-4899-873c-5aeb09728f4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the applicant\u2019s detention had been of a relatively short duration (three days and four hours). Moreover, the police officers entrusted with guarding the applicant had tried to keep the inconveniences suffered by the applicant as a result of her detention to a minimum throughout her detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "293f646a-d3ac-48b4-bcf1-8a9944cc9ec5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government further submitted that the applicant could have brought a civil action for the protection of her personal rights under Article 23 and 24 of the Civil Code or could have claimed damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code. In the civil proceedings the court would have had to establish whether the allegations of ill-treatment were well-founded and thus to determine whether there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government stressed that the civil courts were not bound by the findings reached in the criminal investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c7dd6583-19da-41eb-b995-51d597b27252", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by prison officers during the arrest following their unsuccessful attempt to escape from prison and immediately thereafter on 30 March 2009. They further alleged that the relevant national authorities had failed to conduct a thorough, adequate, and independent investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eca7339b-6883-4901-8e41-6863541f4af6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s placement in solitary confinement had been a measure taken to protect the applicant himself and the other detainees rather than a disciplinary sanction. The Government insisted that the applicant\u2019s fellow detainees had objected to his presence in the regular cells because of his temper and psychiatric state. Referring to the cases of Rohde v. Denmark (no. 69332/01, \u00a7 98, 21 July 2005) and Ramirez Sanchez v. France ([GC], no. 59450/00, \u00a7\u00a7 134\u2011135, ECHR 2006\u2011IX), they further argued that the applicant\u2019s stay in solitary confinement had been only a temporary and ad hoc measure that did not breach the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "da931d51-f284-4407-a569-65e60fdc5d97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the first applicant's ill-treatment by the police during his detention and the authorities' failure to conduct a proper investigation into the complaints concerning ill-treatment. They also complained of the failure to give the first applicant medical assistance and of the very poor conditions in which he was detained. The second applicant complained that her son's ordeal had caused her intense anguish. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5e188b90-89b3-4e33-afd5-a6ba71ca4c40", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in Bac\u0103u and Vaslui prisons. In particular, he complained of overcrowding, poor hygiene, the presence of pests and of dampness in the cells and the poor quality of food. He further complained of inadequate health care for his hepatitis and dental problems."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dd4c1ba6-93e2-4fab-9337-243cfe9cc849", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant originally complained that, if extradited to Tajikistan, he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Following the subsequent developments, his representatives supplemented the complaint, submitting that the applicant was forcibly transferred from Moscow to Tajikistan in violation of Article 3 for which the Russian authorities were responsible. The Court consequently requested that the parties provide additional observations in that respect, insisting in particular on the need to provide exhaustive information on the investigation conducted by the authorities into the impugned events. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "921052f0-cfa9-453c-af43-546ca9af9560", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted, in relation to the applicant\u2019s isolation, that the \u201cspecial regime\u201d normally applicable to life prisoners, which entailed keeping them constantly under lock and key, as well as segregating them from other prisoners, was not incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. This regime was required by law on account of the seriousness of their offences, and was necessary for the purposes of assessment of the risk posed by the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "151c2eab-4a1e-4359-82d0-f0a8ebc16783", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The applicant disputed the Government\u2019s factual submissions concerning the conditions of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility (see paragraphs 63-64 above) and maintained that the actual conditions of his detention, as described by him (see paragraphs 59-62 above), amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further claimed that the Government had relied selectively on the 2002 CPT Report and that this same report also contained \u201cnumerous criticisms\u201d of the conditions in the MNS Detention Facility. In any event, in the applicant\u2019s opinion, the 2002 CPT Report was old and outdated and did not provide an accurate representation of the conditions of detention during the period of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cac58f26-6427-46d8-a56c-2fb3a8ce950f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant submitted that he had not been properly treated for his serious illnesses during the period in question. In particular, there had been no perceptible treatment in the Simferopol ITT, the Daryivka no. 10 Prison, the Sofiyivka no. 45 Prison, and the Hola Prystan no. 7 Prison. In view of the constant and serious deterioration of his health, the applicant contended that the medical care had been manifestly insufficient and this amounted to ill-treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0d42fb9a-61be-4400-a6f1-abdaa1fa1a62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on the excerpts from the remand prison\u2019s population register for each day of the applicant\u2019s detention in remand prison SIZO-1 in Samara, the remand prison floor plans and the information provided by the prison governor."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "50d6e868-ca14-4d16-b4af-332e39889b33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government further stated that the applicant had been allocated to IK-7 in the Krasnoyarsk Region in his own interests, in view of the need to avoid overcrowding. The Russian authorities could not allow a situation where the applicant\u2019s fundamental right under Article <mask> of the Convention would be breached in order to protect his family values. They noted that Article 73 \u00a7 2 of the CES provided for an exception to the general distribution rule in cases where it was impossible to allocate a prisoner to a detention facility located in the \u201chome\u201d region."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c0006f80-b8fb-4f1a-bdb9-93ea597200c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. The Government further commented on the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention. In particular, they pointed out that the fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells in the both detention facilities could not serve as the basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the detention conditions (availability of an individual sleeping place, bedding, compliance with sanitary norms, etc.) had been satisfactory. The Government further noted that the problem of overcrowding exists in the detention facilities of many member States of the Council of Europe. In Russia the overcrowding in detention facilities has objective justification: high crime rate and limited capacity of detention facilities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3bf3a81f-7069-4cf9-b1f5-f2481c7c70a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government contended that the injuries the applicant had sustained had not been serious enough to engage the State\u2019s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that his allegations of ill-treatment by the police were unfounded and unsubstantiated since they had not been borne out by the available evidence. The applicant had sustained these injuries as a result of necessary force being used by the police because he had fiercely resisted his arrest."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9119a772-9163-44e1-b685-84e79738b999", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention in Kharkiv SIZO had been poor. He further stated that, from 6 October 2005 to 5 May 2009, during his pre-trial detention in Donetsk SIZO, he had been handcuffed whenever he had left his cell, including during family visits and daily walks. The applicant considered such treatment to be inhuman and degrading. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "31a44500-0277-45e0-bb65-6db01ba86fc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["221.  The applicant complained that the medical assistance available to him in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul was inadequate. In particular, he was not getting the regular medical supervision required, including examination by specialists and specialised tests. He also alleged that he was not getting any adequate treatment and was only occasionally given painkillers. The applicant further complained about the material conditions of detention in the disciplinary cells of the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. He also alleged that upon admission to the YaCh-91/5 prison all newcomers were shaved with the same shaving set that was used for prisoners infected with HIV. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3742902f-92e8-4ad5-a790-819d70e05e80", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The Government reiterated that relevant medical care and counselling were available to the applicants and, largely because of their failure to exhaust domestic remedies, they had not demonstrated any good reason for not availing themselves of these services. No act of the State prevented consultation and any perceived taboo or stigma causing the applicants\u2019 hesitation to consult did not flow from the impugned legal provisions. Even accepting a perceived stigma or taboo, the applicants had not demonstrated \u201cbeyond all reasonable doubt\u201d treatment falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9229fd9a-ae12-4589-b002-5077ec6069c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government underlined the need to test domestically whether any damage had been done to the applicant and his health by the conditions of his detention. The administrative and civil law provided remedies in which the courts would make rulings to remedy the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the Government advanced two arguments."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "05c57720-8697-4c44-ba63-83dc0e1c36b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him, without specifying the relevant complaints. In particular, they reasoned that he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution, Article 1405 of the Civil Code and of Law 1545 (see paragraphs 69-71 above). Moreover, he could have invoked directly Article <mask> of the Convention, as did the applicant in the case of Drugalev (see paragraph 68 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "47ef185a-17c6-4b2d-a8ed-8dbd50f9ba20", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant considered that imprisonment should merely entail depriving a person of his freedom of movement and that all other fundamental rights remained intact during detention. The Court should therefore, in his opinion, set out to determine whether the suffering he had endured in the course of his illness while in prison had attained a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a1427538-fa9a-4eb9-8564-d7782b76e7c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants submitted that agents of the State had subjected them to torture while in custody to make them confess to the crimes they had been accused of committing. They also argued that the investigation in response to their complaints had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had limited themselves to a superficial pre-investigation inquiry and had never instituted a fully-fledged investigation into their credible allegations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eb5a6055-b3e5-43cf-84c9-eb9ed29aaa43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained that his detention in solitary confinement between 26 March 2008 and 17 November 2008 in the CFECC detention facility had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the material conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13, between 17 November 2008 and 21 June 2010, had likewise amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f5487005-e25f-4223-9e39-105e9bc27608", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officer, R., and that there had been no adequate or effective investigation of his complaints. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of effective remedies for his complaints. The relevant Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "30cf787a-2147-4dd5-8d5b-5eedc646097f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant submitted that his unlawful stay in a strict-regime prison for a duration of eighteen days amounted to treatment prohibited under Article 3. In support of his argument he contended that during this period he had been deprived of the prisoners\u2019 rights to which he was entitled under domestic law. In particular, he had had to spend all day, except one hour, in a cell with other eleven inmates, breathing their smoke, although he himself did not smoke. The applicant also submitted that his stay in Daugavpils Prison had coincided with the period when the conditions in that prison were not in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the Court had recognised in Savi\u010ds v. Latvia (no. 17892/03, 27 November 2012); however, contrary to the circumstances in Savi\u010ds, in the instant case the applicant had been held in those conditions without any lawful basis."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c6906283-8619-4fe3-8fa5-c3ec98185d8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment had not reached the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute of itself just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6088244c-4c4d-4ef6-b960-1f2671c94891", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that the procedural response to the ill\u2011treatment to which he had been subjected had not been adequate. In particular, he took issue with the penalties imposed on the three officers who had ill-treated him, arguing that their leniency did not correspond to the seriousness of their act. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ebe159b3-8902-43d8-b07a-bce9a1dfbb69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government contended that the applicant failed to substantiate his allegations of an alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further accepted that indeed the recreation yards in the wing where the applicant had been held were not equipped with toilets and running water. However, prisoners who needed to use the toilet were taken by the prison guards to the toilets inside their cells if they asked. In addition, prisoners were allowed to carry bottles of water with them in the yard."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a25b1784-688c-4786-a9a3-c340a598ffc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government considered the applicant\u2019s allegations to be baseless. According to the Government, when the applicant and his fellow demonstrators had refused to obey the police officers\u2019 orders to disperse, they had been warned not to violate the law. However, when the group had insisted on continuing with their protests which impeded the circulation of the traffic, the police officers had formed a cordon around them and arrested them. No struggle had taken place between the police and the demonstrators. When the applicant had resisted the police officers\u2019 attempts to arrest him, the police officers had had to use force which could not be considered excessive. Since the use of force by the police officers had been proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "adb66ad6-7aa2-4133-907a-fb52c299d3e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the police officers had not denied the use of physical force. Nevertheless, the force used in the instant case had been proportionate and not excessive. In particular they referred to the trial court's decision that the facts established during the investigation had given no reason to conclude that the police officers had abused their powers and had acted against Polish law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ff8fb890-d3fc-4a86-84ec-79c2dfa45b9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the degrading effect of the allegedly arbitrarily imposed disciplinary penalties in Jelgavas, Gr\u012bvas and Daugavpils prisons. The Court observes that even though it seems that the applicant has on occasion challenged the legal and factual basis of the individual penalties (see, for example, paragraphs 13 and 17 above) and his complaint in that regard has been dealt with, albeit summarily, by the Daugavpils Court on 8 February 2001 (see above, paragraph 32), it appears that the first time he raised a complaint about their degrading effect was in his application to the Court. The applicant having failed to show that he has tried to approach national authorities with any comparable complaint, the Court cannot speculate as to the existence or lack of national remedies. Accordingly it declares the applicant\u2019s complaint about the allegedly degrading effect of the disciplinary penalties inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8ebecb0b-0d36-4dbc-86e9-336f1641f7fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that on 5 December 1999 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8a19743c-71ce-419e-8551-5969242e1b5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill\u2011treatment had been carefully checked by the domestic authorities and had been reasonably found unsubstantiated. The conclusions reached by the domestic authorities were confirmed by relevant evidence which the applicant failed to refute. Referring to the inquiry set up by the domestic authorities after the communication of this complaint in 2009 (see paragraphs 28-29 above), the Government put forward a version of the facts in which the applicant sustained the injuries prior to his arrest as a result of several falls from his own height. The Government summed up that there had therefore been no violation of either the substantive or the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "16213bca-a8c9-4ccf-878a-8e2d9d2f11b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant finally argued that he had not been hospitalised with a view to treating his ear infection and the injury to his abdomen. The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate his assertion that he needed hospitalisation for his condition. Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant was taken to a hospital in order to treat the wound to his abdomen (see paragraph 7 above). At the same time, it appears from the documents in the case-file that the applicant was seen by doctors and medication was prescribed which he eventually received. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded, and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cfda3b00-7778-4724-b36c-d7c95edb7b3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant invoking Article <mask> of the Convention complained about a refusal to allow him to visit his seriously injured daughter in the hospital and the delay in examining his appeal against this decision. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 (see, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, \u00a7 88, 6 December 2007), which in so far as relevant provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "abef84ba-35c5-4eaa-a8d6-ee94860efdf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government submitted that the applicant failed to produce any conclusive evidence showing that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. The medical expert opinion of 30 October 2003 did not exclude the possibility that the applicant suffered his injuries on 16 October 2003, i.e. prior to his arrest and during the public disorder in the aftermath of the elections. The Government also argued that in any event, according to the forensic report, the applicant's injuries did not seriously affect his health. Therefore, the alleged ill-treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f15a550f-2c48-47aa-83db-cf1756b93a49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained that his extradition to Kazakhstan would subject him to a risk of ill-treatment. He formulated his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention and vaguely referred to Article 6 of the Convention without making a specific detailed complaint in this respect. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eaa84c10-d643-43b3-a88a-1989f221d856", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4bb967ed-83d6-4a99-b20d-41b6a12f1c81", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant submitted observations concerning Y.C.\u2019s medical care in relation to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that were similar to those that he submitted in relation to his Article 2 complaint (see paragraph 75 above). He added that the police had not recognised that Y.C. had already been on hunger strike for several days before he had announced it. Therefore, during these days the authorities had not followed the applicable regulations. Intensive medical care should have been provided in the days before Y.C.\u2019s death, as he had been in a life-threatening condition because of the inaccurate calculation of his critical body weight. Instead, he had been placed alone in a security cell. The applicant concluded that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated because of the inhuman situation that Y.C. had been in."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "97dbc778-b353-4903-a645-af984f0eb7b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicant had been detained were sufficiently heated and ventilated; tap water was available, and the toilet was separated by a wall from the rest of the cell. Each detainee had a bed and bed linen and could have a shower once a week. Detainees were allowed to bring their own television set. Food was sufficient and corresponded to sanitary and nutritional norms. Detainees also enjoyed an hour\u2019s exercise each day. Moreover, the applicant never complained about the conditions of his detention while actually detained, which confirmed the absence of a violation of his rights. His application to the Court did not contain any evidence in support of the complaint, which consisted of declarations, while reference to the findings of the CPT could not, in itself and without reference to particular circumstances applying to the applicant, lead to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9de5ba26-acdd-4079-b074-ca8ee7f4670d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had not been provided with the adequate medical care in the remand prison, and that the conditions of his detention and treatment in the colony\u2019s medical unit did not correspond to his needs. His grievances fall to be examined Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "47aaff3b-d575-4e1f-9f6a-5c884169becb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government submitted that when deciding on the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention the authorities had at all times relied on the medical experts\u2019 opinions and took their recommendations into account. In addition, the authorities assisted the applicant with the relevant medical treatment both inside and outside the detention facility. The Government were of the opinion that the quality of medical care provided to the applicant was adequate in view of his condition. All doctors working in the Bytom Detention Centre were specialists in their fields of medicine. Even after the applicant was placed in a regular cell he was frequently examined by the doctors in the hospital ward. He attended 17 appointments. In addition, when it was impossible to provide the applicant with certain medical services in the hospital ward, such services were provided to him by a relevant public health establishment. The Government concluded that the applicant had received relevant medical assistance (for example he had a valve implant operation) and the authorities had fulfilled their positive obligation deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f4e983b9-98eb-4069-82dd-c9bc330b6285", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had maintained his victim status and had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaints about lack of medical care, his solitary confinement in facility no. IZ-47/1, and the conditions of detention in the correctional facility were in any event manifestly ill-founded. In particular, the Government noted that after his conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment the applicant had been transferred to a cell where he had been detained alone from 10 December 2008 until 8 October 2010. That decision had been taken in full compliance with Russian law, which required prisoners to be detained separately from the rest of the inmate population. The decision had had the purpose of guaranteeing the security of the other detainees in facility IZ-47/1. The applicant had been kept in conditions which complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eacd7994-87c0-4e64-a64a-dc25487f35aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained that the pre-trial investigation and criminal proceedings concerning the circumstances of the accident had not been effective. He invoked Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4f9ed811-2824-4686-90aa-d87555a1ae6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s description of conditions of his detention was not sufficiently detailed. Alternatively, they argued that in view of the particular circumstances of the case and of the length of the applicant\u2019s detention, the treatment to which he had been subjected had not attained the threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "853aadf1-dea5-42b7-86f6-07d199d5f71e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention by State agents. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Mr Abu Aliyev had been abducted by State agents, the applicant's mental suffering could not be imputable to the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "23666907-ff7d-4acc-9a3f-daa80cc961d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that, should the Court find a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, it should make an award only in respect of the procedural aspect of the applicant\u2019s complaint. They added that he still had a chance of obtaining compensation domestically, depending on the outcome of the on-going criminal investigation. In any event, the amount sought was exaggerated in the light of similar case-law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "da1bdfe3-ce9b-47ab-b5e1-81668256db9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained that his continued detention, in spite of his deteriorating medical condition, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred, in particular, to his advanced age, prior disability and difficulty in walking, the herniotomy performed on 10 March 1998, the stroke suffered on 28 January 2000 and the fear and anguish he felt that he would die in detention as a result of the allegedly inadequate medical capacity of the facilities where he had been detained."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d532b029-4ea3-4d32-915f-35270c2dcb83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government did not raise any objection as regards the admissibility of this complaint. However, as the domestic courts have already acknowledged the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment, the Court considers it necessary to satisfy itself that the applicant can be considered as a victim within the meaning of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b0c8b580-9811-42b7-9f95-782bdeb36010", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The applicant submitted that the failure to provide him with adequate medical care, such as proper examination and treatment of his diseases, concealment of his true state of health, as well as his arbitrary discharge from the hospital and forced attendance at the court hearings despite his poor state of health, all proved that there had been a breach of the Government\u2019s positive obligation to prevent prisoners\u2019 suffering which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. The failure of the Government to provide him with adequate medical care proved that he had received inhuman treatment and the intention of the Government was to create feelings of despair and inferiority in him and to humiliate and belittle him, as well as to prove his vulnerability. Such treatment of the applicant is in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c3035349-7cc6-476b-a188-cb28305be76b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the first applicant had been tortured after his abduction, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that, as a result of Valid Dzhabrailov's death and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d27d0547-53a6-4050-9fdd-a7e1832753b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk from 12 October 2004 to 3 June 2008. In particular, he alleged that he had not been afforded sufficient personal space as he had been detained with a large number of inmates, some of whom had been suffering from tuberculosis. As a result, he had contracted tuberculosis. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6f7bcc0f-638c-4fdc-bc16-bfc979f0ecbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government accepted that, in view of the applicant\u2019s young age, the use of physical force against him had attained the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nonetheless, they submitted that the force used by the police had been used not to threaten or humiliate the applicant but that it had been necessary and proportionate owing to the applicant\u2019s own actions. They noted that it was not disputed that the applicant had initially refused to comply with the officers\u2019 orders and had run away from them. The Government further submitted that several police officers had given consistent statements about the applicant\u2019s violent behaviour during his arrest, and that this justified using physical force against him. They lastly submitted that the police officers could not have known that the applicant was a minor at the time because of his mature appearance and because it was dark."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0f1b5a05-f7fb-41a3-afa9-1640a8c53011", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The Government maintained that there was no violation of the second applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and no violation of the first and third applicants\u2019 rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, therefore these claims were to be rejected. As regards the remainder of the applicants\u2019 just satisfaction claims the Government submitted that such claims were premature as the investigation at the national level was still pending and the issues of compensation might be resolved by means of national proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "44e2d042-87b9-409e-9f51-941336ef414b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention because he had not lodged his complaint with the domestic courts before lodging his application with the Court. Alternatively, the Government submitted that he had lost his victim status after the Centru District Court had examined his claim for compensation, on 27 June 2007. Finally, the Government argued that the first applicant had also failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5. In particular, he had lodged a court action on 18 May 2008 claiming compensation for the alleged breach of his Article 5 rights and the proceedings are still pending."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c979bf84-002e-42db-ae67-86953a762df1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government contended firstly that the applicant had failed to raise before the Court a complaint under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the length of the procedures for the revocation of his pre-trial detention for medical reasons. They further submitted that the applicant did not contract any disease in detention and that there was no proof that his state of health had deteriorated during his pre-trial detention. Therefore, they concluded that the suffering allegedly experienced by the applicant due to the extension of his pre-trial detention did not reach the minimum level of severity so as to fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "85e67e7f-0cb1-4138-a00c-ff4554aca711", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention, including lack of personal space, poor sanitary arrangements, medical assistance, and various actions of the authorities in the Odessa SIZO, in transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony and upon his arrival to the latter. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies with respect to the above complaints. The latter provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bfaf0d40-3346-4053-beba-065662f7e03d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government concluded that the applicant had received proper and adequate medical care and treatment. The deterioration in his health had not been caused by detention; that had been a process independent of the prison authorities. What is more, the applicant\u2019s health had not deteriorated irreversibly; the doctors had found that he would be able to return to the detention facility after his surgery. Taking all the above considerations into account the Government invited the Court to find no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "174209e8-1663-43ae-bf8b-8de8184ad087", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government maintained that Articles 2 and 3 were not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. As regards Article 2, they argued that the applicants\u2019 lives had never been put at risk in any way. As regards Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the requisite level of severity had not been reached since the harassment complained of had mostly been verbal while the injuries the first applicant had sustained on 4 April 2009 had been of a mild nature. They also submitted that the fact that the first applicant had expressed a wish to walk around showed that he had not been traumatised by the events in issue."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "53ef2327-7e85-4c06-b881-9cc00a5e855e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["249.  The applicant argued that a positive obligation arose in the present case to protect Ms Rantseva from ill-treatment from private individuals. He contended that the two forensic reports conducted following Ms Rantseva\u2019s death revealed that the explanation of her death did not accord with the injuries recorded. He argued that the witness testimony gathered did not provide a satisfactory response to the question whether there were injuries present on Ms Rantseva\u2019s body prior to her death. Despite this, no investigation was conducted by the Cypriot authorities into whether Ms Rantseva had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Further, no steps were taken to avoid the risk of ill treatment to Ms Rantseva in circumstances where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk. Accordingly, in the applicant\u2019s submission, there was a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "192e9866-76db-4cff-88c0-1105b732201f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant noted that the Chamber\u2019s admission that the conditions in most Czech hospitals were questionable, as far as respecting the mother\u2019s choices was concerned, was in fact a very euphemistic way of describing treatment which often attained the level of inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In her submission, hospital births in the Czech Republic were associated with a high risk of procedures that did not respect women\u2019s choices and often were even detrimental to their health or the health of the newborn child. In addition, the national courts had repeatedly failed to afford protection where the rights of women had been violated in Czech maternity hospitals. This represented a type of violence which, in the Czech context, was completely ignored and downplayed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "37db9ad2-c13f-4dba-a912-8ad90ac9044c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in \u0141owicz Prison had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells with less than 3 square metres of space per person and allowed to spend a very limited time outside the cell, e.g. he had only a one\u2011hour long outdoor exercise per day and a right to take only one shower per week."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b9f510b4-3c92-4d8c-a984-b53c6811cf79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["293.  The Government submitted that there were no records in the Prison's Medical Registers of requests from the applicants for medical assistance. The Government maintained that the applicants received necessary medical treatment and were provided with any required prescription drugs whilst serving their sentences and therefore concluded that Article <mask> of the Convention was not breached. They further stated that the applicants were provided with necessary medical treatment and assistance in general."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "71abdaf3-bc5d-4f7c-bfb2-3aae3567cbe0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the infliction of \u201ctorture\u201d on their relatives' bodies, either before or after their deaths. They further complained under the same head about the emotional distress which they had suffered when they had seen the state of the corpses. The applicants lastly contended that the investigation initiated into their complaints had been ineffective."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7041235a-a363-4b00-9165-ae750e28196a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicants Mr Makhov, Mr Resin (in two cases), Mr Anikanov, Mr Lebetskiy, Mr Gromovoy, Mr Gordeyev, Mr Martirosyan and Mr Vinokhodov complained that the conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities or the conditions of transport between them had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention or transport should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicants\u2019 detention or transport (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013). However, the periods complained of had ended more than six months before they lodged their complaints with the Court. The date of the final decision rejecting their claims for compensation cannot be relied upon as resetting the time-limit for their complaints. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six\u2011month rule set out in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ca3a2bc4-1c15-4d60-bfda-23667cc483d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["185.  The applicant further complained that he had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in Magadan remand prison IZ\u201149/1. Thus, being one-legged he had experienced difficulties in view of the lack of any arrangements for his condition, in particular, on account of receiving food through a window in the door of his cell and carrying it to a table while holding on to crutches, taking a shower while leaning on crutches, using toilet facilities and getting into a car for being transported to court. Furthermore, he had allegedly been denied medical treatment for his urolithiasis. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "638fe19c-d476-401f-a2af-72a4e30bab7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["174.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his conditions of detention on death row and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the Court to determine the just satisfaction on an equitable basis, taking into consideration its case-law on similar issues and the economic situation in Ukraine. In addition, they found the applicant\u2019s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of alleged ill-treatment unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "55049b34-7f80-4d49-bc16-fd728dd0a794", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of his detention in Bjelovar Prison from 22 March 2010 to 5 January 2011. In particular, he complained of lack of personal space, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, no prison work, insufficient recreational and educational activities, poor quality food and inadequate medical care. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "213b9bbb-5b78-436e-acf9-156234ff85b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Ibragim Tsurov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no effective investigation into the ill-treatment. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b839fa3f-3849-438f-9a29-ee07d805ddf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government admitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the temporary detention cell of the Mozhaiskiy District police station were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They specified that, while the applicant\u2019s detention in that cell between 30 and 31 July 2013 (date of the judgment of the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, see paragraph 31 above) was in compliance with domestic law requirements, the remainder of the detention period between 31 July 2013, after the delivery of the impugned judgment, and 5 August 2013 was not. They admitted that the cell for detaining persons charged with administrative offences was not designed for the detention of foreign nationals in respect of whom administrative removal orders had been issued by the domestic courts. Such persons were supposed to be detained in special detention centres of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "64c06dfe-e0b8-4914-b137-888f0424db02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government contended that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his complaints had been disproved by the police officers\u2019 reports and statements. The Government further argued that the medical records of 19 and 26 October 2005 suggested that the first applicant could have inflicted the injuries by himself and that at the time they had been inflicted the first applicant had not been \u201cunder the jurisdiction of police officers\u201d. According to the Government, the first applicant\u2019s submissions before the domestic authorities regarding the alleged ill-treatment had lacked clarity and consistency and had been rejected as unfounded by the prosecutors and the courts. For the Government, the situation in the first applicant\u2019s case was comparable to that in Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 38683/06, 15 July 2010). Referring to the Court\u2019s finding that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb in the latter case (see Aleksandr Smirnov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 54-55), the Government argued that in the present case the origin of the first applicant\u2019s injuries could not be established."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "63e54647-d205-4b6a-b043-1846754e6f17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government further submitted that detention conditions in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and that the sanitary, hygienic and temperature conditions had been satisfactory. According to them, the mere fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells cannot serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5e720c54-62d1-462a-99f3-96ae34491d7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government maintained that in general there is no basis for claiming that pre-trial detention in solitary confinement as provided for by Danish law constitutes torture in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. More specifically they submitted that the applicant's detention on remand in solitary confinement, which lasted eleven months and fourteen days, was not in breach of the said provision. There had been reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant had committed a very serious crime that might have resulted in prolonged imprisonment, and solitary confinement was necessary to prevent the applicant from impeding the police investigation. Moreover, the applicant himself gave rise to a considerable extent to the duration of the pre-trial detention in solitary confinement by maintaining until 26 September 1995 his false statement, as agreed with the other co-accused, PL, and by fabricating false diary notes in support thereof. The solitary confinement had been lifted as soon as the applicant could no longer influence the investigation, for example through communication with the co-accused in order that they harmonise their statements."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "59352947-d7fb-487f-b87a-a527927c4096", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the authorities in colony no. 8 had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical assistance in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the conditions of his detention in the medical colony had been appalling. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "089c2e22-5e8f-4250-8a09-ff411478b27d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of her sterilisation without her and her representative\u2019s full and informed consent, and that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough, fair and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding her sterilisation. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "26accce6-207f-4d7c-b834-954acee35ba1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison van had been technically in good order, had been heated and ventilated. It had not been overcrowded. The applicant\u2019s medical record showed that he had been fit to be transported and that he could be transported unaccompanied by a doctor."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9033c742-e055-4e05-842e-0bc3bf255447", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government did not argue in their written observations that the Court should not have regard to facts which occurred after the final domestic decision in January 2008. The Court recalls that according to its established case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention, the existence of a risk faced by an applicant in the country to which he is to be expelled is assessed by reference to the facts which were known or ought to have been known at the time of the expulsion; in cases where the applicant has not yet been deported, the risk is assessed at the time of the proceedings before the Court (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7 133, ECHR 2008\u2011...). The Court sees no reason to take a different approach to the assessment of the proportionality of a deportation under Article 8 of the Convention and points out in this regard that its task is to assess the compatibility with the Convention of the applicant\u2019s actual expulsion and not of the final expulsion order (see Maslov, cited above, \u00a7 93). Any other approach would render the protection of the Convention theoretical and illusory by allowing Contracting States to expel applicants months, even years, after a final order had been made notwithstanding the fact that such expulsion would be disproportionate having regard to subsequent developments. The Government have not explained whether further remedies within the domestic legal system are now available to allow the applicant to challenge his deportation a second time, nor have they suggested that the Court is precluded from examining developments on the basis that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court itself to assess the effect of this additional lapse of time on the proportionality of the applicant\u2019s deportation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "31582fb6-4b0b-4706-8759-6243ab26ab32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that that they had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner. The applicants\u2019 complaints do not concern the material conditions of the Riihim\u00e4ki prison, nor their isolation as such but rather the use of closed overalls while in isolation. They claim that the use of overalls, especially dirty ones, was degrading. There was no evidence that the applicants had been involved in smuggling drugs into the prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e0a7b018-f11b-4892-ba70-19add7a2bb36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers following his arrest on 18 September 2001 and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers it appropriate, however, to examine the above complaints only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "03441516-0d0f-4060-bfd5-7f2922958b54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b5246a6d-a7a5-4bf2-a416-0fe8f9411a9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, during his detention in the temporary holding facility of the Kirovskiy District Police Department of the Stavropol Region. As regards the medical expert examination carried out on 7 October 2002, which had not established any injuries on him, the applicant referred to the findings of the District Court in its judgment of 2 May 2006, where it had established that the applicant and his lawyer had not been notified of the investigator\u2019s order that such an examination be carried out until after it had been conducted, and therefore a note on the relevant expert report that the applicant had no comments, questions or objections regarding the experts had been devoid of any legal meaning."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "280e4f06-5c1f-4802-9fab-ad4ddff64360", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the manner in which the bodies of their relatives had been exhibited at the military base constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. They also complained that the prosecutor had not investigated this particular complaint and that they therefore had not had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3e2308d-c954-4eee-a0a6-e2f8a56dd866", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his allegations had not been investigated properly. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is the relevant provision, and which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ecf22582-6717-4852-8333-aae269b3ccd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention had been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that at all times the applicant had been provided with an individual bed and bedding. The Government referred to the copies of excerpts from the remand prison population register for the period from 18 April 2003 to 10 November 2003."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fe08e3fd-bb87-409c-a347-fbeb9f37a7a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained that the police had beaten him and threatened him. He complained that the conditions of his detention in the SIZO had been incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular, he was not able to breathe fresh air and the food given to him had not been sufficiently rich in calories. Because the conditions of his detention had been poor he had developed TB while in the SIZO. According to the applicant, he received inadequate medical treatment from February 2003 to June 2005. In particular, he was not given any medications to treat his TB even though he needed them. The applicant invoked Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention. However the Court, which is the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the present part of the application falls to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3196550b-808c-420f-96eb-78be0c4af536", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in P\u0142ock Prisons from 8 August 2003 to 4 June 2007 and from 9 January to 6 February 2008 had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and, in particular, those required for persons in his state of health. He complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and had been allowed very limited out-of-cell time, that is to say, he had been permitted only an hour of outdoor exercise per day and only one shower per week. The applicant also complained that he had been afforded inadequate medical care during his detention. Lastly, the applicant claimed that he had been forced to share one of his cells with a schizophrenic inmate with a history of violence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "62adee80-bf54-470c-8b9d-cf6c4377a53f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant concluded that all of the above circumstances \u2013 in particular the insufficient and inadequate medical care and the humiliation resulting from the fact that he had had to ask for assistance from his fellow inmates in order to be able to get to and from the exercise yard \u2013 amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fe93d989-8f28-474e-a38d-fe25a5f6add6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, it was impossible to determine whether the applicant had been subjected to ill\u2011treatment while in police custody, given that the inquiry into the applicant's allegations was still pending. They further submitted that the Russian authorities had complied with their positive obligation arising out of Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation in response to his complaint of ill-treatment. The earlier deficiencies in the investigation had been rectified at the domestic level."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5eeed34b-77b0-44af-8130-ff0af836220f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant\u2019s injuries were caused by misconduct on the part of the police officers. In addition, the evidence had led to the conclusion that the applicant\u2019s injuries had been inflicted by the rape victim, who had tried to defend herself during the assault."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7b4f68c0-4f54-47f4-836f-494c0d6ff15f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicant was wanted by the Tajik authorities on account of his alleged involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which he consistently denied. Regard being had to the reports by reputable organisations (see, in particular, paragraphs 73 and 75 above), the Court considers that there are serious reasons to believe in the existence of the practice of persecution of members or supporters of that organisation, whose underlying aims appear to be both religious and political. The Government's reference to the fact that the applicant did not apply for political asylum immediately after his arrival to Russia does not necessarily refute the applicant's allegations of risks of ill-treatment since the protection afforded by Article <mask> of the Convention is in any event broader than that provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi, cited above, \u00a7 138)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e0019c32-d293-46cd-b951-aaa18faaa0fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government argued that the investigation conducted by domestic authorities had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the authorities had conducted a number of investigative actions, interviewing S., G., and the applicant, conducting photo identifications and face-to-face confrontations, ordering medical examinations, and collecting information from the transport company. The applicant was recognised as a victim and informed about the progress of the investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d9a4103-9f95-4dae-9eb0-09ba5b557e9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and that the Voronezh prosecutor had acknowledged the existing overcrowding problem. He did not have an individual sleeping place, which indicated a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he suffered from extreme cold and heat because the mandatory ventilation and heating systems did not function, and from a lack of privacy when using the toilet."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0e9c9cfe-4a6d-4f21-b213-f579cbf2cfba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government contended that the conditions under the \u201cspecial regime\u201d in which the applicant had been detained in both prisons had been applied in accordance with section 167d(1) of the regulations for the implementation of the 1969 Act, and subsequently with section 213 of the newly adopted regulations for the implementation of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009. They also made detailed submissions in respect of the material conditions in which the applicant had been detained in Lovech Prison but not in respect of the conditions in Varna Prison. As regards Lovech Prison, they emphasised that the use of buckets as a toilet had been found by the Court to be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention only in cases where the applicants had had to relieve themselves in front of other inmates. Given that the applicant in the present case had been locked alone in a cell under the \u201cspecial regime\u201d for practically the whole period of his detention, he could not claim to be affected by a breach of Article 3 in that respect. They further asserted that a breach of Article 3 of the Convention could only be established if the treatment to which an applicant had been subjected reached the minimum level of severity. This had not been the case, given that the authorities had not aimed at humiliating or debasing the applicant, nor had he shown that his suffering went beyond the inevitable inconvenience of serving a prison sentence. This was true both in respect of the material conditions in which the applicant had been detained and in respect of the restrictions which he had to endure as part of the \u201cspecial regime\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "44fbd08f-f0d8-4451-b776-0b0e15f9bde4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicants complained about the conditions in which the bodies of their deceased relatives had been stored during the identification process. They were also dissatisfied with the circumstances of their personal participation in the identification process. According to the applicants, this treatment by the authorities caused them such mental suffering that it amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2c84fd87-bb0c-4d55-b4f5-2305d768bd68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that as the first applicant did not seek to rely on Article 3 before the domestic courts, he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the alternative, while the Government did not doubt that the first applicant had suffered distress due to the circumstances in which he found himself, they submitted that the circumstances in issue did not come close to constituting ill-treatment of the severity necessary to engage Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government therefore submitted that the Court should reject as manifestly ill-founded the contention that any of the matters at issue disclosed a violation of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8acf401f-6105-4c34-8a89-d0a1b596b7c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government submitted that the injuries alleged by the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to a number of domestic medical examinations carried out, which had concluded that the applicant had only suffered negligible health impairment and that he had not required any subsequent treatment or sick leave which was due to those injuries."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8c26a614-1572-498c-aaf0-9fb8af139ee5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had failed to appeal against the refusal to grant him temporary asylum of 26 November 2013. If the applicant had been granted temporary asylum, his extradition would have been suspended or even rescinded. The Government also submitted that the applicant had failed to lodge a cassation appeal under Chapter 48.1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (\u201cthe CCrP\u201d) against the Supreme Court\u2019s appeal judgment of 25 February 2014 upholding the extradition order."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a23630f9-52e1-49eb-9483-fc06361e3dfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["342.  The Government repeated their arguments that the applicants had not been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and their respective complaints were manifestly ill-founded. Accordingly, their claims for the non-pecuniary damage should be rejected. Moreover, the Government, referring to the Court's case-law and the principles thereof, wished to emphasize that an applicant's claims should not serve as a basis for unjustified enrichment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dc35fbec-a3f9-48d7-8106-9f82a4ecc984", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers during his detention in Korsun-Shevchenkivsky police station in 2003. He also relied on Article 3 in complaining about the material conditions of his detention in various penitentiaries, his placement in a disciplinary cell in September 2005 and his force-feeding during that period, as well as the insufficiency of the medical assistance available to him throughout the entire period of his detention. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e3d9dbb6-87c4-4357-af6a-7e1dd511efef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government contended that the applicant had failed to provide any detailed arguments or evidence in support of his complaints. They further noted that it was an established fact that the applicant had resisted the police prior to his arrest on 16 July 2008 and that legitimate force had been applied to him. This explained the injuries which had been revealed in the examination carried out on 17 July 2008. The Government also referred to a number of other medical examinations of the applicant, namely those of 26 and 30 July, 7 August and 7 November 2008, and 4 February 2009, which had not revealed any injuries. They argued that the present case was similar to that of Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, in which the Court had found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb for the absence of conclusive evidence in the case file in support of the applicant\u2019s complaint of ill-treatment (no. 38683/06, \u00a7\u00a7 52-55, 15 July 2010)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ebcba2d5-163f-4419-84d1-3783d205b8ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 is three-fold. First, she complained that her husband had been ill-treated upon his detention; second, that no investigation had been carried out by the authorities into this allegation; and third, that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with his disappearance. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "68c482bb-154e-41d9-bc12-694ac4d72680", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he alleged that he did not receive the necessary medical treatment and assistance for tuberculosis while serving his sentence. He also complained that the conditions of his detention in different penitentiaries were unsatisfactory (the size of the cell in which he was detained, the number of persons in the cell, the bedding and conditions of hygiene, sanitation and ventilation, nutrition, outdoor daily walks, access to natural light and air, etc.). He further alleged that he was not provided with the required prescription drugs, medicines and the necessary medical care and attention for his tuberculosis. Article 3 provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "26c362a3-4d56-4c6f-896f-00b3f378f241", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicant submitted that the minimum level of severity for Article <mask> of the Convention to apply had been reached in the present case. She had witnessed the condition of her husband\u2019s body \u2012 with the legs tied together \u2012 after the tissue removal. She had also been pregnant at the time with their second child. The applicant submitted that the unlawful tissue removal amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, since it had caused her shock and suffering. In support, she provided a written statement from her sister, who stated that she had seen Mr Elberts\u2019 body in Sigulda, after it had been transported from the Forensic Centre prior to the funeral, and that his legs had been tied together with dark tape; she had assumed that this had been due to the car accident."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "edfe63ab-e88a-4d1b-83f0-93ce92efdff6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained under Articles 1, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by prison staff on 3 May 2006, that his complaint in that respect had not been investigated and that there was no effective mechanism for the prevention of ill-treatment. The Court considers that the complaints under Articles 1, 6, 13 and 14 essentially repeat that made under Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9b1b57dc-9f0c-40c9-984d-dad45bd0f55d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government contended that both the decisions of the Asylum Office of 28 February 2012 and the Asylum Court\u2019s ruling of 24 September 2012 had analysed not only the situation of asylum-seekers including the situation faced by Dublin II returnees, the detention practice and a possible refoulement in general, but also in particular whether the applicant\u2019s transfer in the light of his young age might violate Article <mask> of the Convention. This was evident from the fact that the Asylum Court had set aside the Asylum Office\u2019s decision in the first set of proceedings because of deficiencies in the investigation. The comprehensive examination in the instant case did not reveal any necessity to make use of the right to conduct the proceedings under Article 3 \u00a7 2 of the Dublin II Regulation. With reference to the UNHCR\u2019s Note on Dublin Transfers to Hungary of people who have transited through Serbia, published in December 2012, it could no longer be assumed that refugees who had entered Hungarian territory via Serbia were refused having their asylum application examined on the merits."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "52d34d46-4710-4d2d-82c0-4d5c9e1df002", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government contended that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest and transportation to the police station on 21 October 2010 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant was a healthy young man and the minor injuries which he had sustained \u2013 excoriations on his left elbow, on the left side of his chest and behind his left ear, for which he had received prompt medical assistance \u2013 could not have caused him suffering reaching the minimum level of severity to fall under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "20e89732-557c-40c3-bf33-4572af3aece2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicants submitted that there was no adequate remedy for their complaints about the treatment of Judith McGlinchey in prison, or a remedy that would address the defects in management and policy which allowed the neglect and ill-treatment. Any cause of action in negligence was dependent on establishing the necessary causal link between the negligent acts and the death and/or personal injury, which was not present in this case. The treatment in issue was nonetheless inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. No other remedies, which could provide compensation and an acknowledgement of the breach, existed. "], "obj_label": "3", "id": "66a06661-5054-46a7-870c-c114d44d1ea1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicants complained that the first applicant had suffered ill-treatment (including sexual abuse together with a subjection to forced labour), as had to a lesser extent the second and third applicants at the hands of the Roma family in Ghislarengo, and that the authorities (especially the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli) had failed to investigate the events adequately. They also complained that the first and third applicants had been ill-treated by Italian police officers during their questioning. Thus, the Italian and Bulgarian authorities\u2019 actions and omissions were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fb3abd5e-99fc-4b49-a2d9-f52d294e24c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government submitted that the physical force and special means, such as handcuffs, which had been used on the applicant during his arrest fell outside the scope of Article 3 for two reasons. Firstly, the injuries did not result in a deterioration of his health or cause any lasting consequences. Secondly, the police officers did not use physical force to cause suffering to the applicant or to humiliate him; they merely fulfilled their duties, whereas the applicant resisted them. The use of force did not pursue any other goals, such as, for instance, obtaining a confession. The Government emphasised that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful demands of the police officers and that they had used lawful and reasonable measures for putting an end to his unlawful conduct. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been carefully reviewed by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ba976698-4a10-4766-b39b-4fb77a292a07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government did not consider that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached. They pointed out that on his arrival in prison on 4 March 2013 the applicant had already been suffering from a disease which would have fatal outcome in the short term owing to the metastases spreading to his skeleton. They further submitted that neither the Institute of Forensic Medicine nor the doctors had imposed on the authorities any obligation to place the applicant permanently in a civilian hospital (see paragraph 14 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0aaefe0a-e151-4b11-84ae-7bcc1de05297", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government further argued that the applicants had not exhausted all the available remedies since they could have claimed damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code. In the civil proceedings the court would have to establish whether the allegations of ill-treatment were well-founded and thus to determine whether there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government stressed that the civil courts were not bound by the findings reached in the criminal investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "01cac943-e89f-4a26-8491-f758e172b259", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant submitted that his detention at the K\u0131rklareli Foreigners\u2019 Admission and Accommodation Centre had not had a proper legal basis and that it had been entirely arbitrary. He noted in particular that following the judgment of the Court in Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 36370/08, \u00a7 28, 13 April 2010), where it found that there would be a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention if he were to be removed to Iran or Iraq, it was clear that there would be no further deportation proceedings against him. He had continued, nevertheless, to be kept in detention after the aforementioned judgment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cbac9e89-6481-4afb-afea-0b88c0d06af5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow from 29 October 2002 to 20 December 2003 and on the premises of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow. He also complained about the conditions of his transport to and from the courthouse. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "77454651-8d36-4153-86b9-f5b8e77befe1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during his detention and that he had not been provided with food and water between 25 and 27 April 2006. He also complained of the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate properly his allegations of ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "62a49b61-ccf1-4379-8b36-9e255c441697", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["180.   The Government argued that the applicant should have pleaded the State\u2019s vicarious liability for the patron and/or manager. However, the Government mainly relied on two other remedies. In the first place, they referred to an action claiming that the primary-education system, foreseen by Article 42 of the Constitution, breached her unenumerated constitutional right to bodily integrity (the constitutional tort action). Secondly, they argued that she could have continued her claim in negligence in her appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the State had failed to structure the primary-education system so as to protect her from abuse. This was her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The High Court had summarily dismissed (\u201cnon-suited\u201d) her claims because she had failed to adduce any evidence: indeed, her own expert (Professor Ferguson, see paragraph 24 above) had advised her against litigating on the basis of a lack of relevant awareness of risk on the part of the State. It was therefore disingenuous to argue that she should now be excused from appealing because she had been non-suited on evidential grounds. In any event, the Government maintained that certain domestic case-law indicated that a non-suit on evidential grounds was appealable and, further, that she could have appealed the non-suit because the High Court gave no clear reasons for that decision and because it failed to address her negligence claim separately."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a818dcc0-f5d5-4adc-aecf-c6b52459d016", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government argued that it had not been proven in the present case that the applicant had been treated in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the resort to physical force by the officers had been strictly necessary due to the applicant\u2019s behaviour. The police actions were not planned in advance but were provoked by the applicant\u2019s resistance. It is true that the applicant suffered certain bodily injuries but he could not be considered to have suffered intensely, either mentally or emotionally. As regards the civil courts\u2019 finding that the officers had acted unlawfully and abused their powers, the Government stressed that this had been established in the context of the civil liability."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4c5da7bd-b108-40d0-b454-7d740fb7bb90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["188.  The applicants submitted that Italy\u2019s interceptions of persons on the high seas were not in accordance with the law and were not subject to a review of their lawfulness by a national authority. For that reason, the applicants had been deprived of any opportunity of lodging an appeal against their return to Libya and alleging a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "db675687-d8c3-40f9-96af-d74cd1fb027d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant argued that her allegations of a violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Sharani Askharov were supported by the fact that other men detained on 18 May 2001 who had subsequently been released had sustained serious injuries as a result of torture. She claimed that the Government had failed to produce any evidence that could refute her allegations. The applicant also maintained her complaint that she herself had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention because of the anguish and distress she had suffered as a result of her husband\u2019s disappearance."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9cf63b47-fec2-4cb6-83c5-7ce550585f89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had already been awarded damages in the domestic proceedings on account of the poor living conditions in Lovech Prison for the period from 8 March 2000 to 27 October 2004. They argued that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open for him to seek damages in respect of his remaining stay in that prison. Furthermore, the Government were of the view that the suffering inflicted on the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, they pointed out that following a refurbishment of Lovech Prison in the autumn of 2008 the cells had been equipped with sanitary facilities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e0bd59e8-3c1f-42e5-a35b-097a592b2fad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the applicant and the effects of the treatment to which she had been subjected, the Government noted that the violence had not been premeditated or continuous, and that the fact that the applicant had been involved in a physical confrontation had stripped the situation of any degrading motivation. Furthermore, it had not been proved \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the applicant had been subjected to acts in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The deterioration of her health had been as a result of the applicant\u2019s previous health problems and not as a result of the confrontation between the applicant and S.N."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1e50cc49-54c6-40c8-917f-3034c3f104be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not substantiated his claim for pecuniary damage. They further submitted that the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unfounded, and referred to several cases of the Court in which the applicants had been awarded non-pecuniary damages ranging from EUR 2,000 to EUR 5,000 for violations of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7ff3f83e-16f1-4936-8ade-937c6bd3afc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality inflicting on him great physical and mental suffering which amounted to torture or inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he was a victim of a procedural violation of the above Article since the prosecuting authorities had failed to proceed with an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "576692ae-1ad5-4a2c-ad59-83d23ad5e7ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention in the SIZO medical unit, in particular, the lack of glass in the window of his cell and the quality of the food provided by the SIZO. He also complained that the conditions of his transportation amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because he was not transported in medically equipped vehicles. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy in that respect. The applicant also complained that he had been constantly handcuffed while in the municipal hospitals."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fb33a300-e533-48ac-8fdd-3a36a58666d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on him had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred in particular to the fact that for the whole of the period during which the regime had been imposed on him he had been strip\u2011searched as a matter of routine, without any particular reason being given for such searches."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c54818d0-c933-411a-a356-c00b72e7fd9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government stated that the material conditions at the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted in this respect that the centre had a capacity of 300 persons and that the total number of detainees had not exceeded that number during the applicant\u2019s stay. There were fifteen to twenty beds in each of the ten rooms reserved for male detainees and all rooms were sufficiently ventilated. The detainees had the right to outdoor exercise in suitable weather conditions, and breakfast, lunch and dinner were provided on a daily basis. A doctor was present on the premises every Thursday and the detainees also had access to medical care in cases of emergency. As for the hygiene conditions in the facility, there were six cleaning staff working full time at the centre, and the building was disinfected whenever necessary."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e0949ee2-b4fa-4d3b-92ec-305aa5794aef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and his alleged infection with tuberculosis, under Article 5 about the unlawfulness of his arrest, his detention pending trial in excess of the time-limit provided in the domestic law, and the failure of the domestic authorities to make the charges against him known to him in good time. Lastly, he complained under Article 6 of the Convention about various irregularities in the criminal proceedings against him in 2003, 2003-2005 and 2008, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the property which he inherited after his mother\u2019s death had been sold while he was serving his sentence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "05acf250-77ea-448d-8d10-9e651e9ab9fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant complained that during his detention in the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department between 6 and 14 March 2003 the police had subjected him to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's obligations under Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "19722cdd-166a-483c-bc33-1aa0cb234ec9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant argued that the fact of being treated in a medical institution not legally authorised to provide medical treatment amounted in itself to degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, even though the applicant lacked the specialist knowledge to assess the quality of the care provided to him, he had been very worried about the quality of his treatment. The applicant further submitted that while it might indeed have been the case that all the doctors working at the Prison Hospital were properly qualified, the Government had failed to provide any information about the qualification of nurses and about the certification of the medical equipment and techniques employed at that hospital."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1f9a961b-68b8-44e1-adf0-3076e63c96d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant maintained that he had been classified as a \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d unlawfully and without any reasonable justification and pointed in this respect to a number of judgments acquitting him of the charges laid against him. The regime had been imposed on him in an arbitrary manner on account of the gravity of the charges, in particular the charge of leading an organised criminal group in respect of which the proceedings had been discontinued and the charge of corrupting a police officer in respect of which he had been acquitted. The treatment to which he had been exposed under the special regime should be considered inhuman and degrading and it had amounted to a gross violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "de867f65-8abb-4223-8548-ef77cbb87bf0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government further stated that the proportion of favourable recommendations issued by OFPRA concerning applications made at border points had been 22.2% in 2005, that is, almost three times the rate of admission for that year under the procedure for claiming eligibility for asylum (8.2%). In their view, this difference demonstrated that applicants at the border were given the benefit of the doubt. They were not aware of any cases in which the removal of an alien had led subsequently to his or her being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention or Article 33 of the Geneva Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f1cd7b17-06b6-4d61-b997-33c8a72b69ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["2.  The applicant Mr Stoica lodged his first complaint at domestic level eleven years after the events took place. On 25 June 2008, more than eighteen years after the events, the applicant lodged his application with the Strasbourg Court. With regard to his application, the Chamber had previously considered that, just as it was imperative that the relevant domestic authorities launch an investigation and take measures as soon as allegations of ill-treatment were brought to their attention, it was also incumbent on the persons concerned to display diligence and initiative. Thus, the Chamber attached particular importance to the fact that the applicant had not brought his complaint concerning the violence to which he was subjected on 13 June 1990 to the authorities\u2019 attention until eleven years after those events. Although the Chamber could accept that in situations of mass violations of fundamental rights it was appropriate to take account of victims\u2019 vulnerability, especially a possible inability to lodge complaints for fear of reprisals, it found no convincing argument that would justify the applicant\u2019s passivity and decision to wait eleven years before submitting his complaint to the relevant authorities. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that there had been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. In contrast, the Grand Chamber considers that the applicant\u2019s vulnerability and his feeling of powerlessness, which he shared with numerous other victims who, like him, waited for many years before lodging a complaint, amount to a plausible and acceptable explanation for his inactivity from 1990 to 2001."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e49b3112-da76-4c46-899f-d22a014fe081", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and a lack of adequate medical care. In particular, he complained of overcrowding, poor hygiene, lack of regular access to hot and cold water, and a lack of special facilities adapted for people with disabilities. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dfba979b-e3f6-4584-adc2-685550ad8675", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in \u0141\u00f3d\u017a Remand Centre where he had been held for a period of over four years had been inadequate taking into account his particular health condition, namely epilepsy and personality disorder. He alleged that the cells had been overcrowded, badly ventilated, and without a fixed partition separating the toilet. The applicant submitted that such conditions attained a minimum level of severity amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "59dff7c6-a711-45a7-b239-cc3adf288686", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support, and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "725e1d6e-7720-45ee-9cfd-412ac3b48665", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["192.  The Government submitted, in relation to the applicants\u2019 prison regime, that the \u201cspecial regime\u201d normally applicable to life prisoners \u2013 which entailed keeping them permanently under lock and key and their segregation from other prisoners \u2013 was not incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. It was required by law on account of the seriousness of their offences, and was necessary for the purpose of assessing the risk posed by those prisoners. That regime could be changed to a less stringent one if the prisoner had served at least five years and had shown good conduct; it was therefore possible for a life prisoner to influence his prison regime. Under the applicable rules, life prisoners had to undergo annual risk assessments, and such assessments had been drawn up in respect of both applicants."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e07ae22f-dc7e-420e-859c-ac5aa51988fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government observed that the right to an effective domestic remedy was a procedural right which had to be linked to a possible violation of a substantive right under the Convention or the Protocols thereto. In paragraph 15 of its admissibility decision of 7 July 2015 the Court had found that \u201cin the absence of an arguable complaint of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the complaint under Article 13 is unsustainable\u201d. The Government therefore argued that, since there had likewise, in their view, been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 in the present case, no violation of Article 13 of the Convention could be found."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5032ebf3-dd2e-44ac-89b2-9598d6bd4efa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained that, a minor at the time, he had suffered serious bodily harm and great mental suffering at the hands of the police on 5 August 2001. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities had failed to carry out a prompt, comprehensive and effective investigation capable of providing a plausible explanation of the injuries he had sustained during his brief detention in the police station and of leading to the identification and punishment of all police officers responsible. He alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "885fb3d4-a51f-4506-a58f-93573b5b6e47", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government acknowledged that there had been overcrowding in all of the detention facilities in which the applicant had been held. More specifically, the statistics provided by the Government in reply to the applicant\u2019s allegations of overcrowding show that most of the time the applicant\u2019s personal space was significantly less than that required by the Court\u2019s case-law. The Court points out that those figures were even lower in reality, given that the cells also contained beds and other items of furniture. This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Iacov Stanciu, cited above, \u00a7 173; Cotle\u0163 v. Romania (No 2), no. 49549/11, \u00a7 34, 1 October 2013; and Todireasa, cited above, \u00a7 57)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c52cb6c1-d499-42be-a8d1-6426d5c84818", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The Government further stated that one of the reasons which had to a large extent contributed to the appearance of new illnesses had been the psychological and emotional burden to which the applicant had been subjected as the result of having been in detention and the criminal proceedings against him. Hence, the national authorities could not bear responsibility for the appearance of these illnesses, as it was not connected with the provision of medical treatment in the SIZO or with the material conditions of detention in the SIZO. The Government underlined that the applicant had received regular and appropriate medical treatment for the new conditions which had appeared. He had been examined by SIZO doctors, he had been repeatedly examined by medical commissions numbering the best specialists from civilian hospitals, had received everything he had been prescribed and had had all the indicated examinations; when necessary he had been admitted to a civilian hospital. The Government considered that the medical treatment provided to the applicant had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "054afdbd-1e9c-4b34-b318-aba2bbace5ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant submitted that he had been kept in conditions that were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular he was in a de facto isolation regime, which had not been ordered by a judge and which had gone beyond the maximum duration of ten days prescribed by law. He noted that at the time of the CPT visit in 2013 there had only been one detainee. Even so, the CPT had noted that that detainee had been subject to a regime similar to isolation, and that in such a context it would be essential for such a prisoner to be offered a programme of activities and appropriate human contact. The CPT had also highlighted that the law provided for an isolation regime only for a maximum period of ten days."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a6446016-92a5-4e41-b598-7a76ad84d1db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants submitted that any attempt to seek the imposition of criminal or disciplinary sanctions on the police officers who had carried out the searches and seizures and arrested the first applicant would have failed. Internal police investigations were normally entrusted to colleagues of those involved, and were hence not effective and impartial. They were usually not duly carried out and often amounted to a whitewash rather than a serious attempt to uncover misconduct. A complaint to the prosecuting authorities would not have led to serious investigative efforts either. Those authorities clearly knew about the incident, and yet had not investigated it. A claim under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act would have been bound to fail, as under the prevailing case-law of the Bulgarian courts, including the Supreme Court of Cassation\u2019s 2005 interpretative decision (cited in paragraph 36 above), the actions of the police in a criminal case were not \u201cadministrative\u201d within the meaning of that provision. Unlike in the other cases (cited in paragraph 40 above), here the police had acted on orders by the prosecuting authorities in a pending criminal case. The February 2014 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (cited in paragraph 37 above) had been an isolated precedent rather than settled case-law, and ran against the Supreme Court of Cassation\u2019s interpretative decision, which was binding on all courts. Moreover, it had not resulted in a final award by the time the application had been lodged. Lastly, it had assessed the conduct of the police under the domestic rules governing searches rather than by reference to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "072aa601-f067-454c-9b91-92fc37119a12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of inadequate conditions of detention in Dobrowo and Koszalin Remand Centres. In particular, he submitted that for 309 days his cells had been so severely overcrowded that each prisoner had only 60 square cm of personal space. As a result, the applicant had spent most of the day sitting on his bed, unable to move around in the cell. For an unspecified period one of the applicant\u2019s fellow inmates had had to sleep on a mattress on the floor as there had been no space for a bed or for the inmate. The applicant also claimed that access to the toilet had been very limited, the cells had not been properly ventilated and the mattresses had been old, dirty and mouldy. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had been allowed only one shower per week and very limited time out of his cell (one hour of outdoor exercise per day)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1c67645e-ec99-4b8c-9964-99ef3bdee375", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government commented on the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention. In particular, they submitted that, in violation of the domestic requirements, the applicant had usually been afforded less than four square metres of personal space during his detention in the unit. At the same time the Government, citing the court\u2019s judgment in the case of Kemmache v. France (no. 3) (24 November 1994, Series A no. 296\u2011C), argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, as the domestic courts had acknowledged the violation and had redressed it by allowing the applicant\u2019s action against the facility management and awarding him compensation for non-pecuniary damage."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ad4a848a-894b-4a80-8176-4f6d12514579", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant, first, complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment during her detention. In this respect the applicant stated, particularly, that she had been threatened with death, kept standing for long periods of time and blindfolded. She further claimed that the area of the cell in which she had been detained was six square metres, that there was no ventilation and that the lights were on twenty-four hours a day. Secondly, the applicant claimed that the circumstances in which she had been subjected to a gynaecological examination on 24 October 1997 constituted a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In this connection the applicant claimed that the examination had been performed by a male doctor during which the gendarmes took her clothes off, made her lie down and touched every part of her body and that she had not consented to it."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dd41c853-d56b-4adf-9c00-30282bf8b743", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant requested the Court to go beyond its findings in N. v. the United Kingdom and to define, in the light of these considerations, a realistic threshold of severity that was no longer confined to securing a \u201cright to die with dignity\u201d. He relied in that connection on the recent developments in the case-law of the Belgian courts, which had distanced themselves from the findings in N. v. the United Kingdom and now afforded more extensive protection than that provided for under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraphs 101 et seq. above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2e386b5b-fd15-42ca-9689-54427e665b27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that her husband had most likely been tortured during his detention and that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicant also claimed that as a result of her husband\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ff61fe4d-51c3-4478-88d6-5f4e6c9e70b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that he had been tortured by the police during his detention and that his allegations of torture had not been duly examined, that the authorities had not provided him with adequate medical assistance, and that the conditions of his detention in the colony had been debasing."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ee08f23f-fd7d-4a82-a822-08ba8bba2468", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government asserted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 from 15 March to 3 August 2005 had been in compliance Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had not been confined to the cell all the time. It had been open to him to meet with his lawyer and/or family. He had been able to participate in investigative actions and exercise his right to worship in special premises. Furthermore, he had been able to leave the cell in order to use shower facilities and to do his laundry. In certain remand prisons it was possible for the inmates to work in various workshops affiliated to the prison. When describing the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the remand prison (see paragraphs 15-17 above), the Government relied on excerpts from the remand prison population register, official floor plans of the cells in the remand prison. Relying on the statements provided by the administration of correctional facility no. IK-13 where the applicant had served his prison sentence following his conviction, the Government further claimed that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention there from 4 to 15 August 2004 had been compatible with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c4c7b55d-9176-4db1-a012-ca478c2aec28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The Government also noted that according to the experts the applicant had had a transitory psychotic disorder from 8 May 2003 until 26 June 2003 (see paragraph 18 above), and it was not for the Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts (the Government relied on Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, \u00a7 66, ECHR 2000\u2011VIII, and Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, \u00a7 73, 12 December 2013). Even though the domestic courts had confirmed the illegality of the applicant\u2019s stay at Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital, the applicant\u2019s claim of allegedly improper medical treatment had been rejected by the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 51 above). In fact, the psychiatrists\u2019 actions and methods applied when treating the applicant had been in line with the existing legislation and legal acts. The Government also drew an analogy with the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention, where it had held that it was for the medical authorities to decide on the therapeutic methods to be used to preserve the physical and mental health of patients (they relied on Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, \u00a7 82, Series A no. 244). Even though the case at issue was of a different nature, the Government suggested that a similar approach could be followed. The priorities of medical science and the professional application of medical methods should prevail over the wishes of an individual to choose his or her own way of behaving, unless abusive conduct by medical personnel was clearly established, which had obviously not been the case here. In the instant case, the psycho-correction methods applied by the psychiatrists had been used in order \u201cto form a critical, not a negative, attitude towards religion\u201d (emphasised by the Government)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3bb28706-0351-408c-bec9-3a5e4ef0a0ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant also submitted that the investigations into his allegations of ill-treatment had been manifestly incompatible with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. While it was for the State to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of his injuries and to prove that any recourse to physical force had been unavoidable, in his case the prosecution authorities were not exempted from their responsibility to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances that led to his injuries."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "245ec62f-69f6-477e-a0dc-69dc783c7525", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government maintained that the applicant's allegations of being beaten by the tax police officer had not been supported by any appropriate evidence and that, although the applicant had indeed sustained physical injuries it was impossible to conclude \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that they had been inflicted by S. They referred to the conclusions of the forensic medical examinations that the applicant had had only minor physical injuries which could have been inflicted three to five days before the events in question. None of the examinations established that the injuries had been inflicted on 28 April 1998. The Government also submitted that, as for the testimonies of G., who had allegedly seen the applicant being beaten by S., it had been established that G. could not have seen the events in the room properly since its windows had been covered with opaque plastic curtains. Furthermore, the Government maintained that the investigation in the applicant's case had been performed by an independent authority which had carried out a full investigation and had taken all necessary action. Therefore, the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated and the applicant had had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "00883f9e-d6b4-454f-9302-c606757a78be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["264.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants\u2019 mental sufferings had not reached the minimum level of severity required for them to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly on account of the minor age of certain of the applicants, and that there was no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 had been arrested by State agents. Lastly, they averred that the domestic legislation \u2013 including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 1069 of the Russian Civil Code \u2013 provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c0d2ab0d-5367-49c9-9126-677ad1674bf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The applicant complained that the conditions of her pre-trial detention, including a refusal of medical examination and lack of medical assistance, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In her observations of 7 May 2005 the applicant further complained under this head that the conditions of transportation to and from the court-house were poor. The relevant Convention provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5f871846-74da-403f-a33c-1e69eebc6b05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government contested the allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants and Rizvan Ibragimov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the level of suffering allegedly caused to the applicants by the fact of their relative\u2019s disappearance, that, in the Government\u2019s view, was beyond the evaluation of the law-enforcement authorities and could not be objectively measured, as it related to psychological aspects, such as the emotions and personalities of the individuals concerned."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6d41b641-7669-4ced-9500-d6db483194f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants alleged that they were the victims of inhuman and degrading treatment by M. F. and police officers. In particular, they referred to Article 29 of the Constitution and the Law of Ukraine \u201cOn Psychiatric Assistance\u201d and maintained that in order to be lawful, a forced psychiatric intervention, in particular, confinement to a hospital, had to be ordered by a competent court. The decision, taken in respect of the first applicant by the Chief Psychiatrist of the local hospital unilaterally and in absence of any procedural guarantees, had been manifestly arbitrary and unlawful. The application of physical force to enforce it and deliver the first applicant to the psychiatric clinic against his will had therefore also been unlawful and arbitrary, having caused the first applicant humiliation beyond the threshold allowed by Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly in the context of the following circumstances."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "01f391ce-9905-4687-a94e-52ec83ea5dab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant \u201ctook an active part in a struggle with the police officers.\u201d Even if he had been intoxicated, he should have been aware of the risk of sustaining injuries. The Government further argued that the exact origin of his injuries could not be established and referred to the findings of the medical experts concluding that the injuries could have resulted either from the applicant's fall or from the police actions."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bd6f7f10-477d-4ec1-853f-e3a99d989c53", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and that the St Petersburg prosecutor had acknowledged the problem of overcrowding. Inmates had less than two square metres of personal space at their disposal, which indicated a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, the applicant had suffered from passive smoking because the mandatory ventilation had not functioned, and from a lack of privacy when using the toilet."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6aa65dda-cbe7-4bd6-81f4-0dd46f45dbb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government further stated that on most occasions the experts of the Ministry of Health had established no deviations of the sanitary and catering conditions from the relevant domestic requirements. In particular, toilets and bath facilities had been adequate. In this respect the general detention conditions in the \u0160iauliai Remand Prison were no different from those in the Pravieni\u0161k\u0117s prison, in respect of which the Court had found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the Vala\u0161inas v. Lithuania case (no. 44558/98, 24.7.2001, ECHR 2001-VIII). At the same time, some incompatibilities of the applicant's detention conditions with the relevant domestic norms had been duly remedied. Hence, for example, in view of the fact that the bed mattresses had become damp, immediate measures had been carried out to swirl larger holes in the beds and disinfect the mattresses. Similarly, various actions had been undertaken to eliminate rats and other pest from the cells. The Government accepted none the less that some of the measures recommended by the health experts had not been implemented in the \u0160iauliai Remand Prison in view of the lack of resources; thus the inmates had not been provided with toilet paper, and no new lighting system had been installed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ee7b74aa-1dd7-437b-99c8-696ca223e5c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention had been prolonged excessively by the authorities\u2019 passivity in the face of his requests for its revocation for medical reasons and in spite of the seriousness of his medical condition established by medical documents. The applicant further submitted that this situation had caused him suffering and aggravated his state of health invoking in substance a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6910eba7-9b71-453d-aa93-288071c6fa77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the medical records drawn up on 11 and 14 July 2003, by which the applicant\u2019s injuries had been recorded, entirely refuted the applicant\u2019s version of events. They stressed that the use of a rubber truncheon in the applicant\u2019s case had been lawful and justified. It therefore did not fall under the notion of \u201cill-treatment\u201d prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government insisted that the force used against the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity envisaged by Article 3 of the Convention as the injuries sustained by him had not led to \u201cany serious consequences and [had not] caused short-term damage to his health\u201d. In addition, the Government noted that having used a rubber truncheon, the warder had not intended to humiliate or debase the applicant or to cause him physical or psychological suffering. The use of force constituted an adequate and lawful response to the applicant\u2019s unruly behaviour when he resisted the warders\u2019 lawful orders. The warders acted within their official powers and pursued lawful purposes. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the fact that the medical personnel which had examined the applicant on 11 and 14 July 2003 had found that in the aftermath of the incident the applicant\u2019s behaviour had been \u201cadequate\u201d demonstrated that he had not suffered the psychological trauma which usually accompanies inhuman and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "99c05eae-9cb1-4caa-b875-367de546f25c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government accepted that the applicants had suffered physical harm at the hands of the police, but argued that the injuries had not reached a level of severity sufficient to bring them within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, they pointed out that the use of force had been justified and appropriate in the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the breadth of the criminal activity in the area where the police intervention had occurred, and the applicants\u2019 provocative conduct. They considered that there was no reason for the Court to depart from the assessment made by the domestic courts in this respect."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "400234e2-fdfb-4137-978f-f58bb653196a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been humiliated, intimidated and pressurised by the investigator. They further complained that they had been transported in inhuman conditions on 26 December 2002. In addition, the first applicant complained of the degrading conditions of his detention from 22 April 1999 to 16 May 2002 and from 26 June 2002 to 16 January 2003. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "891dd537-44ca-4608-8d66-5557d40a9ccc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["215.  The Government set out in some detail their assertions about the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention in the various correctional facilities in which they had been and were being held (see paragraphs 12, 13, 16, 37\u201142, 50, 52, 54, 55 and 57-60 above). Based on these assertions, they argued that, although the conditions had been deficient in some respects, they did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The lack of some common life necessities had not reached such a level of severity as to amount to treatment proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the Government, some of the applicants\u2019 allegations were untrue and unsupported by evidence. Lastly, the Government referred to the terms of section 3(2) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 (see paragraph 107 above), pointing out that under this provision only the wilful placement in poor conditions of detention amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. None of the applicants had been intentionally placed in such conditions; they had simply been housed in cells identical to those of all other inmates."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ed6d72de-ea31-4523-900a-cc6547202f24", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government further maintained that the applicant\u2019s complaint of ill-treatment before the above-mentioned domestic authorities and the Court had been too vague. He had provided no description or details of the means of ill-treatment, nor was the complaint supported by any evidence. They emphasised that during the forensic medical examination carried out on the same day, and later during the investigation, the applicant had claimed that his injuries had been caused in another way. Moreover, the forensic expert had concluded that the injuries could not have been sustained by the applicant on 20 April 2005. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s complaint of ill-treatment was wholly unsubstantiated. His submissions before the domestic authorities had not been arguable and had not generated the procedural obligation of the State under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation of his allegations of ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f86afdf7-54c9-4dea-aa7b-05de9a10555f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had had the right to receive a visit from a family member or a phone call once a week. Moreover he had had the right to participate in educational and religious meetings and to practice sport. He had had access to press, radio and television and to a library. He had himself chosen to stay in a single cell even though he had been offered the possibility of sharing his cell with another detainee. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2b9f5def-dd74-41c6-9de0-59426b1c208a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The applicant in application no. 5402/07 (Mr Gorbunov) complained that the conditions of his detention and transport in the period from 14 September 2006 to 12 January 2007 had been inhuman and degrading in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that he had been absent from the remand hearing of 5 July 2006 in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dce7ab01-6a17-4927-a81a-670bc5832d46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant complained that he had been held in detention and in particular in the isolation cell in the Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit of Kyiv Region (SIZO No. 1 of the Kyiv Region) despite the fact that he had been suffering from a number of chronic diseases. The applicant also maintained that he had been deprived of adequate medical treatment while remanded in custody and that the conditions of detention (hygiene, bedding and other conditions) had been unsatisfactory. The applicant alleged that he had been force-fed while on hunger strike, without any medical necessity being established by the domestic authorities, which had caused him substantial mental and physical suffering. In particular, he alleged that he had been handcuffed to a heating appliance in the presence of guards and a guard dog (in his further complaints he did not mention the guard dog), and had been held down by the guards while a special medical tube was used to feed him. He referred in this respect to Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0349890f-93b2-4683-a02b-ae35fc8bf2f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government did not dispute that the applicant had been detained pending investigation and trial at the police station in a cell designed only for short-term detention. Nor did they challenge the applicant's account of the conditions of his detention. They also conceded that those conditions had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "577cc63b-1a1f-4765-8632-8256532ecf3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government further contended that there was no reason to believe that the first applicant and his family would find themselves in a particularly vulnerable situation upon returning to Baghdad. The Government agreed with the Chamber that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that, owing to their personal circumstances, the applicants would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if returned to Iraq."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c872038d-bd8a-41de-b5b4-977a3b1946ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, because he had not brought a claim for damages under section 1 of the 1988 Act. One of his co\u2011accused had brought such a claim in relation to a beating by officers who had escorted him from prison to court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7fdace8a-f6f0-4b75-ac6a-6021f4ba0dde", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government further argued that Article 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice made it possible to challenge before the courts any possible decision on the applicants\u2019 extradition and to raise allegations of a risk of being subjected to the treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in case of extradition, the courts having been under the obligation to consider such allegations. In support of the latter argument, the Government submitted a copy of the resolution of the Kyiv Administrative Court of 2 July 2008, by which the prosecutors\u2019 decision to extradite a national of that State to the Russian Federation had been annulled on the ground that the prosecutors had failed to take into account the evidence that, given his specific situation, the person faced a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in that country. The domestic court also found that the extradition decision had been contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition of 1957."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9d0e4b95-c9b3-412e-ac2f-2318f938e118", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant\u2019s condition was, throughout his detention, monitored by the prison health service and he received appropriate medical treatment. There is no indication of any negligence on the part of the medical services, nor has the applicant adduced any evidence to show that the authorities were negligent in administering medical treatment to him. Consequently, it cannot be said that the applicant was denied adequate medical care and attention in detention such as to raise an arguable issue of ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1df12192-3923-4907-b36c-7bd49a23a90f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s allegation. They submitted that since 2010 he had been subjected to paraclinical tests, including X-ray examinations of his knees. He had always been provided with effective in-patient and out-patient medical care. They insisted that the first-stage osteoarthrosis of the knee and hip joints with which the applicant had been diagnosed could not cause unbearable pain. The pain was apparently due to the applicant\u2019s hepatitis C and prior drug addiction. His condition did not require placement in a specialised medical institution. All of the penal institutions in which the applicant had been detained had had the appropriate equipment and staff for the treatment of his diseases. During his detention, specialists from civil hospitals in the sphere of ophthalmology, cardiology and infectious diseases had been consulted on a number of occasions. At no point had the doctors detected any significant changes in his osteoarticular system inherent to polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis. The applicant\u2019s condition was currently satisfactory, and he was receiving the treatment prescribed to him in full. The Government concluded by stressing that the applicant had been provided with comprehensive medical care throughout his detention, in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d6258b73-3177-4519-bb47-d3d17a358abb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that, owing to his Uzbek ethnic origin, he would face a serious risk of ill-treatment if expelled to Kyrgyzstan. In his application form he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. In his observations on the admissibility and merits of the application of 28 August 2015, the applicant raised for the first time a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Margareti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 16115/13, \u00a7 75, 5 June 2014), the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s grievances fall to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1c112511-bbd6-4b85-9872-7fe39fc75569", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["144.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the allegedly appalling conditions of her detention from 7 to 14 June 2005 (see paragraph 46 above). The Court notes that the complaint was first raised in substance before it on 22 December 2005. Assuming, in the applicant\u2019s favour, that she had no specific remedies to exhaust, the Court concludes that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, \u00a7\u00a7 15-25, 5 February 2013)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a995bc4a-1067-488a-8ebb-c8b1d3afe8c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint was manifestly ill-founded, being linked to the manifestly ill-founded complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, it had been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action with the Yakutsk Town Court and he had explored that avenue. The fact that the applicant\u2019s action had been unsuccessful did not strip that avenue of its effectiveness."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4b60f7fd-5ac6-43d3-95e7-5c797c837e0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant alleges that since he has been active organising demonstrations, detained and tortured, been abroad for a long time and received summonses he would be of interest to the Iranian authorities if he were to be returned to Iran today, 7 years later, and as a consequence would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b33c05e8-52a4-4163-aad2-d643f03a9abd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted at the outset that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Cypriot legal system provided a variety of remedies for allegations of violations of Article <mask> of the Convention by detainees which, in line with the Court\u2019s case-law, were both preventive and compensatory in nature. The Government relied, in particular, on the Court\u2019s judgments in Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, \u00a7 98, 10 January 2012); Mandi\u0107 and Jovi\u0107 v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, \u00a7 111, 20 October 2011) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05, \u00a7 116, 22 October 2009)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0a861f0a-b515-4eef-a01d-21dd427366b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government contested that argument. Referring to the certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison and extracts from the remand prison\u2019s population register, they submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the applicant\u2019s medical condition, the Government submitted a copy of the applicant\u2019s medical records, which confirmed the fact that the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis in March 2008. However, in their observations of 20 January 2010, the Government indicated that the applicant had been suffering from tuberculosis prior to his remand in custody in April 2007. They further asserted that the applicant had received proper treatment for tuberculosis in compliance with international standards. The penal establishments in which the applicant had been detained had been provided with the necessary medicine and equipment. The medical personnel who had treated the applicant had been trained to properly administer anti\u2011tuberculosis treatment. The Government relied on the certificates prepared by the medical correctional facility\u2019s administration. They also provided copies of the medical education certificates of the facility\u2019s personnel."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fd1ac139-2038-4863-862e-50dafcff3ab7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government contested that argument. They noted discrepancies between the applicant\u2019s account of the alleged ill-treatment and the medical evidence, which had only confirmed the bruising on the applicant\u2019s forehead but had recorded no injuries to the applicant\u2019s chest or abdomen. They therefore considered that there were no reasons to assert \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government further considered that the investigation carried out into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had fully complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. There had been no procrastination or abuse of office on the part of the investigator in charge of the applicant\u2019s case. The pre-investigation inquiry (see paragraph 13 above) into the circumstances under which the applicant had been allegedly subjected to ill-treatment had been carried out by an independent body. The applicant\u2019s allegations had been subsequently subjected to examination by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction, which had undertaken a proper assessment of the applicant\u2019s arguments and delivered lawful and well-reasoned decisions."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "032abdb4-62f5-4d35-811d-026ce8635c43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant argued that he could not have caused himself the injuries in question by rubbing his buttocks against the walls of the exercise yard. Rubbing would only have left scratches, not multiple haematomas. The haematomas could only have originated from the impact of a blunt object, such as, in his case, the rubber truncheon used by police officer P. The applicant further drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that the Government had failed to make any comments on the written statements by his cellmates P., I. and B. (see paragraph 15 above) to the effect that they had not seen the applicant harming himself during the exercise period on 20 July 2002, and that police officer P. had made them and other inmates sign statements to the contrary. He further alleged that the additional inquiry had been based on the material of the initial inquiry without additionally questioning those involved in the incident. The applicant concluded, therefore, that the Government\u2019s conclusion as to the compliance of the domestic authorities with their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention in his respect had been unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "12d7a2cf-06af-4c0f-9584-f8d208f57d91", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9f3b73d4-31b5-4fa2-aece-2df307a9e514", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant claimed, and it was also confirmed during an official inquiry by the region prosecutor's office (see paragraph 13 above), that at the material time the cells of the Kopeysk IVS had been overcrowded beyond their design capacity. The Government did not dispute this allegation, referring to the fact that the official records relating to the cell population had been destroyed after the time-limit for their storage had expired. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, \u00a7\u00a7 97 et seq., ECHR 2002\u2011VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, \u00a7\u00a7 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, \u00a7\u00a7 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, \u00a7\u00a7 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, \u00a7\u00a7 41 et seq., 2 June 2005). Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the materials in its possession, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "df22955d-0611-440f-8839-2eab740f1356", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant submitted that he had testified before the investigator, the prosecutor and the courts on numerous occasions about his ill-treatment, but there had been absolutely no response and no one had been held accountable. In general, not a single police officer or member of the special forces had been held accountable for the widespread violence against demonstrators on 1-2 March 2008, including the deaths of civilians. No decision had been taken to institute criminal proceedings on account of his ill-treatment and none of the courts had requested the investigating authority to institute such proceedings. Despite having multiple visible injuries, the questions which he had been asked during the investigation had been entirely about his political activity and participation in the demonstrations as a member of the opposition. This clearly showed that the investigation into the events of 1 March 2008 within the scope of the instituted criminal case had had a different purpose to that required by Article <mask> of the Convention and had not been in any way linked to his allegations of ill-treatment. Furthermore, the forensic medical expert had carried out a delayed medical examination of his injuries, which could not be considered independent and impartial. In sum, there had been no effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9dcd87c5-263f-403d-b54b-95e01edbf427", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Sharani Askharov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government accepted that the applicant must have suffered as a result of her husband\u2019s disappearance. However, since the involvement of State agents into his abduction had not been established, the State could not be held responsible for her suffering."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8e00dafa-5f84-405c-89ee-ab9e488fe8b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicants complained that the conditions of their transportation to and from their court hearings and the treatment to which they had been subjected on the days of the hearings had been inhuman and degrading. They also complained that they had been kept in a glass dock in the courtroom under heavy security and in full view of the public, which amounted to humiliating conditions which were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. That provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ad7658ff-570f-45e1-aa63-fb4bec0ed0f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-64/1 in Saratov and the temporary detention centre in Volsk from 15 June to 17 August 2007. He also complained about the conditions in which he was transported between the remand prison and temporary detention centre. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "45935d38-cdcd-4abf-955d-fb67a2ebc888", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan had been considered by the national authorities and dismissed on sufficient grounds. Referring to the decisions of the prosecution and immigration authorities and the domestic courts in the course of the extradition and expulsion proceedings, the Government asserted that his claims had been duly reviewed and found to be devoid of substance. In their opinion, the assurances presented to the Russian authorities by the Uzbekistani authorities were sufficient and compatible with the countries\u2019 international obligations and domestic legal developments. As regards the expulsion proceedings, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be taken to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of the applicant\u2019s treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e00b8442-f9fc-438e-9396-6e4a50208128", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained with reference to the events of 8 December 2001 that she had been violently thrown to the floor and dragged out of her apartment and down a staircase by a police officer and that the authorities had failed properly to investigate the incident. The Court will examine these grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "61ae2429-4ef1-4ca2-94f6-cb7b273a58d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained that the conditions of detention under the \u201cKBK\u201d regime \u2013 to which he was subjected for about two years \u2013 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the almost total isolation and absence of human contacts as well as the ubiquitous application of means of restraint. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "33f0be11-a039-4e92-95ba-d4fb4b3a5690", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government argued, firstly, that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. They further conceded that the conditions of his detention in the Berdsk IVS had fallen short of the Council of Europe\u2019s standards. In particular, the cells had had no windows, tables or chairs, the toilet had offered detainees no privacy, and the number of cellmates had exceeded the number of available beds. Yet, the Government argued that this had been due to budgetary constraints and other reasons connected to the reform of the penal system, and that the treatment in question did not reach the minimum level of severity required for it to constitute a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "42baefef-aef9-4117-87a5-76029fd288b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicants also complained that they endured a terrifying experience when several heavily armed and masked police officers entered their apartment, pointed guns at them and shouted death threats. The Court considers that the psychological ordeal to which the applicants were allegedly subjected, and having regard to the presence of the infant during the arrest operation, could in principle be characterised as inhuman and degrading treatment falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 3 cannot be limited to acts of physical ill-treatment; it also covers the infliction of psychological suffering (see G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, \u00a7 103, 1 June 2010). The Court reiterates in this connection that treatment can be qualified as degrading when it arouses in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7 167). Psychological suffering may result from a situation in which State agents deliberately instil fear in individuals by threatening to kill or ill-treat them: put differently, to threaten them with acts prohibited by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6adf6dc8-2eb1-43a2-8734-af1e10711533", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained that he had been kept in wretched conditions in prison which had been overcrowded. He had also been kept in solitary confinement and had had no means of communication with the outside world. On 8 May 2007 special police forces had carried out an operation in the prison and had allegedly ill-treated him. In respect of these complaints he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "67ae3c88-f5e7-4a5d-a182-a2114c5cb2df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained about his ill-treatment while remanded in custody. In particular, he complained that the authorities had failed to provide proper and necessary medical treatment and assistance to him between 30 November 1998 and 8 June 2000. He alleged that the poor conditions of his detention had caused him severe suffering and resulted in the deterioration of his health. He relied in that connection on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dfe010ec-51f7-4c78-a162-03a0f86fd91c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant initially complained that his removal to Afghanistan would violate his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. In his submissions of 26 November 2013 (see paragraph 5 above), he further complained that his wife and their four children would also be exposed in Afghanistan to a real risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7951a7ac-c73c-4bbf-81ed-46e9def970cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that he had been ill-treated by the police. Since the applicant's life does not appear to be, or to have been, imperilled, the Court considers that Article 2 is inapplicable in the present case. It will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "24eb086e-0982-4191-bb89-da2a7fee401f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that (a) he had been ill-treated by police during his arrest on 12 May 2005 and the authorities had failed to investigate the incident, (b) he had been held in overcrowded cells in Tbilisi Prisons Nos. 5 and 7 and (c) there had not been adequate medical care for his various diseases in prison. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d843daf1-1402-4624-9f66-b2dc0b4b6812", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had failed to investigate effectively their allegations of indecent sexual acts perpetrated against them by a sports coach from a State sports school, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. By doing so, the State had failed to exercise its positive obligation of preventing indecent acts against minors and of protecting their physical integrity, in violation of Article 8."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fb8a7c54-a79e-4350-a3c5-580d714295ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of her detention in the remand centre, the conditions of her transport between the remand centre and the courthouse, and the conditions of confinement at the courthouse during the trial. She also alleged that she had been beaten up in the remand centre. Lastly, she raised a number of complaints in relation to her detention pending the investigation and the trial. She referred to Articles 5, 8-11 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ea28dc20-1a2d-46b2-9bec-58e3bddf7abe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government reiterated their account of the detention conditions at the Istanbul Atat\u00fcrk Airport detention facility (see paragraphs 32-34 above) and maintained that those conditions complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They provided one photograph of the room where the applicant had been held and copies of logs indicating the number of the detainees held in that room on 9 and 12 November 2010."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ad6b41d8-7bf4-4de6-bb99-c42a42724b3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant submits that the armed attack by village guards and gendarmes on him, his family, his house and hamlet and the experience of being forced to flee for their lives amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He refers inter alia to the deliberate, punitive and life-threatening nature of the violence involved.  He also claims that violations of Article 3 arise from the alleged failure of the State adequately to regulate the village guard system or to investigate allegations of serious ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1ddd16c7-7fbe-4a86-9de0-bacb7ae663cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government further pointed out that the applicant did not complain about the alleged ill-treatment for several months, and when he did, an inquiry was conducted that found no proof of police violence. They further stated that the injuries in question were so minor that they were not capable of proving any ill-treatment reaching the minimum level of severity laid down by Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the obligation to conduct an effective investigation, they contended that the inquiry into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had been prompt, thorough and conclusive on the point that the applicant\u2019s claims could not be proved."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d10e0dc-9ef8-4982-8240-9df595793b70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The Government also submitted global arguments as regards the overall period of the applicant's detention. They argued that the conditions of the applicant's detention had not amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that he had had adequate cell space and that he had been able to have at least two hours' fresh air daily. As regards the working opportunities and leisure activities, the Government submitted that during his detention after conviction the applicant had had a possibility to work and it had depended on him to benefit from it. He had also been able to undergo computer training, watch television or read."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "267dee3a-1942-406e-80ae-45b0ca1910c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings in the criminal case, which had involved the determination of his civil claim, had been excessively lengthy and that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of the investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d7141060-9432-4595-9182-21da4b8a52f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant maintained that the overcrowding and insanitary conditions which had been present during his long years of incarceration had had an adverse effect on his physical health and had caused him humiliation and suffering. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells. Moreover, the applicant had been held in cells with people with hepatitis C and HIV."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b8a442d0-20d3-41fd-9c98-5b799f645af3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the reinstatement proceedings. She also alleged a violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the courts\u2019 assessment of evidence and interpretation of the national law and challenged the outcome of those proceedings. Finally, under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention she complained that the criminal proceedings brought against her had been excessively long and conducted arbitrarily."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "423853de-547c-40bb-9e6c-6d1701e25b0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the temporary detention centre had been unacceptable by Article 3 standards. The Court takes note of the Government\u2019s admission and sees no reason to hold otherwise. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the centre amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that there has been a violation of this Article."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "35803c03-0614-403f-8d00-708e26e1a1c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, as well as with reference to Article 13, that the domestic authorities had not given due attention to his various complaints. He next complained that the court rulings of 27 April and 7 July 2004 had been contrary to the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) that his wife had been banned from representing him from 27 April to 19 May 2004. Furthermore, the applicant complained that the Crimea Court of Appeal had failed to question all the defence witnesses on 1 June 2004. Lastly, he complained that his conviction had been unfair."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d537da66-5efd-4778-8f3e-28e184a8abca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicants submitted that they had been victims of treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention and had lacked an effective domestic remedy as required under Article 13. They pointed out that after the Supreme Court had upheld the normative framework as being compatible with the Convention (see paragraph 69 above), their subsequent applications for a judicial review had been bound to fail (see paragraphs 72 and 73 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8b26aebc-f1a9-4710-9797-91ff7b087b6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government asserted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s stay in the IK-9 facility, including the living space per inmate, lighting, heating, ventilation, sanitary facilities and food standards were \u201cgenerally in compliance\u201d with the requirements of domestic law and of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had an individual sleeping place and the personal space per inmate was in excess of two square metres. The number of toilets, at the ratio of one toilet per fifteen inmates, was sufficient. The Government pointed out that, in contrast to cases concerning detention conditions in remand prisons, the applicant had enjoyed a greater freedom of movement during the daytime and had had unobstructed access to natural light and air (here they referred to Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, \u00a7  77, 21 June 2011; Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, \u00a7 38, 30 July 2009; Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9cb43592-04f3-4f18-8cc8-5ac0f3376f26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government refuted the allegations. They submitted that the applicant had failed to substantiate them or introduce any evidence in support of his claims that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further stated that the applicant had been examined by a doctor on two occasions; at the beginning and at the end of his police custody, and the forensic reports indicated no trace of ill-treatment on his body."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "523a6781-ac09-4716-b064-a477a2e66dbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government further requested the Court to declare the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted that the applicant could have lodged a complaint against the police officers allegedly involved to their superiors within the Ministry of Interior in order for them to conduct an internal investigation. Furthermore, he could have lodged a formal criminal complaint against the same officers for the criminal offences of forcibly obtaining statements and ill-treatment in performing an official duty. However, he failed to use any of these remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e85d97ea-df50-4e35-8009-db7aa43ae205", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The applicant \u2013 who did not initially have the assistance of a lawyer \u2013 originally alleged violations of Articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In his observations in reply to those of the Government, he withdrew all complaints other than those relating to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "420b2618-ad15-4620-a078-d2d162a9989d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government submitted, by way of preliminary objection, that a claim under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act was an effective remedy at the applicant\u2019s disposal. In any event, the applicant\u2019s suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity triggering the application of Article <mask> of the Convention as it had not gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering resulting from his sentence. Furthermore, following the refurbishment of Lovech Prison in the autumn of 2008, the cells of all life prisoners, including that of the applicant, had been equipped with sanitary facilities and all window frames had been changed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1eacdd54-5d40-442d-9012-c1605a10652e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers and that there had been no effective investigation into his complaints. In his complaints concerning the lack of effective investigation the applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention. The Court, however, considers it appropriate to examine these matters solely under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3868a183-0c82-448c-949e-89892c3d4e7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention were premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged infection with TB and the subsequent lack of adequate medical treatment for that disease in prison. Referring to a number of court decisions in unrelated but relevant civil cases, the Government argued that the applicant should have sued the relevant State authority and requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage under the relevant provisions of the General Administrative Code and the Civil Code. Furthermore, if he believed that he was sharing a prison cell with inmates infected with TB in Tbilisi Prison no. 5, he could have requested the prison authorities, under the Imprisonment Act of 22 July 1999, to arrange for him to be transferred to another, uncontaminated cell. The Government thus stated that the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a2b260bb-c64d-44d1-86e3-c0943aa96af6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant submitted that he had been arrested and detained unlawfully, contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further alleged that, contrary to the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention, upon his arrest and during his first period of detention he had been ill-treated and infected with HIV. He also complained that he had not been given the requisite medical assistance for his condition and had been held in inhuman conditions of detention during both periods of detention. He also contended that he had not had a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him as required by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant argued that there had been a breach of his rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention because he had not been able to have confidential meetings with his mother and because the prison administration had attempted to hinder the lodging of his application with the Court. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had not had any effective remedies, as provided for by Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1c3562cb-d7df-4a63-ae34-a33ab0e32eb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant disagreed and reiterated his complaints. In particular, he contended that his allegation of having been submitted to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention had been credible, inter alia, in view of the fact that he had been detained at the county police station in an irregular fashion for thirteen hours, and the ensuing investigation into his allegation had been neither effective nor institutionally independent. In addition, he submitted that he had had asserted his rights by lodging a criminal complaint and by pursuing the remedy available in that respect and emphasised that the authorities had failed to pursue the investigation on their own initiative, despite his mother having complained about his ill\u2011treatment in person to the head of the county police station and by telephone to the CIS."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "25648668-1009-47cd-b490-3e563d79f120", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants further complained that the refusal of their petitions was a degrading treatment in itself, that they were treated like criminals following the submission of their petitions, and that they were subjected to pressure and disciplinary punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that the refusal of the authorities to provide them with the opportunity to learn their mother tongue interfered with their private and family life, protected under Article 8 of the Convention, and deprived them of the possibility to learn about their parents\u2019 beliefs and culture, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Lastly, the applicants alleged, under Article 14 of the Convention, that they were discriminated against on account of their Kurdish ethnic origin and because of the fact that they wanted to learn Kurdish."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5c6d07fa-5189-4b7d-a647-019ae8062a7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been tortured in police custody. He also complained, relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, that his sentence had been changed from fifteen years to life imprisonment on the basis of an aggravating circumstance (the repeated offence of robbery) which had been excluded from the verdict. Lastly, the applicant complained, without referring to any provision of the Convention, of a lack of information and medical treatment in respect of his HIV infection."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a7607031-6170-422e-9172-f2d3c9e93c63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant asserted that her treatment by the police had attained the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this regard she stated that in addition to the haematomas recorded by the medical expert (see paragraph 12 above), she had suffered from a heart attack, high blood pressure and other medical problems. In addition, the applicant indicated that, in order to assess the severity of her treatment, it was relevant to note that the police had ill-treated her in a public place and in front of neighbours who had ridiculed her in the process. The police officers had not had any reason to detain her, since she had in fact invited them to accompany her to her apartment. She admitted that she had started to walk away from the police car by stepping two steps, when the police officers grabbed and twisted her arms behind her back."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5cac1a86-09b4-4e80-8deb-65ac0bf1f86c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government argued that an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had been conducted by the domestic authorities in that the medical reports, witness statements and statements of the accused had been evaluated during the course of the proceedings against the two police officers. They further contended that the discontinuation of those proceedings for being time-barred had not run contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7dae68b1-ee13-45f8-8a5e-8e4828c284be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant substantiated his complaint with medical documents dated 19 March 2006 which attested to fractures to his eighth and ninth ribs on the left side and abrasions and haematomas on his face, head, chest, back and hips (see paragraphs 30-32 above). The applicant\u2019s claim was therefore shown to be \u201carguable\u201d and the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation satisfying the above requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "16a02991-3ebe-4655-9aac-164e7b1b76e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected was so grave as to fall under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that for the treatment to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention it must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum is, by nature, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst many other authorities, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, \u00a7 100, Series A no. 161)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "42c4aa03-5ae9-4175-9784-3df66fb404fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The applicants alleged that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances in which their relatives had died disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to the witnesses' testimonies that the bodies were mutilated and bore numerous stab and firearm wounds. They also submitted that there existed overwhelming and compelling evidence that acts of torture and extra-judicial killings by soldiers were widespread in Grozny at the beginning of 2000."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5043d415-eefe-4d19-adb9-0e8395c6f38e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that the respondent State had not provided an effective remedy in relation to his arguable claim of having been subjected to acts of police brutality. He further argued that Macedonian legislation did not provide a time-limit within which the public prosecutor should consider a criminal complaint. He stated that the public prosecutor\u2019s \u201cletter\u201d of 10 October 2006 did not constitute a formal decision which would enable him to take over the prosecution as a subsidiary complainant. He was therefore prevented from having access to court proceedings in order to obtain redress for the violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "936a2ca2-3c64-499b-8179-d4fabc6a121e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not substantiated their claims and, thus, the application did not reveal a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the Swedish authorities applied the same kind of test when considering applications for asylum as the Court does when it examines complaints under Article 3. Moreover, the national authorities had made a thorough examination of the applicants\u2019 case and great weight should therefore be attached to their findings. This was in particular so since they were specialised bodies with expertise in the field of asylum law and practice."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ee91fbcb-f554-4a99-bf74-cf2df678cbdf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government further invited the Court to reject the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They contended, in particular, that an action for damages in the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, read together with Article 57 of the Civil Code, Article <mask> of the Convention or Article 7 of the Constitution, would have constituted an effective remedy in the instant case and listed, in this connection, a series of domestic decisions which, in their view, proved their point."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "803eca63-6c0f-47e9-b18d-8091cbc2e921", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government further stated that the application to the Court was belated, as it had not been filed within six months after the Supreme Court delivered, on 16 April 2002, the final judgment in the rape case. Referring to the fact that the applicant had never complained of ill-treatment before either the prosecution or the judicial authorities in the course of the rape case, the Government claimed that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "31657bdb-a25f-4404-addd-86dae8127b71", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention in that it had not attained the minimum level of severity. They submitted that the said treatment had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as three medical reports, drawn up by different doctors and obtained before and after the applicant\u2019s custody, indicated the same findings and as the applicant had failed to describe the alleged acts in detail. In this respect, the Government also contended that the case differed from other cases concerning ill-treatment in police custody, since in the applicant\u2019s case there had already been adequate evidence to charge him with an offence prior to his arrest."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a414f3e0-c93b-429b-aafc-a0ec630bdde1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants argued that based on their statements to the Court and to the national authorities, which had been corroborated by the provided medical certificates, it had been established that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers. Moreover, the investigation had not shown that the applicants had been behaving aggressively or had provoked the use of force in any way. Consequently, the attack they had endured had been unjustified and constituted ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0a5bbf13-60f0-468c-9595-61229a5bf0e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government did not contest that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had fallen short of the requirements of national standards and the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The local authorities had been actively taking measures aimed at rectifying the situation. At the same time, the Government considered that the fact that the applicant had been detained in such conditions did not show that there had been a positive intention to humiliate or debase him. The conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre had been improved following its refurbishment in June-August 2007. Lastly, they argued that the treatment the applicant had been subjected to as a result of his detention in the temporary detention centre had not gone beyond the threshold of severity set out in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7070bef0-39ac-4bc1-b016-1063b95efdb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had had the right to participate in educational and cultural activities, and to take part in sport. He had been allowed to listen to a radio and had had access to a library. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "00da07f3-b216-4105-b172-df649d30b435", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s allegations, and argued that he was not arrested by the police at the time of the events and that an ambulance was called soon after he started feeling unwell. Moreover, they submitted that there was no evidence in the file to support the applicant\u2019s allegations and to show that he was hit by police officer G.B. Relying on the medical and witness evidence available in the file, they argued that the cause of the change in the applicant\u2019s state of health was not the alleged physical attack he had been subjected to by police officer G.B. but the pre\u2011existent pathology, taken in conjunction with a stressful situation. In addition, they underlined that in this case it was established without a doubt that the applicant did not present any signs of violence and that the medical documents contained only his allegations in respect of a craniocerebral trauma. Consequently, it was impossible to determine on the basis of the evidence adduced whether or not the applicant had suffered treatment at the hands of the authorities in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "24a8d6c8-f867-4bfc-a7df-f1875b7e5eec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government, referring to their description of the detention conditions submitted to the Court (see paragraphs 14-25 above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all the measures necessary to ensure adequate conditions of detention, and that the applicant was afforded living space in excess of 4 sq. m for the most part of his detention. Consequently, his conditions of detention did not meet the level of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f60504ae-9f55-4b34-b98a-833c79cbb501", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant submitted that the verbal abuse and threats to which she had been subjected from a member of a right-wing group had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. She complained that the authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5ff02e27-c1bd-4b77-a939-ffa6248746ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial and behind a metal partition during the examination of the case on appeal had been in compliance with the domestic law and regulations in force at the material time (see paragraphs 12-14 above). The practice of placing defendants in metal cages in the courtroom was an ordinary security measure applied to all defendants detained on remand. Introduced over twenty years ago, it was perceived as customary by the parties to the criminal proceedings and third parties alike and a priori was not aimed at humiliating those to whom it was applied. The \u201cfeelings of humiliation, inferiority, shame and helplessness\u201d allegedly suffered by the applicant resulted not from his placement in a metal cage, but rather from a natural reaction to the negative consequences of his unlawful actions. There were no grounds for believing that the parties to the proceedings and third parties had had a biased or hostile attitude towards the applicant on account of his confinement in a metal cage. In any event, the case had not been of any heightened public or media interest. Furthermore, placement in a metal cage served the purpose of protecting a person from any possible attack by victims while at the same time allowing him or her to choose a comfortable posture and move behind the barriers freely. The Government further argued that the applicant\u2019s confinement behind a metal partition in the remand prison during his participation in the hearing of his case on appeal via a video link could not have caused him any negative feelings since, in any event, the remand prison was a place of social isolation where detainees spent most of their time on premises equipped with various safety facilities. The Government concluded, therefore, that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They made no submissions on the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3e0e6ce3-7c5c-4e1c-9c1f-666a97b819a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to properly use a constitutional remedy. In particular, they maintained that although he had complained to the Constitutional Court and invoked Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia that corresponded to Article <mask> of the Convention, he had failed to substantiate his complaints, and accordingly had failed to complain properly."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fc733ff5-2fa5-4809-a26c-c120f833f562", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government contested that argument. They stated that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant himself would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, if extradited to Kazakhstan. They further stated that on 18 September and 2 December 2004 the Government of Kazakhstan provided sufficient guarantees that the applicant would not be ill-treated and that his rights and interests during the investigation would be respected. The Government stated that there was no reason to believe that the applicant would be detained with the purpose of causing him physical or moral suffering. They stated that the authorities had to act in accordance with their international law obligations arising from the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Government further maintained that relevant and necessary medical treatment was provided to detainees in Kazakhstan and that the Kazakh government was undertaking measures to improve prison and medical conditions in detention facilities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "25cd9e7b-5038-4f0f-8906-d8e8e722c9f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government did not dispute that the applicant suffered from a disease which in itself entailed a risk to her life and her physical well-being. However, returning to Nigeria would not place her at risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. That risk had been assessed by the Aliens Office\u2019s medical adviser, taking into account the applicant\u2019s individual situation, the way her condition was developing, the medication she required and the existence of appropriate and sufficiently accessible treatment in Nigeria. In connection with the last point the Government referred to several reports, published by the NACA among others, which showed that Nigeria was implementing a policy of prevention among the most vulnerable sections of the population and had put in place a strategy of universal access to medication in public hospitals, subject to availability. The Government added that a kind of ARV treatment known as \u201chighly active antiretroviral therapy\u201d (HAART) now existed which produced very good results and was a combination of several drugs which all existed separately in Nigeria. The medical official\u2019s report also showed that the applicant was fit to travel and that her condition was not of sufficient concern at this stage to prevent her return to her country of origin."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "040f1b62-c406-4d1c-95e6-f46ce4c583f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-51/1 (SIZO-1) in Murmansk between 30 December 2003 and 21 May 2006, in correctional facility no. IK-16 in Murmashi between 21 May and 9 October 2006, in remand prison no. IZ-35/2 in Vologda between 12 and 17 October 2006, and in remand prison no. IZ\u201177/3 in Moscow between 18 October 2006 and 24 January 2007 had been inadequate. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "695589b6-2925-409d-b6ea-0b45332502fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant argued that his confinement and forced psychiatric treatment in the B\u0103l\u0163i psychiatric hospital caused him severe mental suffering amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reasons to disagree with the applicant and notes that no medical necessity to subject the applicant to psychiatric treatment has been shown to exist and that his subjecting to psychiatric treatment was unlawful and arbitrary (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above). Moreover, the Court notes the considerable duration of the medical treatment which lasted for forty-one days and the fact that the applicant was not allowed having contact with the outside world during his confinement (see paragraph 8 above). In the Court\u2019s view such unlawful and arbitrary treatment was at the very least capable to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority. Accordingly, the Court considers that the psychiatric treatment to which the applicant was subjected could amount at least to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "df007e7a-7d2f-462f-b823-fb62a6c041d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the conditions of his detention. He further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the duration of his detention and submitted that the reasons relied on by the national courts for ordering and extending his detention had been insufficient and inadequate throughout his detention. Article 3 and Article 5 \u00a7 3 read:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "65477230-44a1-4394-9609-c37e62d97117", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to describe sufficiently the risks in Libya because they had not applied to the Italian authorities for asylum. The mere fact that the applicants had opposed their disembarkation in Libya could not, according to the Government, be considered to be a request for protection, imposing on Italy an obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b0db1f38-1eb0-476d-bdd7-a407e7ee5fa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government observed that they did not have access to the relevant documents from the Lugansk SIZO in order to formulate a position on the substance of the applicant\u2019s grievances. At the same time, they argued that the applicant had failed to show that the conditions of his detention in that facility had been in breach of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6ddd143f-2948-4b6d-9c5d-91bd038653ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant disagreed. He maintained that neither he nor his representative had been informed about the aforementioned decision and therefore could not be reproached for not having challenged it. His mother, who was his official representative at the time, denied having received the letter from the Zhytomyr prosecutor referred to by the Government. In any event, the applicant considered that the issue of exhaustion of the domestic remedies was to be joined to the merits of his complaint under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5e615150-5e1e-4a1a-8643-33c3a8d38604", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicant reiterated his complaints. He claimed that the bulk of the information provided by the Government related to the period 2000\u20112005, which was subsequent to the applicant's period of detention, and that it related primarily to the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Prison. He noted, however, that he had also been detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service for four months in complete isolation, as had allegedly been admitted by the Government. In respect of this facility, he also noted that there had been no natural light in the cells, which continued to be situated underground. In addition, the applicant alleged that it had also been admitted by the Government that visits and access to newspapers and magazines had been restricted as they had both been subject to the approval of the Prosecutor's Office. In conclusion, he asserted that the conditions of detention in which he had been held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and the Pazardzhik Prison had been inadequate and had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b7a52fc0-e3a1-4788-a85d-e2c4e838c44c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention between 2001 and 2008 had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of inadequate medical assistance and incompatibility of the physical arrangements of his detention with his state of health. He further complained under the same provision of the misconduct of the officers of Penitentiary no. 47. The relevant provision of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "be6a0e81-ecd7-4ec4-b316-df9bfe8c3ff1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that her son had been beaten when being apprehended and that she had serious grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in detention. She further complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. Under this heading the applicant also submitted that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The respective Article reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2025960d-9cdb-4137-add0-baa8acea0c2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government noted that the first applicant had brought several actions under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (\u201cthe SMRDA\u201d) but had failed to inform the Court of their existence and outcome. They also observed that an action under the SMRDA represented a real and effective remedy in cases of poor conditions of detention and cited a number of court judgments in which domestic courts had awarded damages in connection with such claims. Accordingly, they claimed that the first applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. On the basis of these submissions they may also be understood as questioning in substance the first applicant's victim status. Furthermore, the Government were of the view that the suffering inflicted on the first applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on a report of 14 March 2008 of the Execution of Sentences Directorate of the Ministry of Justice, which stated that the sanitary conditions in the first applicant's cell in Varna prison had improved following various renovations, without specifying in which year these had been made, and that the first applicant had been ensured access to fresh air and natural light as well as to a toilet and running water during the day. It also stated, without elaborating further, that the food had been prepared in compliance with the applicable regulations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e3cd9344-6d9b-4129-ad97-338196df58e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained that on 14 September 2000 they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of the incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ea5cd55e-abe0-475b-a438-1b1a187d01c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained of police brutality and of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of ill\u2011treatment. He contended that the injuries inflicted on him had been caused by police officers without any justification. He further claimed that the criminal proceedings instituted by him against the police officers had lasted more than nine years. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c19e04fd-d99a-481f-822b-d14afaa1beb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, he failed to adduce any evidence such as medical documents and/or witness statements in support of his allegations. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d54f27be-ddd9-4067-91bd-9b4aa0a97a73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government stressed that the regime had been imposed on the applicant for a very short period of time during which he had been provided with adequate stimulation and human contact. In particular, twice a week he had the right to visit a library and a room equipped with a computer, a television and other means of entertainment. He was also entitled to receive visits. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "604bda64-0656-4c5c-9fae-f3a346186337", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The applicants in all the applications complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant parts of these Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2af0a0e6-69df-43cc-a3a8-8b52b1ac2826", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that there were several effective domestic remedies at the applicant's disposal. They argued that domestic law provided the applicant with adequate means of redress in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that a case had been brought against police officers from the Adana Security Directorate who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. In their observations of 26 June 2002, the Government claimed that the case was still pending and that the delay in the proceedings could not be attributed to the conduct of the domestic court since the reason for the postponements was the absence of the applicant and one of his witnesses."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "308a8165-2459-4254-a1ae-56db5c51fe79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s complaint had concerned only his detention from 25 April 2005 onwards, while he had had no objection to the conditions of detention in the same facility from 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005. They conceded that the conditions during both periods had been identical. However, they concluded that the applicant had not complied with the six-month rule in respect of the first period. They also contended that he had not complained about the conditions to any public authority, while being represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings. In particular, he could have lodged a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government acknowledged the insufficiency of cell space afforded to the applicant between December 2004 and mid-October 2005. However, they contended that the applicant had been given an individual sleeping berth and bedding. They submitted that the cell-space factor was an insufficient basis on which to conclude that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards Tomsk Remand Centre."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "84712019-7ba6-44d8-9246-75dcb75d1835", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of damage suffered on account of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also claimed EUR 5,000 for damage sustained as a result of the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Finally, he claimed EUR 50,000 for pecuniary damage flowing from the two alleged breaches of Article 8 of the Convention. He said that the search, which had been widely publicised, had seriously damaged his professional reputation and had no doubt deterred potential clients. He further claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage occasioned by the two alleged breaches of this provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "00ab512c-fe86-4cf3-b78b-044601522324", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained that the investigation into her beating was lengthy and ineffective. She invoked in this respect Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court which is master of characterization to be given in law to the facts of the case considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7c904914-dc60-498b-a0ae-71841a2bce99", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "48b42c30-715a-4928-b17f-26df4c76931e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant, with reference to the arguments which she had raised in the domestic proceedings, maintained that her sterilisation had not been a life-saving intervention and that it had had a lasting impact on her physical and psychological health, her relationship with her husband, and on her family and had affected her position within the Roma community. It had amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "25b7ce55-6ec6-4ac4-8125-a3f93936174e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant submitted that, in keeping with the Court\u2019s case-law as established in the judgments in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011) and Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had to be examined in concreto and in the light of all the facts of the case, taking into consideration the accessibility of treatment in the country of destination and the particular vulnerability of the person concerned."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f6bb2ff8-22fb-4293-81d9-421e384f4b20", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicants considered that the verbal and physical abuse to which they had been subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They further claimed that the Georgian authorities were responsible, via the conduct of their agents, for the violent dispersal of several large religious gatherings of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in 2000-2001. On a wider scale, the Georgian authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had taken no measures capable of preventing the widespread extension of religious violence against Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in the country and had refused to conduct prompt and efficient investigations into acts of violence of which they were fully aware and which had been perpetrated not only by private individuals but also by representatives of the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "46db9d3f-9ea8-44b1-8b0e-51b97bcaa50c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government submitted that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest on 29 October 2008 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that the applicant was a young and strong man and he had already been injured several times in his life, which should have certainly made him more tolerant to pain. Accordingly, the injuries which he had sustained during the arrest, for which he had received prompt medical assistance, could not have caused him suffering reaching the minimum level of severity to fall under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "793b9875-6f48-463a-a988-cca0d864c8d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["166.  The applicants were foreign nationals whom the Government would have deported from the United Kingdom had it been possible to find a State to receive them where they would not face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7\u00a7 125 and 127, ECHR 2008). Although the respondent State\u2019s obligations under Article 3 prevented the removal of the applicants from the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State nonetheless considered it necessary to detain them for security reasons, because he believed that their presence in the country was a risk to national security and suspected that they were or had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism and were members of, belonged to or had links with an international terrorist group. Such detention would have been unlawful under domestic law prior to the passing of Part 4 of the 2001 Act, since the 1984 judgment in Hardial Singh entailed that the power of detention could not be exercised unless the person subject to the deportation order could be deported within a reasonable time (see paragraph 87 above). Thus, it was stated in the derogation notice lodged under Article 15 of the Convention that extended powers were required to arrest and detain a foreign national \u201cwhere removal or deportation is not for the time being possible, with the consequence that the detention would be unlawful under existing domestic-law powers\u201d (see paragraph 11 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bf427090-db5d-4b89-99a1-192d4c4793b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his pre-trial detention. In particular, he complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prisons. Next, he alleged that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention. Further, he complained about the conditions of his transfer to and from the court-house and the conditions of detention in the assembly section of the remand prisons and the convoy room of the Moscow City Court. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "03be1807-c5f3-452e-998f-7f8d027c94fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to an unjustified use of force which amounted to torture, and had been further subjected to degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention since the police officer had insulted him and demanded that he plead guilty. He further invoked Article 13 of the Convention, stating that for more than seven years the State authorities had failed to protect his rights."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d625c199-2de7-41a8-bac2-89b1705b23a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants complained that the treatment to which they and their close family members had been subjected by the police officers during the events of 3 August 2004 had caused them great physical and mental suffering, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They also complained that the investigating and prosecuting authorities, as well as the court, had failed to proceed with an effective and impartial investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. In that connection the applicants invoked Article 3 as well as Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "edf45b6d-aced-4851-938d-49eef4f93f28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government argued that it was open to the applicant to bring a civil claim for compensation for any alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on a case lodged by a detainee (Nichita Ipate). They also submitted that in the case of Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no. 4834/06, \u00a7 67, 7 April 2009) the Court had acknowledged the existence in Moldova of a remedy in the form of lodging civil court actions."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f0a61657-15d4-4c44-81e6-daa72351d501", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government submitted that neither the conditions in the border police\u2019s detention facility in Vidin nor the manner in which the applicants had been provided there with food and drink had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, especially in view of the presence of both their parents and the limited amount of time which they had spent there \u2013 especially the fifth applicant, who had been out of the facility for several hours when taken to a hospital in Vidin on 18 August 2015. There was no requirement under Bulgarian law to detain minor migrants in specially adapted facilities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cea56de4-6dfe-4150-be33-f5fbcf6aa86c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 that his detention was unlawful, and under Article 5 \u00a7 4 that he had no possibility to challenge it. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of detention in the prison where he had been placed for one month, following the judgment of 15 October 1998, had been inadequate. The Court observes, however, that the applicant was detained until 30 September 1999. The Court further notes that these complaints were first submitted to this Court on 30 November 2004, that is more than five years after the detention. Accordingly, by virtue of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention, the Court is not required to examine this part of the application as it was lodged out of time."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8c32989f-9b0e-4fe9-82c6-d2bd704b5bfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government did not contest that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the temporary detention centre in Volsk had fallen short of the requirements of the national standards and the recommendations of the CPT. At the same time, the Government considered that the fact that the applicant had been detained in such conditions did not show that there had been a positive intention to humiliate or debase him. They further submitted that there were objective reasons for the domestic authorities\u2019 failure to ensure that the applicant was held in proper conditions at the temporary detention centre in connection with the on-going reform of the detention facilities. Lastly, they argued that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected as a result of his detention in the temporary detention centre had not gone beyond the threshold of severity set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the remand prison and the conditions in which he was transported between those two detention facilities, the Government asserted that they had been in compliance with domestic and international standards. The relied on excerpts from the remand prison population register and statements prepared by the administration of the remand prison in July 2010. They also submitted copies of receipts confirming the provision of the applicant with dry food ration on the days of his transfers from one detention facility to the other."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8b1e2645-f480-49d7-8a25-7da23a89dd38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The applicant did not claim that the general circumstances obtaining in Iran would on their own preclude his return to that country. Moreover, the Court notes that a general situation of violence will not normally in itself entail a violation of Article 3 in the event of an expulsion to the country in question (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, \u00a741, Reports 1997\u2011III). However, the Court has never excluded the possibility that the general situation of violence in a country of destination may be of a sufficient level of intensity as to entail that any removal to it would necessarily breach Article <mask> of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court would adopt such an approach only in the most extreme cases of general violence, where there is a real risk of ill-treatment simply because the individual concerned will be exposed to such violence in that country (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, \u00a7 218 and NA. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7 115)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8d382be9-434b-46b3-ab9c-0ae1818960d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government submitted that, generally, the alleged lack of medical treatment could not be considered as amounting to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the Government argued that the applicant had been provided with all necessary medical treatment. Specifically, they noted that all of the applicant's requests for medical examination had been satisfied and that he had been regularly examined by the government doctors and provided with necessary in-patient and out-patient treatment. After the applicant's in-patient treatment in the specialised hospital for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis, his health condition stabilised and no deterioration in his state of health was observed thereafter."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "da998abc-c81d-453f-b13c-183ffa3c8ff1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment her husband was probably subjected to while he was unlawfully held in detention and her anguish at the uncertainty about his fate, coupled with the authorities' indifference to her persistent efforts to request information and an effective investigation constituted a breach of her rights and those of her husband under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a7004398-5bcb-4a66-a532-399ebc1e4096", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained in substance under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in T\u00e2rgu Jiu Prison. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and the presence of bed bugs, inadequate ventilation and natural light, poor quality of food and a lack of segregation between smokers and non-smokers."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9ba94dae-a415-4034-ba28-5841a34bb63d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had incurred any non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3, the finding of a violation would itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, if the Court were to find a violation of the material and the procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government invited the Court to conclude that the applicant\u2019s claim was excessive and that any compensation had to be awarded on an equitable basis taking into account, inter alia, the existing case- law and socio-economic circumstances in Latvia."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3c83e75d-5754-479c-8012-6be7ab1dc4b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on 22 April 2004, in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation conducted by the authorities in response to his complaint of ill-treatment had been incomplete and contradictory. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4dda2e12-2fc9-4fca-b817-f775e8b95f4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "18117841-270c-49fc-8347-6b193068da7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant argued that her complaints fell to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the ill-treatment she had been subjected to attained the minimum level of severity required by the Court\u2019s case-law (Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, \u00a7 161, ECHR 2009). On this point, she maintained that the actual physical force which she had been subjected to on multiple occasions had not been moderate. She had been kicked in the face, buttocks and other parts of the body, grabbed by the throat, pulled by the hair, punched in the face and hit on the head. The applicant saw those physical injuries as serious enough not to be regarded as being \u201cof a merely trivial in nature\u201d, as suggested by the Government (see paragraph 55 below). Furthermore, the mere fact that the applicant had not suffered long\u00adlasting or permanent injuries did not mean that the ill-treatment had failed to reach the level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3, because in Tyrer v. the United Kingdom (25 April 1978, \u00a7 33, Series A no. 26) the Court had found a violation of Article 3, even though \u201cthe applicant did not suffer any severe or long lasting physical effects\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "327238e5-dfcd-4a09-9c6a-3fc7248a585b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicants concerned alleged that they had been ill-treated by a group of Orthodox extremists led by Father Basil while attending a hearing in the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. I. Geliashvili, E. Kakhelishvili, L. Nozadze and S. Kvergelidze escaped physical aggression (see paragraph 30 above). The Court therefore concludes that there no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under either its substantive or procedural head has been established in their respect (applicants nos. 26, 27, 30, and 33)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "22e22da4-c625-4918-8b98-56536f06d60e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government also pointed out that throughout the applicant\u2019s stay in the hospital her condition had been constantly monitored, she had been given the opportunity to move about and she had not made any other complaints about the conditions of her confinement. Moreover, her mental condition had later improved and was constantly improving. Thus, in the Government\u2019s view, neither the use of physical restraint nor the overall circumstances of the applicant\u2019s internment in the hospital had run contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ccbebd37-d16f-4570-bceb-e48a64d04192", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government treated the applicant\u2019s claim as a claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They submitted that the proceedings had not been excessively long and that the applicant\u2019s detention during the proceedings had been justified. Referring to the claim in respect of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the amount claimed was too high in the light of the Court\u2019s previous case-law in Article 3 cases concerning Moldova. They also submitted that in some cases the Court considered that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0346eb45-0872-48c1-b7ac-9289310d16b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial which had ended on 19 March 2012 and his placement behind a metal partition in the remand prison five months later, on 10 August 2012, for the purposes of participating, via a video link, in the appeal hearing of his criminal case did not give rise to a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d and that therefore the part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning his caging during the trial should be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "485e6324-070c-4d76-bb88-0c72f4670cda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Sultan Khatuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of her husband's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d33692a-de81-4fbb-8bcf-98bc115052db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicant complained that his detention from 19 December 2003 to 12 January 2004 in appalling conditions had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Without relying on any Convention provision he further complained that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy to obtain an improvement in the conditions of his detention. The Court considers that the applicant's complaints fall to be examined under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Article 3 is cited above. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "60062e08-0743-42b8-a4d3-3ee5841f5d45", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government considered that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention both in the remand prison and the correctional colony were in compliance with the standards prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. At no time was the applicant held in overcrowded cells. The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected. The Government relied on copies of the daily registers of the remand prison population and statements made by prison officers in December 2009. They further provided statements by the administration of the correctional colony where the applicant had been detained. They also submitted hand-drawn plans of the cells of the remand prison to substantiate their submissions concerning the layout of the prison cells and disciplinary cell no. 2 in the correctional colony. The plans were signed and stamped by the remand prison administration, but contained no measurements indicating the size of the cells."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "02759c9c-743a-418b-b198-422d7f618b67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The Government conceded that the facility, and in particular cell no. 55 in which the applicant had been held between 15 December 2004 and 31 August 2007, had been \u201csomewhat\u201d overcrowded, but argued that the conditions of his detention had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the fact that the applicant's complaints in respect of the conditions of his detention had been rejected by the domestic courts as unsubstantiated (see paragraphs 84, 86 and 89)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d5f0c24c-4afa-4b4c-9a8e-6546dc5b9891", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicants moreover argued that that there was no jurisprudence to show that they could have claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, such a claim, in any event, could not have improved their conditions. As regards lodging a claim with the Administrative Court, the applicants maintained that this remedy would have been ineffective as the claim would not have been resolved in due time. In support of this argument they referred to decision no. U 1319/2003 of 11 May 2004 issued in proceedings concerning the transfer of a sentenced prisoner because of problems relating to his mental health and conflicts with other inmates. The Administrative Court had remitted the case for re-examination one year after the prisoner\u2019s request had been rejected by the director-general of the General Administration."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d59ca30c-4509-4ec6-a87f-0e8303031843", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, asserted that the conditions of his hospital visits had been inhuman and degrading as the obligation to wear prison clothing, handcuffs and ankle cuffs had exposed him to the public as a prisoner. The handcuffs and ankle cuffs had, moreover, caused him physical pain, distress and mental suffering and had triggered his urges to self-harm. The members of the escort team had demonstrated their power over him by carrying their firearms and special equipment visibly during the visits. The measures employed had been disproportionate as he had never tried to escape. In any event, other less restrictive means (like a GPS tracker and/or an escort team waiting behind a door) would have been sufficient. The applicant asserted that he had asked to be allowed to wear his own clothes, but permission had been denied. He had even refused to see a doctor shortly after being taken to the hospital on 27 October 2011 as he had been worried about what impression it would give to other people."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "52c484ea-cc8a-47a2-8369-36cbcef4b650", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government submitted that the allegation of religious persecution against the applicant had been checked by the migration authorities when examining his refugee application and had been rejected as unfounded. The migration authorities had relied on the statement from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that there was no risk of ill-treatment for persons who committed criminal offences in Uzbekistan. The Government noted, however, that the applicant had not raised his complaint under Article 3 before the district judge who had ordered his expulsion. With reference to assurances from the Uzbek authorities and Uzbek legislation (see paragraphs 75 and 77 above), the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to any ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4898f913-4224-4b71-9e63-2736a1a199f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicant initially claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the alleged breach of Article 8 (in her reply to the Government\u2019s observations of 10 April 2012) and a further EUR 200,000 in respect of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (in her reply to the Government\u2019s additional observations of 25 December 2013). In addition, in her reply to the Government\u2019s observations of 10 April 2012, she also asked that the respondent State be obliged to buy her share in the disputed flat at a fair price, corresponding to the market value of half the flat, in order to enable the applicant to buy another flat, which would belong to her exclusively."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5194078a-35a9-417e-8bdd-df038d7f9a76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not received adequate and sufficient medical treatment during his detention. He submitted, in particular, that there had been no medical staff in the Sevastopol ITT, where he had been detained. The applicant contested the veracity of the explanations of Mr D. (see paragraph 43 above), alleging that the latter had been working in the ITT as a guard, not as a medical attendant. In substantiation, he referred to the fact that the extract from the medical logbook had been signed by the acting chief of the ITT (see paragraph 29 above), not by a medical specialist, for there had been none. Lastly, the applicant insisted that his health condition had warranted his hospitalisation and in-patient treatment, which, although this was confirmed by doctors on many occasions, had been denied to him."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f4152ef3-5221-4aa4-a15e-dbae9b13b6f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government also maintained that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention had been lodged prematurely as the preliminary investigation concerning Mr Gutsanov was still pending. The Court can discern no direct link between the criminal proceedings to which the Government referred and the applicants\u2019 complaint: the proceedings in question are not designed to establish whether the agents of the State safeguarded the applicants\u2019 physical well-being or dignity, but rather to ascertain whether Mr Gutsanov was guilty of conspiracy and of various other criminal offences linked to his position as chairman of Varna municipal council ..."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "54015a92-9a1f-489d-88e3-aec52dcbc406", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government disagreed with these allegations. They stated that the first applicant and Umar Zabiyev had not been subjected to ill-treatment by State agents and that the allegations of the ill-treatment had been investigated. They emphasised it was impossible to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of Umar Zabiyev given that those responsible for his injuries mentioned in the forensic report of 11 June 2003 had not been identified. They further asserted that the first applicant had sustained mildly severe bodily injuries and that an investigation into their infliction had been opened, but submitted no information on progress in that investigation. The first applicant had also been granted victim status in case no. 23600032 concerning her son's killing."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "851188c0-2d2c-49a2-a960-bec7b88c38de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The Government first argued that the applicant\u2019s regime in Daugavpils Prison had not exceeded the minimum threshold to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the construction works in the unit for life-sentenced prisoners in Daugavpils Prison had been finished by July 2008. They argued that the applicant could have taken part in recreational and educational activities, such as daily exercise (for one hour), use of the gym with a TV set (one and a half hours), use of the computer room (one and a half hours) and use of the library. Moreover, he had been offered an opportunity to work in prison, but as he had refused to come to work on a number of occasions, he had been fired. The Government also submitted that the constant use of escort dogs had been stopped in 2007 and that \u201ctheir use is limited to emergency cases\u201d. In addition, panels conducting the individual risk assessment of life-sentenced prisoners had commenced their work."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5b547222-b4b1-452a-93f3-0a0028b720b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government further stated that the first applicant\u2019s complaints had been duly investigated at the domestic level \u2013 in particular, a number of police officers had been questioned and two medical examinations had been performed \u2013 and that there were sufficient grounds for the decision refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. The Government opined that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards the first applicant\u2019s complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "41a2bc61-206a-4927-8c3e-57aa97b93d30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government argued that the police officers had not hit the applicant but merely ordered him to stop filming and pushed away the camera. In any event the State authorities had examined the complaint lodged by the applicant and the police officers in question had been admonished by the Minister of Internal Affairs for their behaviour. In so far as the conditions of the applicant's detention were concerned, the Government contended that the detention had been too short for the suffering to attain the minimum threshold of severity necessary to trigger a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed to the case of Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (no. 4) (no. 18491/07, \u00a7\u00a7 37-39, 7 April 2009), in which a complaint concerning poor conditions of detention had been declared inadmissible on account of the short duration of the detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a50c66e7-192a-437d-92b0-ad1e08d3d4c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government referred to the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant\u2019s complaints and submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations had been properly investigated in conformity with the requirements of the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. The fact that the applicant\u2019s allegations had not been confirmed did not mean that the investigation had been ineffective."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "381bc281-ec30-4f4c-b892-b7af0eb1d736", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also complained under this heading that Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had probably been subjected to ill-treatment upon their respective abductions. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d5538c97-8cee-4d30-84a5-9fecf0533e27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman treatment and deprived of food. He complained under Article 5 of the Convention that there had been no judicial authorisation of his detention from 14 July 2004 to 8 June 2005; that he had not been afforded an opportunity to be present at the remand hearing on 21 February 2007 and on appeal on 14 June 2007."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ce5f9f18-965b-4b2d-bb6f-5e6cd8645a89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government relied on the information from the US Department of State Reports that persons arrested for political reasons were treated better than \u201cordinary\u201d prisoners and presumably were therefore not subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is however of the opinion that better treatment does not necessarily mean treatment in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention. At the same time it notes other reports that torture and other ill-treatment of protesters and detainees was widespread at that time. It also notes the admission of the Guinean Government in 2010 before the UN Human Rights Council that \u201cserious and massive\u201d human rights violations were committed between June 2006 and September 2009."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "118b14c2-2dff-42f5-be5f-d173428ef8f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either the applicants or Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the level of suffering allegedly caused to the applicants by the fact of their relatives' disappearance, that, in the Government's view, was beyond the evaluation of the law enforcement authorities and could not be objectively measured, as it related to psychological aspects, such as the emotions and personalities of the individuals concerned."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1e4af23e-743f-4306-8dc7-8a403259b551", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. His case had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in his favour had been issued. The applicant had received adequate and sufficient compensation and, as regards \u0160iauliai Remand Prison, the number of inmates there had constantly changed over the course of 235 days, and thus that had positively affected the applicant\u2019s personal space. The compensation for this period could thus be reduced. The Government also stated that, as regards Klaip\u0117da police station, the applicant had received adequate compensation, and it had to be taken into account that at all times he had had more than 4 square metres of personal space there. Finally, the Government argued that although in Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison the applicant had not had enough personal space for one evening and the partition between the sanitary facilities and the rest of the cells had not been sufficient, the acknowledgement of the violation of the applicant\u2019s rights had been sufficient."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c2f863e0-cfbe-41c8-9d44-2de74fc293ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants alleged that the conditions of their detention had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, drawing the Court\u2019s attention in particular to the lack of outdoor activities and the poor quality of the food. They argued that their detention in police stations for such long periods of time had constituted per se a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and cited the Court\u2019s judgments in Vafiadis v. Greece (no. 24981/07, 2 July 2009), Shuvaev v. Greece (no. 8249/07, 29 October 2009) and Ibram v. Greece (no. 39606/09, 25 October 2011), in which the Court had found a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention at Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "798facea-d772-4410-8646-906e3995abaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. In this connection they also relied on Article 13 of the Convention and alleged that they had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaint of ill-treatment by the police officers because the public prosecution had become time-barred, resulting in the discontinuance of the proceedings. The applicant in application no. 38513/05 also invoked Article 6 of the Convention in this respect."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "78e66212-7e64-452f-b414-8862560c00e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (see \u0141atak, cited above, in \u00a7\u00a7 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had been moved to a cell in which he had been secured at least the statutory minimum standard space of 3 m2 per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "50203f85-63cb-4281-bd6d-ab0baa5c3931", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant argued that a further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division in the asylum proceedings, as well as in the proceedings on the exclusion order, was not an \u201ceffective\u201d remedy as the Division would not have reviewed the facts on the basis of which the Regional Court had found that the applicant\u2019s removal would not be contrary to Article 3. In this connection, he relied on three rulings given by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division on 27 April 2005 (no. 200409315/1), 17 June 2005 (no. 200501236/1) and 7 July 2005 (no. 200500948/1) respectively. In these three rulings the Administrative Jurisdiction Division reiterated its well-established case-law at that time that an individual member of a group against which organised, large-scale human rights violations are committed must establish that specific facts and circumstances exist relating to him or her personally in order to qualify for the protection offered by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ea3f045f-3faf-46d5-be34-eb591cdab7d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government, for their part, referred to the Independent Administrative Panel's decision of 3 September 1999. They underlined that it had held a number of hearings, some of which had been conducted shortly after the events at issue, and that it had carried out a visit on the spot. Assessing the applicant's complaints in the light of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Independent Administrative Panel had come to the conclusion that they were unfounded."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "211b8fd1-4802-45ab-a2f8-775eff760f1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government argued that Article 3 was not applicable to the present case since the applicant had suffered only bodily injuries of a lesser nature. Should the Court nonetheless find Article 3 applicable, the Government maintained that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention did not require a judgment convicting the perpetrators of a crime. Therefore, the Court\u2019s assessment should be limited to the effectiveness of the investigation. In that connection the Government stressed that there had been an investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of an attack against him and that the State Attorney\u2019s Office and the police had established all the relevant facts. They had heard evidence from the applicant, the alleged assailants and two independent witnesses. These authorities had not found any indication that the attack on the applicant had been racially motivated. Since the alleged perpetrators had been either minors or young adults, special provisions were to be applied. The Government admitted that the criminal proceedings had been terminated owing to expiry of the statutory limitation period, but argued that that in itself could not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7c6c491d-07e9-4c8b-8f77-c5f64f8fd033", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that he had not received adequate medical care while in detention. He further complained that the date for his operation had repeatedly been postponed and that it had been the authorities\u2019 responsibility to have it rescheduled. He alleged that the delay in performing his operation had resulted in the deterioration of his health and in other forms of suffering. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c92c81a9-6bec-47ee-9dfc-e2105d65bf86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicant referred to his factual submissions (see paragraphs 33-35 and 48 above) and maintained that the physical conditions of his detention in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs had been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Both buildings dated from the nineteenth century and needed complete renovation. Both had been severely overcrowded, poorly lit and ventilated and had lacked proper sanitary facilities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d8898ad8-5d76-41cb-b3ad-f5ca1c4d1f55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies in relation to both applications because the Federal Constitutional Court, in its leading decision of 5 February 2004 to which that court's decision in his case had referred, had also had regard to the provisions of the Basic Law which corresponded to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d64b20e5-988a-4632-a166-96d7646eee07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government submitted in respect of the applicant\u2019s first detention in the detention facility of the General Police Station that he had been detained in four different cells which measured between seven and thirteen square metres and contained three to four persons at any time. Every cell had a window through which natural light passed. The inmates were disinfected every seven days. Every cell had a sanitary facility with running water and the inmates were provided with products for personal hygiene. The applicant was provided with medical assistance every time he requested it. The food was appropriate and was provided to the applicants in accordance with the existing norms. According to the Government the CPT reports relied on by the applicant were no longer up to date because between 2004, when the last CPT report had been adopted, and 2005 the situation had improved. In any event the applicant\u2019s detention was too short to attain the minimum threshold of suffering required under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b5e83207-a1fc-429d-829b-c6709e48d49e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading to the punishment of the police officers responsible for the treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eeddd0a1-90ca-4dad-a973-ddc10b338ebd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the material conditions of detention while he was in the custody of the Prahova Police Department. Moreover, he complained under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him for murder had been unfair in so far as the witnesses for the prosecution had mostly been relatives of the victims, the domestic courts had misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions and lacked impartiality, and he had not been able to have witnesses examined in his defence. Lastly, the applicant complained in substance under Article 8 of the Convention that he had been unable to contact his family while he was in the custody of the Prahova Police Department."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6b55efbd-4e3e-4158-aa73-5bdf23a7bed5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant maintained that the cells had been severely overcrowded, that he had not had a separate bed, that there had been no ventilation or privacy during the use of sanitary facilities. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, he submitted that the cumulative effects of overcrowding, absence of ventilation, excessive temperatures and lack of privacy had manifestly exceeded the \u201cminimum level of severity\u201d required for the treatment to be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b0afbb43-42bc-4278-b155-ece2a1e72bce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that despite the serious nature of his injuries the police officers who had inflicted the ill-treatment on him had not been punished. He further maintained under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings against the police officers had been excessive. Under the same head, he contended that the Istanbul Assize Court had dismissed his objection to the judgment of 23 December 2008 without awaiting his submissions and without holding a hearing. Finally, the applicant alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that he had been denied an effective remedy in domestic law on account of the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against the police officers."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1250813f-0dee-40d8-b4bd-b7566e30138d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant submitted that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment for his periodontitis. More specifically, his doctor\u2019s recommendation in 2009 that he be given a dental prosthesis and moved to a semi-liquid or liquid diet had never been acted on by the authorities. As a result, he had had to endure constant pain and hunger, he had lost almost 70 % of his teeth and had developed an ulcer and gastroduodenitis. He had brought this situation to the attention of the competent authorities on numerous occasions but to no effect. The applicant contended that the regulations which provided that the cost of dental prostheses for prisoners who do not have any income shall be supported jointly by the social security scheme and the prison\u2019s budget were ineffective since there was no special budget allocated for prosthetic work for prisoners and, according to the information submitted by the national authorities, only two prisoners had benefited from this system of payment between 2012 and 2013. The applicant concluded that the suffering he had endured because of the authorities\u2019 inaction for a period of more than five years had gone beyond the threshold necessary to constitute degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a1e9b8ed-b5db-4a34-94df-1a47644c8b90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government reiterated their account of the detention conditions at the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre (see paragraphs 18-20 above) and stated that those conditions complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They provided photos of some of the sleeping and communal areas, as well as copies of the logs recording the number of male detainees at the removal centre on various dates during the applicant\u2019s detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8955e7f8-cdff-40a9-abac-021c3b4cb1e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison was premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged negligence on the part of the prison authorities. In addition, they also claimed that the complaint was unsubstantiated. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had been provided with adequate medical treatment for all of his ailments throughout his detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "58c229e6-d449-4f7a-b881-3eac8a15a3c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government referred to the Court's finding in Sarban (cited above, \u00a7 78) that the material conditions of the applicant's detention did not exceed the level of severity required for an issue to arise under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court referred in that paragraph to the conditions of detention at the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (\u201cthe CFECC\u201d, see paragraphs 26 and 45-47 in Sarban), while the applicant complained in the present case about the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13, another institution. The Court recalls the CPT's finding in paragraph 53 of its 2004 report in respect of the CFECC that \u201cthe material conditions in this remand centre prove that it is clearly possible to ensure in Moldova adequate material conditions of detention\u201d. Unfortunately, the same could not be said about Prison no. 13 in Chi\u015fin\u0103u."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "466f0bf2-798d-48d4-b545-605830915c8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government submitted that the allegation that the applicant would suffer political persecution had been checked by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order and had been rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office that there would be no risk of ill\u2011treatment for the applicant if he were extradited to Uzbekistan and that the capital punishment was abolished by the countries' authorities. With reference to assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d34d4f68-e937-4ea3-9fcd-11d3778b7928", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if returned to Uzbekistan he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. His representatives further supplemented his complaint, submitting that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of his secret transfer to Uzbekistan, which could only have been achieved with the active or passive involvement of the Russian authorities, and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a21e2cd-fcaf-46a9-a83d-806ea974b1dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant disagreed and claimed that her lawyer had complained twice to the domestic courts about the inadequacy of the medical assistance available to her as an epileptic. She submitted copies of the complaints made to the investigating judge and the Chi\u015fin\u0103u Court of Appeal in which her lawyer had asked for her release in order for her to obtain the medical assistance required by her illness, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, she had allegedly made verbal complaints to the prison administration, but to no avail."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5d651d52-33fd-4990-8aed-b9c081170e6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained that the judgment in his favour had not been enforced in good time. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also decided, of its own motion, to examine this issue under Article 13 of the Convention. The relevant provisions of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1a7512a7-bc79-4d5c-8d56-bdefd119d985", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant maintained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected amounted to torture. The Government did not comment. The Court observes that the applicant sustained multiple injuries to his chest, left leg and foot. The injuries must have caused him mental and physical suffering. Moreover, it appears that the use of force was aimed at debasing the applicant, driving him into submission and making him confess to a criminal offence. Therefore, the Court finds that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected was sufficiently serious to be considered inhuman and degrading within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "124246b5-c063-4ef4-bb48-36b44b2540c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured psychological distress in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The second applicant also complained under this Convention provision that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by the servicemen who had abducted Isa Aytamirov and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of the alleged ill-treatment. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "75366566-6f5f-4588-a915-69aef8bb8fa4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted that the allegation that the applicant would suffer political persecution had been checked by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order and had been rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Uzbek authorities that there would be no risk of ill\u2011treatment for the applicant if he were extradited to Uzbekistan. With reference to assurances from their Uzbek counterparts the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "946d18a3-16b3-481e-8353-728a17d255dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but he had not availed himself of those remedies. In particular, they contended that he could have challenged the decisions of 11 September 2003 and 1 March 2004 before a court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, but he had never used that remedy. They also argued that the applicant would be able to receive compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in criminal or civil proceedings if the guilt of those responsible for inhuman treatment in his respect was established by a final and binding court decision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e06d1642-535a-4dee-a0fa-b5244d2025b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["381.  The Government disputed the applicant\u2019s argument that his request for a stay of execution had no chance of succeeding, producing five of the Board\u2019s judgments from 2008 and 2009 ordering the suspension of transfers to Greece under the extremely urgent procedure on the ground that, in view of the gravity of the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, the order to leave the country was not, prima facie, sufficiently well-reasoned. According to the Government, it was always in the applicants\u2019 interest to proceed with their applications for judicial review so as to give the Aliens Appeals Board and then the Conseil d\u2019Etat an opportunity to propose a solution and analyse the lawfulness of the impugned measures."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e1731b15-454e-4d2f-a069-abd008b7e5f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government contested that argument. They considered that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the special detention centre in Ivanovo had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. It was impossible to provide any data concerning the daily population of the cells in the detention centre, since the applicable national legislation did not require such data to be kept. In any event, the personal space afforded to the applicant had at all times been in compliance with domestic standards. The Government\u2019s submissions were based on a report prepared by the district prosecutor\u2019s office on 22 February 2012."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ab88b112-ccaf-4981-9b1e-e1f3cf188853", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant argued that in view of the severity of the attack against him and the injuries he had sustained, Article 3 was applicable to the present case. As to the compliance of the State with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant argued that real and effective protection from the act of ill-treatment required effective investigation and prosecution. In this connection he stressed that the State\u2019s positive obligation could not be limited to merely conducting an investigation. An investigation did not serve any purpose on its own, nor, alone, did it provide any protection against and redress for ill-treatment where it was not accompanied by effective follow-up. He maintained that the State authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his case and that they had also failed to apply the relevant criminal-law mechanisms in an adequate manner. The investigating authorities had failed to act effectively and numerous mistakes and delays had occurred, causing the prosecution to become time-barred. In the applicant\u2019s view, the time-barring itself amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Although the assailants had admitted in their interviews with the police that they had hit the applicant, the State Attorney\u2019s Office had brought a criminal prosecution against only one of them, B.B."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "16281bdd-50cd-446e-a589-ae8ba8f6d39b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells and inadequate health care."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f2a38398-07f1-4402-b6ff-2be098bd2d00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, he further alleged that he had been denied a fair trial and an effective remedy in respect of his ill-treatment complaint. He maintained, in particular, that the national authorities had failed to carry out an effective official investigation capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible for torturing him."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cc8de06d-6011-4d4b-ac71-dfecc0010c69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government argued that in the internal enquiry held following the applicant\u2019s complaint to the Supreme Court about the alleged breach of his voting rights, the complaints as to the verbal insults of the prison guards proved untrue as the prison guards denied the applicant\u2019s allegations. The Government emphasised that the Supreme Court in its decision of 27 October 1993, had carefully assessed the circumstances of the case and found no breach of the applicant\u2019s voting rights. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. "], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d3b09692-4d1f-4c24-af1f-4bc3693b83cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate and prosecute the individuals who had assaulted him. He invoked Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see, among other authorities, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, \u00a7 54, 17 September 2009, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8d3ebb95-563b-450e-b54a-b5403a89744a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Valmiera Prison had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that as a result of the prison administration\u2019s refusal to provide him with personal hygiene products such as toilet soap, a toothbrush, toothpaste and toilet paper he had constantly felt dirty and humiliated. He also alleged that the toilets were not separated from the rest of the cell."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ddc417b5-293e-4bb3-be64-1b721d65f8c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant alleged that, in the course of his detention in the custody of the Istanbul police headquarters between 6 and 20 November 1992 (see paragraphs 6\u20117 above), he had been subjected to serious forms of torture in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further alleged that he had been detained in police custody for a period of 14 days before being brought before the judge at the Istanbul State Security Court on 20 November 1992. In the applicant's opinion, he had not been brought promptly before the judge, in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant alleged that his inability to benefit from early release pursuant to Law no. 4616 on account of the fact that he had been convicted under Article 168 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 8 above), violated his rights under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e6d984d5-2306-44c7-a91c-cc04cd41ad0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants complained that none of the domestic authorities had reviewed the merits of their claim that they faced treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in their country of origin. At the same time the requests for judicial review of the decisions not to grant them asylum had had no automatic suspensive effect. Replying to an objection of the Government on the ground that he had withdrawn his request for a judicial review in the asylum proceedings, the first applicant stated that this had been due to the fact that he had already been held at the airport for a long time and he intended to lodge a new asylum application by which he hoped to be released from the airport reception centre. However, he had not been able to do so while his original application had been pending."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e0c685d9-e38c-4d21-8c6b-f2b42c0c2f60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government listed the cells in which the applicant was kept in the Gdansk Detention Centre. They acknowledged that between 29 August and 1 September 2005 and between 12 and 15 September 2005 the space per person in the applicant\u2019s cells had been inferior to 3m\u00b2. They argued, however, that the applicant had not suffered inhuman or degrading treatment which attained the minimum level of severity within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6062498d-630b-4866-b96e-7f694576ef04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that while in police custody he had been subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture. He further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a serious and impartial investigation into his allegations of ill\u2011treatment and that they had thus deprived him of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "69efb76c-5ef6-4682-b8ca-f652004fbd44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government argued that their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had been fully discharged. As regards the applicant\u2019s medical treatment, they submitted that shortly after his very first complaint to the resident doctor in October 2013, he had been subjected to an in-depth medical examination and had received comprehensive medical treatment comprising injections, a drug regimen and physiotherapy. The authorities had used their utmost efforts to restore his health. In support of their arguments the Government submitted the applicant\u2019s complete medical file."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "63f031e6-adab-4d07-b907-24e844c23c60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that his detention at the G\u00fczel\u00e7aml\u0131 gendarmerie station was unlawful and thus in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. He also alleged under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 4 of the Convention that he had not been provided with information at any stage of his detention regarding the reasons for his deprivation of liberty, its maximum length or any means of challenging it. Lastly, he maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions in which he was detained at the G\u00fczel\u00e7aml\u0131 gendarmerie station, coupled with the mental anguish arising from lack of communication with the outside world, the uncertain length of the detention and the risk of being deported, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "25db8420-f01d-4fa9-a6ea-a07cc62c19c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["284.  The Government submitted that the claims were exorbitant, that the amounts sought were far higher than any previous awards made by the Court in conditions-of-detention cases in Bulgaria. In their view, the mere finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants, especially in relation to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention flowing from Mr Harakchiev\u2019s whole life sentence. The Government noted that Mr Harakchiev had served less than ten years of his sentence and, having shown no signs of remorse or rehabilitation, was not in a position to seek a modification of his prison regime or an adjustment of his sentence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4d2b5628-10e4-4faa-9c34-b0b3c477701a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant submitted that her injuries were serious enough to bring the case within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, with special regard to her sex, the unlawful nature of the policeman\u2019s action and that she, being a foreigner, did not speak Hungarian. She had, therefore, not understood what was happening. Concerning the mental effects, she submitted that she had felt deeply humiliated and had experienced considerable psychological trauma, which had resulted in her decision to leave Hungary."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "82e2b27c-cd70-4fe1-b6a9-2922a25089e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during and after his abduction Bashir Mutsolgov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate that allegation. They also submitted that, as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3e746880-cee8-4a12-93ec-574990eab7d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government went on to say that since the amount of time that the applicant had spent in police detention had been quite brief, the conditions of that detention had not reached the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also disputed parts of the applicant\u2019s account of the conditions in the pre-trial detention facility and of the medical care provided to him there."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a2c71c3-94d3-4d17-8c49-dce2500d9ad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government also reiterated that the reason why the domestic authorities had refused to reopen criminal case no. 50207598 was not because the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had been established in a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government and accepted by the Court, but because the unilateral declaration did not and could not contain any new facts or evidence that could be used in the investigation to remedy the shortcomings which had led the Government to concede a violation of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "834516dc-10aa-41ae-a89b-d8f359e28d7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration on 26 September 2014. In particular, they acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the remand centre had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, and expressed their readiness to pay the applicant 3,765 euros (EUR) as just compensation. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The remainder of the declaration read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a0e5c827-b26c-4973-a558-c5864b61031a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had already been awarded damages in the domestic proceedings on account of the poor living conditions in Varna Prison for the period from 25 February 2003 to 19 April 2004. They further argued that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open to him to seek damages in respect of the remaining period of his detention in that prison. They cited a number of judgments in which domestic courts had awarded damages in connection with poor conditions of detention. Furthermore, the Government were of the view that the suffering inflicted on the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the conditions in which the applicant had been detained in Varna Prison had been the same for all prisoners and therefore had not revealed any intention of humiliating the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "71d993f9-e9e9-4cbb-a6de-22b944a4c8eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.   The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 from 23 December 2002 until 8 October 2010, including his detention in solitary confinement from 10 December 2008 to 8 October 2010, as well as the conditions of his detention in correctional facility IK-56 from 4 November 2010 onwards had amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the Russian authorities had placed him in solitary confinement and thus in social isolation, and that they had taken no steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical care. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d84079c-ad0e-461c-93d2-473a2824b103", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention of M.S.A. and R.K. in the detention centre for foreign nationals, because the conditions of their detention had been in full compliance with the domestic standards regulating such centres. The Government also submitted that the duration of their stay there had been relatively short, but did not make any further observations on the merits of the present complaint."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "263b5a77-b3c2-48c7-9a4e-db9673bf15d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government further submitted that they had not been able to duly examine the applicant\u2019s description of the conditions of detention and to substantiate their own position because the relevant documents had been destroyed after the expiry of the relevant statutory time-limits. Therefore, the case should not be examined solely on the basis of information provided by the applicant unless it was supported by relevant material. The applicant could have obtained such documents if he had applied to a domestic court for compensation in respect of damage sustained as a result of the allegedly poor conditions of detention. The Government pointed out, referring to the case of Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009), that the effectiveness of such a remedy was not in doubt. The analyses in the domestic case-law showed that Russian citizens had actively applied that remedy. A number of persons in the Perm and Kazan regions had obtained compensation for damage sustained as a result of unacceptable conditions of detention. In the case of Mr. S., the Yoshkar-Ola Town Court of the Republic of Mariy-El had acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and made an award for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 250,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Mr D. had been awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 25,000."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a7f72021-f317-4e27-89b0-abe4a63756c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that in 1998 the police officers had beaten him up and forced him to confess. He further complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, about the restrictions on his right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice. He also complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d), of the Convention that the court did not hear the defence witnesses until two years after the criminal proceedings had been instituted."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9d548d68-2a52-4fa4-a521-417a8d291353", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had endured mental suffering because of the national authorities\u2019 reaction to the disappearance of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and their failure to investigate it properly. The third applicant complained under the same Convention provision that he had been subjected to ill-treatment after his abduction and that the national investigation into the matter had not been adequate. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c2a9cc4d-150f-4061-a058-cb4668485f86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government submitted that they had indeed applied close and rigorous scrutiny to ascertain all relevant facts to establish that the applicant would not be at risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if expelled to Sudan. Regarding the overall credibility of the applicant\u2019s submissions, the Government submitted that his statements regarding the itinerary he had taken while fleeing were only one piece of evidence, among others which raised doubts about the alleged persecution the applicant would face if returned to Sudan. As established in the first asylum proceedings, the applicant had also made inconsistent and contradictory statements about the name of the village where he claimed to have grown up and had further lacked basic knowledge of the region he claimed to originate from."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8f445ac8-b904-42fc-94be-8f321e480f0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put by the Court on 27 March 2015. In this connection, the Court notes that, in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court therefore cannot conceive of allowing authorities to circumvent an interim measure, such as the one indicated in the present case, by replacing expert medical opinion with their own assessment of an applicant\u2019s situation. However, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case. In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which was to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant, independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continued exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, \u00a7 67, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, \u00a7 222, 14 March 2013)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "45acae96-6109-48b1-95e5-e4d95590d957", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant in order to complain about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of lack of adequate medical care in detention, in compliance with Article 13 of the Convention. They cited, in particular, \u201ca possibility of lodging applications with the State authorities and courts\u201d. However, the applicant had failed to use them. The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaint was in any event manifestly ill-founded as the applicant had been provided with appropriate medical assistance during his detention in remand prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "61c20985-f129-44b9-9bca-2dc5b81ba583", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the applicant did not stay in the Kopeysk IVS continuously, but rather for short periods of up to three days. Furthermore, he was often taken out of the cell to take part in investigations or to attend court hearings. The applicant had sufficient personal space at this disposal and also had had the right to one hour of outdoor exercise daily. Although the cells did not have tables or bed linen, the conditions of the applicant's detention were generally compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a27a2cfb-bdc0-4e9b-a492-55e2d55e60d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He failed to bring a civil action for compensation under Articles 23 and 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code whereby persons deprived of their liberty who had suffered a violation of their personal rights as a result of the conditions of their detention may bring a civil action against the State Treasury. They provided some examples of the domestic practice in this respect."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b6b838ba-fa04-48ca-87ac-546d6603db43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government considered that the medical treatment prescribed and administered to the applicant had been in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been under regular medical supervision and had received the necessary medication. His condition could be said to be satisfactory and stable. On the other hand, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant had been negligent in following the prescribed treatment. In particular, on several occasions he had refused to undergo antiretroviral therapy. As regards his tuberculosis infection, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant had contracted it prior to being remanded in custody. The reactivation of tuberculosis during the applicant\u2019s detention had been provoked by HIV."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3826adc9-e84c-4393-a855-8c47788642b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had subjected him to torture in order to force him to confess to a crime. He argued that he could still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 because the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation, and the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the suffering he had endured. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "31efd4fa-239b-430d-8531-c1ed6351780a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government conceded that remand centre IZ-77/2 had been overcrowded at the time of the first applicant\u2019s detention. According to the information provided by them, the first applicant was afforded from 1.4 to 2 sq. m of floor space in cell no. 6 and from 1.2 to 1.4 sq. m of floor space in cell no. 122. In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually had less than three and a half square metres of personal space, it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in itself, a finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Guliyev, cited above, \u00a7 32; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, \u00a7 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, \u00a7\u00a7 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, \u00a7\u00a7 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, \u00a7 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, \u00a7 40, 20 January 2005). The Court is also mindful of the fact that the cells in which the first applicant was detained contained some furniture and fittings, such as bunk beds and the lavatory, which must have further reduced the floor surface available to him. In the absence of any information as to whether the first applicant was afforded daily exercise, the Court concludes that he was detained in the cramped conditions described above day and night for one year and four months."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "58097c54-4b2a-4b7c-b713-a255122c71af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant had stated his concerns of ill-treatment after the decision on extradition had already been taken. These allegations had been examined by appeal courts at two levels of jurisdiction and dismissed. The Government further relied on the decision of the FMS by which the applicant's request for refugee status had been found unsubstantiated. Lastly, the Government relied on the assurances provided by the Belarusian authorities covering the applicant's concerns."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c30ec2dd-1b9b-47c4-acd2-3d0070a42f86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that there was no evidence that Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. As for the applicants, the investigation had not established that they had been ill-treated by representatives of the State. They emphasised in this regard that the first applicant had not appeared for the medical examination. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been abducted by State agents, the applicants' mental suffering could not be imputable to the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5c434125-ab15-41d3-9670-1b9201727dff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant complained that his conditions of detention from 23 to 27 September 2007 had been harsh in that he had been deprived of food and water, had not been provided with any bedding, had been forced to spend nights outside on a concrete walkway, and his hands had been handcuffed at all times. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9698b0ff-32b3-4723-946b-fb9a723c7052", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complains that the searches of her house on 10 April 2001 and 30 May 2002 and the related incidents, in particular that involving the spray-inhaler, amounted to inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and/or an infringement of her right to respect for her private life, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "61f97151-d1e7-4cb8-822b-a7bf913c5e24", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government submitted that since the circumstances in which the applicants had been injured had not yet been established by the investigation, there were no grounds to consider that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view, the investigation had been in compliance with Convention requirements."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2ada8b79-8fe4-445c-b862-416988d7c755", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s allegation. They submitted that, during his interrogation on 10 February 1999, the applicant complained of irritation and itching on his arms, requesting that a doctor should see him for his dust allergy. He was taken to the hospital on the same day, where \u2018surface erythema and scrapes on the proximal part of both arms\u2019 were reported. They further maintained that there was a clear disproportionality between the described torture alleged by the applicant and the findings of the two medical reports, which described similar findings on the arms. Furthermore, these cannot be regarded as demonstrating the level of severity required for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a59b9651-8526-4699-b620-2a5480b7e303", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government further submitted that an inquiry into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had been commenced on the day on which the relevant information had been received by the authorities. They pointed out that in the context of that inquiry a medical forensic examination of the applicant had been carried out without undue delay. Also, during that inquiry the authorities had interviewed police officers who had been involved in the applicant\u2019s arrest, and had examined the medical register of the IVS of the Department of the Interior of the Kirov Region. The Government also argued that the inquiry had been carried out by a body independent of the officials against whom the applicant\u2019s allegations were directed. They stated that no evidence had been obtained as a result of the inquiry to enable the authorities to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant\u2019s allegations. In their opinion, the domestic inquiry met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "153bbc3f-e1cc-428d-bec2-26b95997384c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["145.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of the doctors\u2019 intentional failure to provide necessary medical treatment in the form of timely prenatal examinations that would have allowed her to take a decision as to whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy within the time-limit laid down by the 1993 Act. She also complained that the doctors had treated her in a dismissive and contemptuous manner, repeatedly criticising her for her efforts to have prenatal tests carried out and for the fact that she had envisaged an abortion as a possible solution to her predicament."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8fc93971-e2c9-4e36-bbf1-23c7f19f1ce3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government considered that the applicant had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. The conditions of his detention in the remand prison had been in compliance with statutory standards as regards hygiene, heating and water supply. However, the Government conceded that the remand prison where the applicant had been detained had been overcrowded and the statutory requirement of 4 square metres per inmate had not always been complied with."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "35b58235-275c-4cd1-94b7-d06938a81f1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that on 29 October 2000 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6b8e2c10-e2d5-4956-8006-fe2cdae3763b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the poor conditions of his detention in IZ-77/5, in the holding room at the Moscow City Court and during transfers to and from the prison. He also alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 6 May 2012 and that there had been no effective investigation following his complaint about it. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a1b56a14-d800-4347-b29e-74c0938ffcc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["221.  The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected by reason of the manner in which the authorities had handled the investigation had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. As already stated above (see paragraphs 88-89), the Court will examine this complaint under the substantive head of Article <mask> of the Convention. The provisions of this article are described above (see paragraph 91)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1de3c441-e849-4d85-adb3-07b0f03d464b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["243.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s argument that there was a duty to investigate allegations of torture was not relevant: Jordan was not a Convention Contracting State so there was no positive obligation on Jordan to investigate breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention. Similarly, although it was difficult for a Jordanian defendant to show that a confession made to the Public Prosecutor was not voluntary (because the burden of proof was on him and not the Prosecutor), SIAC had found it was acceptable for Jordanian law to proceed this way. It had also found that a Jordanian court\u2019s decision which applied that burden of proof would not be manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary and thus no flagrant denial of justice would arise."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ffbc83cb-4f34-4329-a6fe-ee48ec8bc79f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant further submitted in his request for referral that because he had never received psychiatric treatment he could not foster any hope of one day being released. At the same time he \u201caccepted\u201d the Chamber\u2019s finding that, in view of the introduction of the periodic review mechanism in domestic law, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards his complaint that there was no possibility of a review of his life sentence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4475af3a-1422-4ef3-979a-2fa6cf16c366", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegation of politically motivated persecution had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities, the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "82382d6b-9da8-4cb4-9c52-6c6b781d47c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicant claimed 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, EUR 5,000 in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention, and EUR 5,000 in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c8d9c883-2c2c-43a4-ba45-5069a45a1574", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant furthermore complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about his alleged ill-treatment after his arrest, during the pre\u2011trial investigation and following his admission to penal institution LIU-19; the alleged failure to provide him with medical assistance; his allegedly needless compulsory treatment for drug addiction; the conditions of his detention at the police station; and his detention in penal institution LIU-19 alongside detainees suffering from tuberculosis. Lastly, the applicant contested under Article 6 of the Convention the admissibility of evidence relied on by the domestic court in securing his conviction and complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the alleged violations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "05b99ccd-0979-44ce-9944-d99ac7d2043f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicant complained that the search of his person on 7 May 1998 amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 26 above). In particular, he was allegedly obliged to strip naked in the presence of a female prison officer, with the intention of humiliating him. He was then ordered to squat, and his sexual organs and the food he had received from his visitor were examined by guards who were not wearing gloves."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f30694cd-4c3c-45c2-a9e5-60bf253081e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that on 16 December 2001 Beslan Khutsayev, Movsar Khutsayev and Adam Didayev, as well as the first, eighth and ninth applicants, had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. They argued that this complaint had not been properly investigated. Finally, they alleged that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "89272969-4a36-4559-8af5-eeeedf019c0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["236.  The applicants, that is the first, second and third applicants (see, paragraphs 149-153 above), mainly complained under Articles 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the special forces and were injured and humiliated in the course of the special training exercises organised on 30 May 2001 and 29 January 2002. They also claimed that the conditions of their detention and the lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance were inhuman and amounted to degrading treatment. Article <mask> of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5aa8f48a-9666-40c8-adba-e192c07ef54f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government raised a further preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the grounds that the applicants had been released or transferred to a prison prior to lodging their application with the Court. The Government submitted that the applicants should have lodged an action for damages with the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, read together with Article 57 of the Civil Code or Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6015b9ce-6718-44da-b5b3-5f0324e32370", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The applicant complained of a violation of both the material and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to her husband. She submitted that the videotape showed her husband being kicked by the soldiers, who had used obscene and threatening language towards him. She submitted that persons detained in Chechnya were regularly subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3. The authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation into these allegations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ecc6910e-31d7-48e2-bd62-663d258a5321", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable to the present case, since it did not provide a detainee with an unconditional right to leave prison to attend the funeral of a family member. In the instant case, the applicant had accepted that the prison leave would entail certain restrictions (see paragraph 7 above). Considering that the transport conditions overall had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant could not claim that he had had to forego attending funeral owing to reasons attributable to the State. The Government also submitted that, in the domestic proceedings and before the Court, the applicant had provided contradictory arguments as to why he had decided not to attend the funeral (compare paragraphs 14 above and 47 below)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "70ed02d8-0984-4240-aa68-4e1d7827517b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government argued at the outset that the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required to engage Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies since he had never challenged any of the investigator\u2019s decisions not to institute criminal proceedings in a court of general jurisdiction. The Government also argued that the investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill\u2011treatment had been thorough and effective."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "db04d512-ed11-4875-999b-9c77d0928f4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant maintained his complaints. In particular, he claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence of ill-treatment and that the ensuing investigation had fallen short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention under its procedural head. In particular, he referred to medical certificates showing that he had not been diagnosed with epilepsy before the first incident."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b56a2b9a-7c12-4422-b2f8-3a3524d19061", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government submitted that the notion of theoretical punishment and actual punishment implied that there was a clear distinction between what is traditionally called \u201cpoena in abstracto\u201d and \u201cpoena in concreto\u201d, and that the possibility of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention should be dealt with by considering what the \u201cpoena in concreto\u201d was. The US Federal Sentencing Guidelines and sections 3553(a) and 3742 of Title 18 of the US Code were pertinent to the instant case since they were the rules that would be of most importance when determining the \u201cpoena in concreto\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "45d4923a-32b3-4570-a541-1fd20a7caec7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government considered that the applicant had introduced his complaint out of time. He had started serving his prison sentence in 2007, and if he considered that his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated at that time, he should not have waited until 2016 to lodge his complaint before the Court. In their opinion, he had already realised in 2007 that his conditions of detention gainsaid that argument. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s periods of detention at Correctional Colony No. IK-55 (from 21 October to 11 November 2009, from 14 to 18 December 2013 and from 5 October to 26 December 2016) should be excluded from the assessment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "80581051-c161-4bfb-9f9b-a056056bc1fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicants submitted that after 7 May 2004 their conditions of detention did not change. They alleged that the purpose of the first two applicants\u2019 detention was intentionally and deliberately to humiliate and debase them and to destroy their personality and health. For these reasons, the particularly serious and cruel treatment to which they were subjected, coupled with the non-execution of the Court\u2019s judgment for more than two years and the suffering of the applicants for more than 14 years, must be considered as acts of torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6dff04bc-b91b-4ce8-ab28-b5965405ef68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government contested the applicant's allegations. They claimed at the outset that the ill-treatment to which the applicant had been exposed had not attained a level of severity which would justify the application of Article <mask> of the Convention. The incident had been caused by unknown individuals and not by representatives of the authorities and the Government could not assess to what extent the applicant's mental suffering following the incident had been caused by the attack itself or whether it had existed before."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "84984599-d4f7-45a7-af0b-e182fb1809fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicants submitted that they had been the victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the destruction of the bodies of their relatives with high velocity machine guns and hand grenades. Under the same Article, the applicants also complained that the bodies of their relatives had been left in the open until the following morning."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a146ee16-3679-42ce-9f76-fc8ce0ec0670", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to horrendous treatment in detention, which had been meted out deliberately and had been aimed at breaking his moral resistance and forcing him to testify against third persons, and to confess to crimes he had not committed. He also maintained that the atrocious manner, in which certain investigative procedures had been applied to him, and the cumulative effects of the ill-treatment on his physical and moral integrity, supported a finding that there had been an extremely serious violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant claimed that his being taken into custody on 30 November 1998 had contravened the principles enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, as his state of health and the diseases from which he was suffering showed that the prosecution had deliberately acted in violation of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fa4cde19-bd5c-4fae-ac8f-59a073c4d89a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government submitted that it was undisputed that, on 21 November 2006, the applicant had attempted to escape from a police vehicle. They considered that the use of force had been made necessary by the applicant\u2019s own conduct; the applicant must have been aware that his attempt to escape would have led the police to react. According to the Government, the injuries sustained by the applicant might have occurred when the applicant forcibly opened the door of the police van and when the applicant fell to the ground after one of the police officers had fired a warning shot. They considered that the measures undertaken by the police officers following the applicant\u2019s attempt to escape had been lawful, proportionate and had not exceeded the minimum level of severity required to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ddae125d-8136-41e0-a033-52973fd4f8e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that by not claiming compensation for the damage allegedly caused by her detention in inhuman conditions and by the alleged lack of medical care, the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. They submitted a summary of forty-six cases examined by the domestic courts in which detainees had lodged claims seeking compensation for violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also pointed to an explanatory decision of the Supreme Court of Justice dated 24 December 2012 concerning the compensatory remedy introduced for violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8. In addition, they submitted that the complaints concerning the conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance prior to 5 June 2013 should be dismissed for being lodged outside the six-month time-limit, arguing that the applicant had been released from prison on 19 September 2012."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e3cca658-4856-4d21-8039-7db482a492b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant submitted that there was a danger that he would be subjected to ill-treatment on account of the possible application of the death penalty and the time spent awaiting its execution, the poor conditions of detention in Kazakhstan, the lack of proper medical treatment and assistance in detention facilities and the widespread practice of torture of detainees. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "98c6155e-2417-4f34-8264-33acb8ee15ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government stressed that the general situation in the prison complained of by the applicant was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect, they maintained that the ward in which the applicant was kept could not be considered to have been a cell. They stated that the living unit was designed to accommodate three persons and it had two floors; the lower floor contained a toilet, shower, and small kitchen and the second floor was used as a sleeping area and had beds and drawers. In addition, each living unit had a small yard for ventilation purposes. The Government further pointed out that the Court had already examined F-type prison conditions in the past and found no breach of Article 3 in this respect."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d8d47b2c-6df6-441b-9484-ff872468e8e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The Government concluded from all these factors that the applicant\u2019s health did not appear to have been affected by solitary confinement and that the conditions in which the applicant was being held had not attained the minimum level of severity required to fall foul of Article <mask> of the Convention, despite the CPT\u2019s finding that the general conditions in which prisoners in solitary confinement were held in France were not entirely satisfactory."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "30387b3d-ddc9-4e1e-b412-ae0d1733a988", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant argued that following his arrest the medical care he had received in detention had been extremely scarce and ineffective and had led to a steady deterioration in his health. The applicant stressed that he was seriously ill and unable to care for himself. He required permanent assistance even with his most basic needs. The medical specialists who had treated him prior to his arrest had always acknowledged the necessity of various medical procedures, including simple ones such as physiotherapy, as he was unable to move on his own. The administration of the detention facility was unable to provide that level of care. They merely continued to register the increasing number of the applicant\u2019s complaints, including those of serious pain in the back, atrophy of the limbs, headaches, pain in the legs, dizziness, insomnia, spasms, and so on. He was unable to urinate and defecate and had to undergo medical procedures to relieve himself, which he had to do in extremely degrading and unsanitary conditions that posed a constant risk to his life. While the authorities, in their replies to the applicant\u2019s complaints, had acknowledged that the conditions in the detention facility did not satisfy the simple requirements of hygiene and sterility, they had taken no steps to change that situation. The medical recommendations issued by specialists prior to his arrest were costly and complex, as could be seen from various medical reports submitted by him to the Court, and could not be complied with by the untrained and poorly qualified medical personnel of the detention facility. The applicant insisted that the Russian authorities had violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention as they were unable to provide him with the requisite level of medical services and were subjecting him to severe suffering and a significant risk of a fatal outcome."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8b579555-528e-4514-b479-468da32496b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicants contended that their sons had been tortured during their detention by State agents and that the investigation in this respect had not been adequate. They referred to NGO reports concerning mass torture in Chechnya during that period to support this assertion. The applicants further submitted that they themselves had been suffering from fear, anguish and emotional distress caused by the detention and disappearance of their minor sons and the authorities\u2019 indifference in this respect, which amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b7c54f71-104c-4929-b966-5da9c15f81c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the national authorities had failed to consider his claims that he risked ill\u2011treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan, and that if extradition was to take place it would expose him to that risk. Further to information about the applicant\u2019s disappearance and the Government\u2019s reply to the Court\u2019s request for factual information (see paragraphs 23-26 above), the Court decided to consider, from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention, whether the Government had complied with their obligation to take measures both before and after his disappearance to prevent him from being transferred to Uzbekistan and whether there had been a thorough and effective investigation capable of elucidating the crucial aspects of the incident and of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible for the disappearance. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f9ec99f4-f295-49e7-8530-3ada928b1de8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fc360071-3eb6-4914-a578-7ab7f7292185", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["271.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that there was no evidence of the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 arrest by State agents. Lastly, they averred that the relevant domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f85db352-0f38-4519-b836-a77a13a5efc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["170.  The applicant asked the Court to indicate to the respondent State that it should take general measures to prevent breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention by the police in connection with arrest operations. Those measures should consist of changes in the law, in particular the putting in place of detailed regulations on the use of force and auxiliary means on the part of law enforcement personnel, so that such force be proportionate and resorted to only when absolutely necessary."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cd349227-5108-426d-815c-c1301453ba90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in satisfactory sanitary conditions. The food met the applicable standards. The applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance. The Government further submitted that they were not in possession of any documents showing the number of inmates in the cells in which the applicant had been detained because those documents had been destroyed. However, they considered that the fact that the applicant might have been detained in overcrowded cells could not by itself serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the remaining aspects of the applicant's detention had been satisfactory. The Government pointed out that overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of the Council of Europe."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d88c5797-a572-4f1a-a01d-4539b8821471", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants submitted that the detention of the second applicant, who was then five years old, for nearly two months in a closed centre for adults constituted inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They explained that Transit Centre no. 127 was a closed centre near Brussels Airport used to detain illegal immigrants pending their removal from the country. As had been noted in the Committee on the Rights of the Child\u2019s second report on Belgium dated 7 July 2002, no facilities for children of the second applicant\u2019s age existed in 2002. Accordingly, no arrangements were in place to attend to the second applicant\u2019s needs and the only assistance she received was from another Congolese minor. Despite all the assistance given by individual members of staff, the fact remained that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as, at a crucial stage in her development, the second applicant had been denied freedom of movement, had been unable to play or express her feelings, and had been held in precarious conditions in an adult world where liberty was restricted. The Government had had other, more appropriate, options at their disposal. They could, for instance, have placed the second applicant with the Aid to Young People Department. The applicants noted, lastly, that the second applicant had suffered from sleeping disorders after her release from detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f96235ff-7a27-4254-95c3-eee7bccf9ca0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government also submitted that the alleged injuries had not caused serious suffering to the applicant as he had been discharged from the specialist hospital for outpatient treatment the following day. The Government concluded that it had not been proved \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the applicant had been ill-treated and that the police officers\u2019 conduct had attained a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1ef86c48-734c-4a0e-af3b-dfc96ec012e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his pre-trial detention, the obligation to remain in town and unlawful conviction had amounted to inhuman treatment; under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) that he had not had access to the victim\u2019s medical records used in the trial; under Articles 7, 17 and 53 that the witnesses\u2019 testimonies had been forced by the police and that his conviction had not had a solid evidentiary basis."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7023ad1e-bc41-4980-bd07-271c883194a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant stated that she was the wife of the missing Mr Ali Dudayev and that she had actively sought the authorities\u2019 assistance in establishing his whereabouts and prosecuting the people who had abducted him. The applicant had not received any proper explanation or information as to what had happened to her missing husband after his detention by State agents. The way in which the authorities had responded to her requests constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c414b65c-451a-4a83-bf45-c030ec430e5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government submitted their account of the general conditions of detention in prison ZhH-385/5 (see paragraphs 22-31 above) and claimed that they had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They asserted that the applicant had been provided with an individual bed at all times and that the sanitary facilities had been satisfactory. They provided detailed information about the space and equipment in the living premises, the provision of food and clothes and the availability of sanitary facilities. In respect of conditions in the disciplinary cell they submitted that the prison regulations required the applicant, for safety reasons, to stand up holding his hands behind his back when a prison official entered the cell. They denied that the applicant\u2019s head had ever been shaved."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c19d335a-5d2c-4e6f-8aa5-fd068f2d7751", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had sustained any non-pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation, that in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, should the Court decide to make an award for finding a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government invited the Court to conclude that the applicant\u2019s claim was excessive and that any compensation had to be awarded on an equitable basis, taking into account, inter alia, the existing case-law and socio\u2011economic circumstances in Latvia"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f94e2941-4b00-474f-b8ad-9e01b080d9bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant complained that his extradition to the United States of America exposed him to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended that offences A and B, on the basis of which his extradition had been granted, carried a maximum life prison sentence which was irreducible de facto, and that if he were convicted he would have no prospect of ever being released."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3b05ff60-0f99-4240-a663-f3cf5d73e5e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the ensuing investigation in response to his complaint about ill-treatment in police custody had been ineffective. The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9fef8fee-6fd2-49d6-b3b0-c3efaf662cde", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicant asserted that if extradited to the United States he would be subjected to torture and a disproportionate prison sentence, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The national authorities had not examined the probability of his being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited to the United States and had not obtained adequate assurances in that regard."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cb3082c7-09dd-4296-95f3-de24dfec84b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated by the police during her arrest and while she was in custody at the police station. She also complained that her allegations of ill-treatment had not been investigated effectively, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by the same Article. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fbdc5a5a-4416-4d33-9925-3f596580bafa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of a competent domestic authority and considered that his complaint should be rejected because he had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as he had not exhausted domestic remedies before lodging his application with the Court. In particular, they submitted that it had been open to the applicant to bring his grievances to the attention of the prosecutor. They cited the following examples from the domestic practice in support of their position: in response to a complaint by a Mr N, the Novosibirsk prosecutor's office had conducted an inquiry which confirmed his allegations that the food ration was insufficient and the water supply was irregular. As a result, the prison administration had renovated the prison and purchased medical supplies; in the Vladimir Region, a special section for the detention of inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis had been set up following an NGO's complaint in respect of a Mr B; in the Khabarovsk Region the administration of the prison where a Mr Sh. and a Mr Z. were detained had renovated the shower and laundry rooms, upgraded the ventilation system in the disciplinary block and set up an area for medical consultations. Alternatively, the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government cited two cases: a Mr S. had been awarded 250,000 roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of his rights set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand prison in the Mariy El Republic; a Mr D. had been awarded RUB 25,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unsatisfactory conditions of his pre-trial detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b1902c72-4f7d-422f-b663-60588762a8d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["136.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "40863fa9-b6da-4c00-bb15-4cf7ae7b5aa5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant's detention at the temporary detention facility had not been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The premises had not been suitable for long-term detention. Nor had there been any funds allocated from the federal budget for their reconstruction until 2006. In 2006, as part of ongoing reconstruction work, the temporary detention facility had been equipped with an outdoor exercise area. Meanwhile, a ventilation system, a water supply system and toilets had started to be installed before the applicant had lodged his complaint with the Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a06a12c6-a920-406d-aee0-c175928eac09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant claimed that his detention at the Yalova police headquarters had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended that the detention facility was not designed to hold foreign nationals in an immigration context for long periods of time. In particular, there had been no bed in the detention room and he had not had access to the open air at all. He added that he had been kept in the small detention room which did not have a window and that the air conditioner had not functioned during the period of his detention. The applicant claimed that he had generally been detained along with two other detainees but that at times he had had to share the cell with more than ten people, among whom there had been Turkish nationals. The applicant also asserted that in general he had been confined to the detention room and that he had only exceptionally had access to the other parts of the facility."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "24145fab-4e39-4d2e-84bd-c0d656064c5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government may be understood to be maintaining that the applicant would be safe and would not be exposed to a risk of ill\u2011treatment upon arriving in Damascus, then in transit and upon arriving in his hometown or settling in another part of Syria (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that Article <mask> of the Convention does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of the alternative of internal flight in their assessment of an individual\u2019s claim that a return to his country of origin would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 265-66, with further references). In the present case the Court has not been provided with any material which would confirm that the situation in Damascus is sufficiently safe for the applicant, who alleges that he would be drafted into active military service, or that the applicant could travel from Damascus to a safe area in Syria."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ca63a2ce-9675-435f-8bc3-5eddcedf59ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["5.  The applicant\u2019s complaint alleging a violation of his right of access to a court, inherent in Article 6 \u00a7 1, was intrinsically linked with the prohibition of torture enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, a prohibition which, as held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, \u00a7\u00a7 81 and 89\u201190, ECHR 2015), is an absolute prohibition with no derogations and which \u201cis also a value of civilisation closely bound up with respect for human dignity, part of the very essence of the Convention\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4cb56713-a3e0-4eb7-91e9-01b1a7cc2f09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant contended that the procedure for full body searches as laid down in the technical note appended to circular no. A.P.86-12 G1 of 14 March 1986 on prisoner searches was inhuman and degrading. He submitted that he had been systematically disciplined for refusing to undergo searches in accordance with this procedure. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "855a40e0-d141-4353-bd3b-e957fc9e38a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that the applicant had received the medical assistance he needed for all his health problems throughout the period of his deprivation of liberty. In the SIZO the applicant received ART daily and he recovered from his tuberculosis episode. He was systematically examined and all of his complaints were adequately addressed by the SIZO medical ward staff. Therefore, the Government stated that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "94ef0fca-35fe-4b84-81b3-78bceb15d456", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant\u2019s assertion that he did not receive appropriate medical care is a general one and is not supported by any factual information. At the same time, the materials submitted by the Government suggest that the applicant was medically examined on a regular basis and was provided with appropriate medical treatment. There is no indication of any failing on the part of the medical staff of the detention facilities which would give rise to an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (see also Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, \u00a7\u00a7 89-91, 12 March 2009, and Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, \u00a7 41, 7 October 2010)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6e89ea9a-d904-4203-9bdc-306742f26c19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention in Craiova and Giurgiu Prisons. In particular, he complained of a lack of living space and light in his solitary cell, a lack of hot and cold running water, the poor quality of food, a lack of adequate activities and out-of-cell time, his isolation from the other prisoners, his systematic handcuffing whenever he left his cell and the brutal interventions of masked special forces members."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a44249a-981f-42a8-aa98-11577b7d9b70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government stated that the detention conditions in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their assertion, the Government adduced certificates by the governor of the centre confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding, sufficient nutrition and medical assistance and that the sanitary, hygiene and temperature norms had been duly met."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d284a0b8-252e-431c-b9aa-927442c36f4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["169.  The applicant stated that his unlawful solitary incommunicado detention and interrogation for twenty-three days in the hotel, combined with repeated threats and prolonged uncertainty as to his fate, violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Even without direct physical assaults, the cumulative and acute psychological effects of anguish and stress had been intentionally used for the express purpose of breaking his psychological integrity for the purpose of interrogation, and had been sufficient to drive him to protest by way of a hunger strike for ten days."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "abbafe59-c2a2-4865-a1ad-9604d409f834", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The applicant alleged that the injuries and anguish she had suffered as a result of the violence inflicted upon her by her husband had amounted to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Despite the ongoing violence and her repeated requests for help, however, the authorities had failed to protect her from her husband. It was as though the violence had been inflicted under State supervision. The insensitivity and tolerance shown by the authorities in the face of domestic violence had made her feel debased, hopeless and vulnerable."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "27e9fd57-45fa-41af-8a6e-d1a5fa7b859e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government sought to distinguish the present case from the Popov judgment, in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention \u201cin view of the children\u2019s young age, the length of their detention and the conditions of their confinement in [the] detention centre\u201d. In the present case, while similar to the Popov case in terms of the child\u2019s age and the length of the detention, the conditions of accommodation for families in the Toulouse\u2011Cornebarrieu centre were, in the Government\u2019s view, far superior to those examined by the Court in Popov. Relying on reports by the CPT and of the Inspector-General of Custodial Premises, they submitted that the Toulouse\u2011Cornebarrieu detention centre, a recent construction (2006) designed from the outset to cater for families, contained functional and modern facilities providing all detainees in general, and families in particular, with accommodation to the highest standard. They went on to say that the reception area for families was equipped with separate and tailored outdoor courtyards, that games were made available to children, and that appropriate toiletries and food were provided."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "51116b57-823e-4fa2-b97c-08891901ae67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant argued that, if the risks were weighed cumulatively, it was clear that he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, relying on the most recent amendment of 6 February 2014 to the Netherlands policy position in respect of Afghan asylum seekers, the applicant submitted that protection against persecution can only be obtained in Kabul and by Afghans who are from Kabul, which he was not. Furthermore, the former mujahideen leaders whom he feared were now holding positions of power, particularly in the Afghan Government based in Kabul."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "35fca280-b43b-44a2-bc77-b6ccfa7bfc8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of her detention at the police station for a period of approximately five months constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. As found by the CPT in its 2012 report and the Ombudsman in her report of 31 July 2012, police detention facilities in Cyprus were inadequate for holding people for prolonged periods. The detention facilities at Limassol Police Station had been unsuitable for detaining people for long periods: there had been overcrowding, the sanitary facilities had been inadequate and the applicant had been deprived of fresh air, natural light and exercise during most of her detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d741dd18-9260-428b-a002-904ddec29fb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had omitted to raise in substance his grievance under Article 3 before the district judge on 17 October 2006. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. This complaint must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "af1ff4b7-d254-4d9e-b81c-c3d4c360ca44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for the treatment. In respect of his complaints, the applicant relied on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "90f5abb5-1cb1-4f7c-b0f6-641318a06db7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["191.  The applicants also complained that the emotional trauma they had suffered in connection with the accident and the indifference of the State authorities to their loss and grief, manifested, in particular, in their refusal to negotiate a friendly settlement with the injured parties, was indicative of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 that the amount of compensation awarded for the deaths of their relatives was one tenth of the compensation paid by the State per victim of the crash of the TU-154M airliner on 4 October 2001."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bc39c83f-8b40-493b-8a07-a553678ce1c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["230.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims, arguing in particular that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation afforded the applicants with effective remedies in respect of their complaints. Furthermore, in Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia (application no. 6636/09) the Government submitted that the children of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev could not claim to be the victims of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention. There were no special factors such as those cited in, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia (no. 69480/01, \u00a7 111, ECHR 2006\u2011XIII (extracts)) justifying the victim status of the third and fourth applicants in this case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a5388d94-0fb3-438c-b0ac-4dd790c5057a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government challenged the applicants\u2019 version of events and submitted that they had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment on 30 March 2009. They admitted that the applicants had been injured on that day but, referring to the findings of the relevant criminal investigation, maintained that the applicants had sustained their injuries either as a result of falling from a two-metre high wall and/or because the prison officers had had recourse to necessary and proportionate physical force in order to effect the applicants\u2019 arrest. As regards the State\u2019s positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government maintained that the applicants\u2019 allegations had been properly investigated by the national authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c7551036-3ec0-48f0-afb6-3bb677a27162", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant, referring to his account of facts, maintained that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that such ill-treatment amounted to torture. As to the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, he insisted that the investigation of his ill-treatment had not been effective. In particular, he emphasised that the criminal proceedings had been instituted only on 3 November 2003, that is more than five months after the events complained of. This delay brought to the loss of evidence and seriously reduced the chances of establishing all the relevant facts and charging all the policemen involved. He further pointed out that the bill of indictment, referred to the trial court on 28 December 2007, clearly indicated that the other officers had participated in the applicant's ill-treatment, but those were never charged."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "df7ebcb8-0a6d-481c-9fcb-3f3cc296e944", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government said that since the Federal Office for Refugees had set aside its decision of 31 August 1998 and ruled that there were bars to the applicant\u2019s expulsion under section 53(4) of the Aliens Act, the applicant was now fully protected against an expulsion to Iran in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The new decision could only be set aside by the Federal Office for Refugees itself and, in such event, an appeal would lie to the administrative courts. Furthermore, the federal government as such could not give assurances concerning the grant of a residence permit (in this instance, an authority to remain \u2013 Aufenthaltsbefugnis), as the issue of such permits was the responsibility of the relevant L\u00e4nder authorities. "], "obj_label": "3", "id": "77961370-a62e-4f5e-bc9e-a9cf8ecfa877", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions for two years and eleven months and did not have an effective remedy for the violation of his rights. He did not challenge the data contained in the excerpts from the remand prison population registers concerning the number of inmates per cell. However, he asserted that at all times the cells where he had been detained had been severely overcrowded. He noted that, apart from the excerpts from the official records for the periods from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005, the Government had failed to substantiate their statements concerning the population of the cells at the remand prison. He further noted that, apart from an hour's daily exercise and brief meetings with his lawyer and relatives, he had been confined to his cell for twenty-four hours a day. In his view, the living conditions in the cells, including the hygiene, had been unsatisfactory. With reference to the Court's case-law (the cases of Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, 10 May 2007, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, 6 December 2007) the applicant pointed out that the Court had previously examined the issue of the conditions of detention at remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow and found them in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e5d6e7da-0eff-45e0-99d6-05c97388c751", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government submitted that, following the publication of the CPT report on its visit in May 2014, improvements had been made to the detention facilities of Philipsburg Police Station, taking into account the recommendations formulated by the CPT. As regards the applicant\u2019s situation, the Government submitted that the he had been individually detained in a cell of almost 12 square meters, that he had been provided with sheet, towel and that he had purchased a pillow via the inmate canteen programme, that he had been provided with hygiene products and that there were no leakages. According to the Government, this meant that of the CPT\u2019s recommendations only the requirement of a call bell had not been fulfilled. As regards the conditions prior to this situation, when the applicant had been detained in the multi-occupancy cell, the Government submitted that it was unable to comment for lack of detailed information. The Government admitted that the circumstances under which the applicant had been detained in Sint Maarten had not been ideal, but submitted that the conditions in which he had been held pending his extradition to Italy had not been of such a nature that he should be regarded as having been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "40a1ccad-c1bb-47a2-8069-080633700deb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["144.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police following his arrest. He also complained under the same provision that the prison guards had ill-treated and humiliated him on various occasions. The applicant next complained that his arrest and pre-trial detention had been contrary to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) that his post-conviction detention was unlawful. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against had been unfair, that he had not committed the criminal offences in question, that the courts had misinterpreted the facts and had wrongly applied the law, that they had failed to ensure his right to legal assistance, as well as his rights to examine the case file and to call witnesses. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the police had apparently tapped his phone before his arrest. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the applicant complained that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the authorities on the ground of his illnesses. He further complained of a violation of Article 17 of the Convention arguing that the law-enforcement authorities had abused their powers. The applicant next complained that the Supreme Court had failed to duly ensure his right of appeal as guaranteed by Article 2 Protocol No. 7."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2ea9e227-78ee-48a2-8401-f63987a65b50", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicants complained that the police had used physical force against them, and that no effective investigation had been carried out into their complaints. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, and some of them also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ddde7538-d620-412c-bc11-669316097801", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 16 August 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing the medical expert opinion with their own assessment of the applicant\u2019s situation. Yet, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case (see paragraphs 32-35 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of a relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, \u00a7 222, 14 March 2013."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "534ab81d-e7c9-4930-9c23-67920ac5c1b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained as from August 2010. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, poor hygiene and the presence of bedbugs and other parasites, inadequate heating, poor quality of food, defective sanitary installations and a lack of hot or cold running water, lack of appropriate furniture and improper conditions for eating his meals, and dirty and worn out mattresses and sheets. He further complained of inadequate health care."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8b219dde-d7ee-4610-922c-8e47f21f1ef5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the continued imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision. He referred, in particular, to such aspects of the regime as his mostly solitary confinement and prolonged and excessive isolation from his family, the outside world and other detainees and such restrictions as wearing \u201cjoined shackles\u201d on his hands and feet all the time whenever he was outside his cell, the routine humiliating strip-searches to which he was subjected daily and the constant monitoring of his cell \u2013 including sanitary facilities \u2013 via close-circuit television."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "56a9e028-4767-4ac6-a737-872a2dc4e03a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that on 27 May 2008 he had been tortured at the Volnovakha police station and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter. The Court considers that it is appropriate to examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention only (see, for instance, Voykin and Others v. Ukraine, no. 47889/08, \u00a7 84, 27 March 2018), which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9772fd42-a969-46a3-8f43-598ae7c1adf6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The applicant complained that the respondent State had been responsible for the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while he was detained in the hotel and for the failure to prevent him from being subjected to \u201ccapture shock\u201d treatment when transferred to the CIA rendition team at Skopje Airport. He further complained that the respondent State had been responsible for his ill-treatment during his detention in the \u201cSalt Pit\u201d in Afghanistan by having knowingly transferred him into the custody of US agents even though there had been substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of such ill-treatment. In this latter context, he complained that the conditions of detention, physical assaults, inadequate food and water, sleep deprivation, forced feeding and lack of any medical assistance during his detention in the \u201cSalt Pit\u201d amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he complained that the investigation before the Macedonian authorities had not been effective within the meaning of this Article."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "73c303da-a51c-4789-a6d9-a385d897aa33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant argued that the measures, omissions and incidents complained of amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention, and this in respect of the whole period he had spent in Szeged Prison. The matter complained of constituted a continuous violation of his Convention rights; therefore, the Government's reference to the six-month rule was a misconception. In particular, the fact that he had been at the mercy of his cellmates for a prolonged period of time in terms of satisfying his basic needs, such as relieving himself, bathing or getting dressed/undressed, was unacceptable. Likewise, the practice of transporting him in a van without a seatbelt to hold his wheelchair in place, together with the rough methods of getting him in and out of the vehicle was inhuman. This situation was aggravated by his classification as a 'Grade 4' security-level prisoner \u2013 impossible to challenge before the prison authorities and completely unjustified in the face of his paraplegia \u2013 as a consequence of which he had been kept handcuffed during transport and thereby prevented from securing his position whilst the vehicle was in motion."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3dcd75e6-4216-401a-b3f6-9118aaba8d61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant essentially claimed that he is considered a suspect of terrorism by the Moroccan authorities on two grounds: firstly because these authorities are aware of his conviction in the Netherlands for terrorism-related offences and fail to respect the ne bis in idem principle and, secondly, because these authorities are aware of his link to a dismantled terrorist cell in Morocco. On the basis thereof, and referring to case-law of the Court concerning terrorist suspects, the applicant claimed that he had adduced sufficient evidence of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that if he were to be deported to Morocco, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "36ad6bc3-5bcd-424f-ad10-3164390c1f2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, as the doctors had acted with the intention of protecting her life and health, as well as the life of her child. Had the doctors deliberately wished to deprive the applicant of her reproductive capacity, they would have carried out a hysterectomy which, as an expert had confirmed, would have been considered as a life-saving intervention given the state of the applicant\u2019s reproductive organs. While it was true that the applicant\u2019s mother had not formally agreed to the procedure, it was to be noted that the applicant had previously given birth to a child and that she had reached the age of majority only ten days after her sterilisation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "907f688d-ffbf-4c21-80c8-968e37146b19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that he and his lawyer had not had access to any of the evidence on which the domestic courts had based their decisions. He also complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 that the courts had not given \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d for dismissing his habeas corpus requests based in particular on his state of health and that the appellate court had refused to rehear his doctor. In light of the above findings under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 42 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to determine whether the applicant\u2019s arguments about his state of health were pertinent to the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5, or whether the courts gave adequate reasons for the decision. Therefore the Court will only examine the complaint about the applicant\u2019s access to the case file. Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a082d871-be21-4b63-b547-246a6a33677b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["10.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of her ill-treatment by the police and the insufficient investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. She also complained of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as a result of her abusive detention on 22 February 2002. The relevant parts of Articles 3 and 5 \u00a7 1 read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "75b0a710-4507-4156-9fea-f3821945f26a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time and high temperatures in the cells. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0dc1abbc-0462-4c1a-a696-3c3a786307a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints had been examined in detail at the domestic level by the competent sentence-execution judge, who had heard the applicant and who had regularly visited Bjelovar Prison in the period at issue, namely twelve times during the applicant\u2019s stay there. The sentence-execution judge had not found a violation of his right to adequate conditions of detention. These findings had been reviewed and upheld by a three-judge panel of the Bjelovar County Court and the Constitutional Court. Likewise, the Ombudsperson had examined the applicant\u2019s complaints and noted that they principally concerned matters related to his transfer to a prison closer to his family. The Ombudsperson also noted that Bjelovar Prison had been recently renovated. Moreover, in the case of Pozai\u0107 v. Croatia (no. 5901/13, 4 December 2014), raising an issue of conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison dating from the same period in which the applicant had been detained there, the Court had also found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection the Government pointed out that, given that the CPT had never visited Bjelovar Prison, the Court\u2019s finding in Pozai\u0107 was the only determination of conditions of detention in that prison by an international institution."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5da42257-24d1-4376-bea4-27b693996ea4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government did not present any plausible justification for the delay in transferring the applicant to a hospital after the first prescription for hospitalisation had been issued by the doctors in the evening of 9 April 2015. In the Court\u2019s view, the refusal of the prison administration to follow the doctors\u2019 prescriptions for such a long time subjected the applicant to severe pain and suffering, a treatment which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4e4fb436-a6f0-45c2-940a-5286365ddfef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Relying on Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted at the 1078th Meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Government noted that statistics and a number of cases presented to the Committee had demonstrated the developing practice of the Russian courts in awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unsatisfactory conditions of detention. The Government stressed that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 3 should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "438b65e1-81e4-46de-b75c-da97c8f95562", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants complained that after the abduction their relative, Amirkhan Alikhanov, had been ill-treated by State agents and that the investigation thereof had not been effective. They further complained that because of the abduction and subsequent killing of their relative and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b74b3da4-7315-4d7b-b9ec-adc07f48315b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government noted the relatively short period of the applicant's detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility and that he had not complained or claimed that his physical or mental health had deteriorated as a result. They also argued that measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an element of suffering or humiliation, that the conditions of detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility were not intended to degrade or humiliate the applicant and, in conclusion, that the ill-treatment complained did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the Government considered that the said article had not been violated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b6a56299-30b3-499e-acd1-51fd71e6832a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37. The Government firstly submitted that they had not been under any obligation to conduct compulsory screening of the applicant for the presence of HCV. Secondly, in connection with the adequacy of the medical treatment available to the applicant in the post-diagnosis period, they claimed, without providing any relevant medical evidence in support, that the applicant\u2019s state of health at the initial phase of his diagnosis had been stable; he had been examined on several occasions; no deterioration of his condition had been noted and he had been given vitamins and hepatoprotectors. In the Government\u2019s view, the fact that the applicant had not been provided with antiviral treatment immediately after his infection was revealed did not in itself amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fbfd5719-54b2-45da-9ecd-49d02811b420", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant submitted that the criminal proceedings against her assailants had lacked the effectiveness required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She alleged that the authorities had not prosecuted some of the people involved, including two police officers, Z.B. and Y.G., and two other individuals, Y.Y.G. and K.M., whom she had identified at the start of the investigation. She complained that the authorities had not made the necessary efforts to investigate the link between the two police officers and the prostitution ring into which attempts had been made to coerce her or to search for the other two individuals. The applicant maintained that the authorities had not displayed diligence in the conduct of the proceedings, which had been unduly prolonged; the dual effect of this was that she had endured further psychological suffering and the proceedings in respect of some of the perpetrators had become time-barred."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fcccfeb1-5a50-43ef-bb70-5ecafb3562f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["175.  The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from alleged breaches of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, the alleged breach of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention and the alleged breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8. He pointed out that he had been arrested at night, without being told for what reason, had been hooded, had been subjected to serious deliberate violence causing him intense pain in the police minivan on the way to Koprivshtitsa, and had been taken not to a regular place of detention but to a house where he had been tortured, and then again hooded on the way back to Sofia, which had caused to feel terror and apprehension as to what awaited him next. After that he had not been given timely medical attention, had been refused contact with a lawyer of his own choosing, and only allowed to contact his wife to tell her that he was in custody but not where. He had suffered additional frustration and feelings of injustice from the slow and ineffective investigation of his ill\u2011treatment and from the lack of any redress in respect of it. He had also, in breach of the presumption of innocence, been stigmatised by high\u2011ranking officials as a participant in Mr Lukanov\u2019s assassination, although he had been cleared of that charge in the criminal proceedings against him. That stigma, taken up by the media, would continue to haunt him for the rest of his life. Lastly, he had suffered damage as a result of the lack of sufficient safeguards against and effective remedies in respect of unlawful secret surveillance, which was particularly damaging in his situation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "41fd5ab9-427d-4651-b66e-63a665844cdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicants\u2019 favour had been adopted. The sums awarded to them in compensation for non-pecuniary damage were adequate and sufficient, and had been calculated by taking the entirety of the criteria into account, including each person\u2019s specific circumstances."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d042c756-55fa-45d9-bf98-466b108ed618", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government claimed that the alleged ill-treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity necessary to trigger the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention because the expert had only found two abrasions on his head. The applicant had engaged in a fight shortly before his arrest in which he had received blows to his head. The recorded injuries did not correspond to the applicant\u2019s description of ill-treatment. The mere fact that a criminal case had not been opened did not warrant the conclusion that the investigation was inefficient because, in the particular circumstances of the case, a pre-investigation inquiry had been sufficient to establish the relevant circumstances."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a3c01715-04ea-4f71-808b-86e860e0b4ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to sufficiently substantiate that if expelled, he would face a real risk of ill-treatment (see Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, \u00a7 31, 7 June 2016). The Austrian courts and the Federal Minister of Justice had comprehensively examined in proceedings before several instances adhering to the rule of law whether, if extradited to Kosovo, the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Taking into account specific information and the applicant\u2019s submissions, they answered this question in the negative. The applicant referred to former attacks by the Lu. clan to corroborate the alleged danger to his life if extradited. However, at the same time it was evident that the Kosovo authorities had been able to react to these threats appropriately themselves, for example, by the criminal conviction of S.Lu. for issuing a threat against the applicant. Repeated convictions of members of the Lu. clan in Kosovo demonstrate that the authorities were indeed capable of removing risks for the applicant\u2019s life by taking measures in accordance with the rule of law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8c647765-749e-4a3d-896f-c2ce132006dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government considered that the prohibition on sitting or lying on a bed in the daytime had been implied from a normative act \u2013 Regulation no. 423. By the same token, they argued that the applicant\u2019s isolation had resulted from a normative act \u2013 section 504 of the Sentence Enforcement Code. It was their view that that the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court about the compliance of these legal provisions with provisions of superior legal force, had he considered that they breached Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied on the Court\u2019s decision in the case of Gri\u0161ankova and Gri\u0161ankovs (cited above), where the Court had accepted that recourse to the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy. The Government stressed that the Constitutional Court\u2019s interpretation of a legal provision was binding on the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3c027da8-9bee-46ab-9baa-ca0f8e341b96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant alleged, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been beaten by unidentified prison officers on an unspecified date in Gldani no. 8 prison. Under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, he also challenged the outcome of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. He maintained, inter alia, that the domestic courts had improperly assessed the circumstances of his case and that, instead of endorsing the incriminating evidence, the courts should have subscribed to his arguments in defence. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above-mentioned provision, the applicant also complained that an application to the Supreme Court was not an effective judicial remedy, as that court had rejected his cassation appeal as inadmissible."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d87d09cd-466a-4bbb-b291-95ab3d4a3034", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["166.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation in case no. 23116 had not established that Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the applicants' mental suffering could not be imputable to the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9b08618f-d8fa-4be9-9077-b780f95e6484", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government reiterated the Immigration Judge\u2019s findings (see paragraphs 19-20 above) that there was no reason why the applicant would not continue to receive the assistance in Afghanistan that he had apparently received for three to four years there after he had incurred his injuries and before he had travelled to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, in view of the numbers of disabled people in Afghanistan and the lack of supporting evidence demonstrating that those people were living in a state of extreme degrading or inhuman conditions by virtue of government inaction, they argued that there remained no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would be at real risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant had family in Afghanistan."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0bbc995a-3111-42a7-86ae-915a192281d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant also started his reply with listing principles established by the Court in cases pertaining to inmates\u2019 access to medical assistance. He further relied on a number of expert reports, including the report issued on 16 May 2013 upon an investigators\u2019 order and cited by the Russian courts in their decision to release the applicant from detention on health grounds (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above). While having acknowledged that the reports commissioned by his counsel from civil experts had not been performed on the basis of his personal examination, he insisted that they had been issued by very respected civil medical specialists, including a doctor who had later participated in the preparation of the report of 16 May 2013. The reports were also prepared on the basis of his entire medical file. Furthermore, the reports prepared by the experts both in response to the request from the defence and those from the prosecution confirmed that the applicant did not have adequate access to necessary medical specialists, such as an infectious diseases doctor or herpetologist, he was not subjected to necessary testing, including fibroscopy, and he was not seen by medical personnel frequently enough as was required by his condition, including in the cases of medical emergencies. He also stressed that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the recommendations of the medical experts. The applicant argued that the expert reports submitted by him disclosed serious failings in his medical care in detention. In his opinion, the Government did not submit any evidence which could have rebutted that conclusion. The applicant concluded that the Russian authorities violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention as they were unable to provide him with the requisite level of medical services and were subjecting him to severe suffering and a significant risk of a fatal outcome."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2c5f26a4-a3f8-435f-bb00-a31aa0f4ab65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had suffered ill-treatment by other detainees in the Kryvyy Rig SIZO and that his complaints in that regard had not been duly examined. He further raised the following complaints: under Article 7 about his allegedly unfair criminal prosecution; under Article 8 about the alleged secret surveillance of him and his family by the security services for many years; under Article 9 about the fact that the investigator in charge of his case was a Muslim, which he considered to be unacceptable given his orthodox Christian faith; under Article 10 about the criminal cases against him having allegedly been related to his activities as a journalist; under Article 11 about the negative impact of his detention and psychiatric confinement on the NGO he headed; with reference to Article 12, about his complaints to various authorities having been without success; and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 about being limited in his ability to lodge appeals."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e6424df5-d07a-452d-978a-f740e5a80a2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The applicants pointed out that the CSPA was theoretically intended to function as a facility for assistance and initial reception. In their view, that type of centre, which did not comply with the European Prison Rules of 11 January 2006, was unsuitable for extended stays in a situation of deprivation of liberty. In their submission, a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be excluded either on account of the nature of the CSPA or in view of the short duration of their detention. The duration in question was only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in assessing whether treatment exceeded the threshold of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article 3. The Court had previously found violations of Article 3 of the Convention even in the case of very short periods of detention where there were other aggravating factors such as particularly appalling conditions or the vulnerability of the victims (the applicants referred to Brega v. Moldova, no. 52100/08, 20 April 2010; T. and A. v. Turkey, no. 47146/11, 21 October 2014; and Gavrilovici v. Moldova, no. 25464/05, 15 December 2009, concerning periods of forty-eight hours, three days and five days respectively). The applicants argued that the same factors were present in their cases and pointed out that at the material time they had just survived a dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean by night in a rubber dinghy, and that this had weakened them physically and psychologically. They had thus been in a situation of vulnerability, accentuated by the fact that their deprivation of liberty had no legal basis, and their mental distress had increased as a result."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a175df64-6e7c-4a77-85c6-a278b56a98a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment in police custody, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant also complained about the treatment to which he was subjected during his arrest. They contended under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. They further complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention about the length of their detention in police custody and their inability to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and to claim compensation in the domestic courts in this respect."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e96c8c31-1d0a-419f-8658-88c7405bef5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government submitted that in the applicant\u2019s letters of 12 June 2006 (received by the Court on 14 June 2006) he had briefly mentioned his poor state of health and given further details only in his letter of 18 September 2006 (received by the Court on 22 September 2006). On both occasions, however, he had failed to complain of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and had not informed the Court that he wanted to raise such a complaint. In any event, the Government contended that if the Court considered that the applicant had lodged a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the date that complaint had been lodged before the Court was 12 June 2006 and not 29 April 2005."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5a044883-12e3-43ef-b6f2-e8f6134eab1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. The applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the guard and the latter had responded accordingly. The guard had duly warned the applicant and only after that had he used a rubber truncheon to restrain him. The investigation carried out by the authorities in response to the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had been effective as required by the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2c3ec877-d462-4cbd-91ba-1e2b60917ac4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (no. 99/1) had been inhuman and degrading. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of detention. The relevant Articles provide:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3ebd5db9-4e0e-4307-b57e-64efbc1abe30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["216.  The applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture while in custody from 19 to 23 April 2004 and that there had been no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The first applicant also complained that he had not been provided with requisite medical assistance and allowed to meet his family during his hunger strike. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5b782b29-65e4-4576-a271-517b2b88a9ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant\u2019s allegations of his injuries being the result of ill\u2011treatment by the police officers from the Sverdlovskiy district police department were dismissed by the investigation authorities based on the pre\u2011investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, \u00a7 129, 24 July 2014). The mere carrying out of a pre\u2011investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article <mask> of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill\u2011treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 129 and 132\u201136)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "928a8399-9e68-4bcf-8b0f-b4c5ad4d8bc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["225.  The Government stated, with reference to information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, that \u201cthe investigation had established the fact that bodily injuries had been inflicted on the applicant\u201d, but argued that before all the circumstances of the offence had been established there were no grounds to hold the State responsible for the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. The Government also insisted that the investigation in the present case had not breached the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the applicant had been granted victim status and could have participated in the criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "281f18aa-8575-43fa-8515-f2975c7a5de0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant submitted that there had been prima facie evidence in favour of his allegations of ill-treatment which warranted an investigation by the authorities in conformity with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection he referred to his injuries, whose nature and number had been specified in the expert report. The possible origin of the injuries specified in the report (blunt dynamic force) corresponded to the applicant\u2019s allegations that he had been beaten, while being held incommunicado, with a plastic bottle and a rubber tube (see paragraph 23 above). The number and location of the injuries on his body suggested that they had been inflicted when he had been in a position of restricted freedom to move (restrained) by people who had full control over him. If the authorities had carried out a medical check-up after he had been arrested and before he had been detained, his injuries would have been brought to light in good time. The medical examination of 19 August 2005 was not followed up by an effective investigation by the relevant authorities. The public prosecutor did nothing to investigate his allegations. Likewise, the trial judge had been focused on examining the criminal case against the applicant. The courts had summarily concluded that the applicant\u2019s statement of 8 November 2005 was self-serving and was aimed at avoiding criminal responsibility. Lastly, his criminal complaint submitted to the public prosecutor was to no avail."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1506f001-13f6-4b6e-82e4-090646ac15e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of detention at the Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility and that he was awarded inadequate compensation for the aforesaid violation by the domestic courts. In particular, he contended that the compensation awarded was very low and was rendered meaningless by the fact that he had to pay high court fees on the dismissed part of his claim."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c195fd46-1a2d-4b73-8746-9da14db8093a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government submitted that the case had been adequately and thoroughly examined in two different court proceedings. In consequence of comprehensive taking of evidence, the Sz\u00e9kesfeh\u00e9rv\u00e1r District Court had acquitted the applicant of drunken driving and violence against an official, while the Budapest Regional Court had also acquitted the police officers involved of the applicant\u2019s charges. For the Government, it followed from this that the applicant\u2019s version of events was not supported by evidence beyond any doubt. The Government noted that the applicant had admitted to having had a quarrel with the police officers, been drunk and refused to identify himself. This had served as a legitimate ground for the police action. Moreover, it had not been contested that the applicant had, in a heated situation, showed resistance which could be subdued only with physical force. However, the injuries outlined in the medical report drawn up right after the impugned police action did not support the applicant\u2019s allegations of lasting and serious ill-treatment. Maintaining that the police action had been necessary and proportionate, the Government concluded that the injuries caused by the coercion used against the applicant could not have attained the level necessary for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7081963d-a4c0-44ee-81c5-1b9bd9e36c25", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant finally argued that it was true that Article <mask> of the Convention permitted the respondent State to implement legal provisions aimed at protecting its citizens. However, that provision did not authorise that State to act in breach of other Convention Articles. Moreover, it had been possible to place him in preventive detention at the time of his conviction, but the sentencing court decided not to do so."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2ad7706e-cd54-4448-a804-2a1358a86e2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant submitted that Article 13 had been violated in his case since Armenian law had not provided a possibility to seek compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of ill-treatment. He argued that for Article 13 to apply, it was sufficient to have an arguable claim in terms of the Convention. Thus, even if the investigator had decided not to prosecute the police officers by his decision of 21 June 2005, the fact of his ill-treatment and the unlawfulness of the police actions had been unequivocally established by the judgment of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan of 16 February 2006 and the higher courts. He therefore had had an arguable claim before the civil courts of having been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, his civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage had been dismissed because that type of compensation had not provided for in domestic law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "349168a9-a46f-41d3-8df3-7a95fa43637f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["158.  The applicants made two complaints in relation to their proposed extradition. First, they complained that, if convicted in the United States, they would be detained at ADX Florence and, furthermore, would be subjected to special administrative measures (SAMS). They submitted that conditions of detention at ADX Florence (whether alone or in conjunction with SAMS) would violate Article <mask> of the Convention. Second, the applicants complained that, if convicted, they would face sentences of life imprisonment without parole and/or extremely long sentences of determinate length in violation of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a3502e9a-ee19-4a19-a35b-772407395b00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant neither claimed that he had ever been involved in any political activities, nor submitted any evidence confirming that the criminal proceedings against the owner and officials of the BTA bank had been politically motivated. They considered that his reference to the reports describing the general human rights situation in Kazakhstan was insufficient and that evidence was needed that the applicant himself ran a personal risk of facing ill-treatment in Kazakhstan. The Government considered that the applicant's allegations were not corroborated by any other evidence. They referred to the Court's case-law in which such personal circumstances had been successfully advanced by the applicants in support of their allegations (Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, \u00a7 64, 10 December 2009, and Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, \u00a7 81, ECHR 2007\u2011VII (extracts)), as well as to the Court's case-law in which a lack of substantiation led to the rejection of similar complaints (Puzan v. Ukraine, no. 51243/08, \u00a7 34, 18 February 2010, and Bordovskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 49491/99, 11 May 2004). They also noted that the Ukrainian authorities had received sufficient assurances from their Kazakh counterparts that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8f97088a-7a35-4483-a8af-1fcdf4afb28f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that a review of the Court\u2019s case-law considering the issue of life imprisonment from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention demonstrated the compatibility of Russian law \u2013 which provided for the right to release on parole also in cases where life imprisonment had been imposed \u2013 with the Convention. Life imprisonment could be imposed in a majority of States worldwide and, according to the Government, only six member States of the Council of Europe had abolished it. In Russia life imprisonment was a penalty for the most serious crimes but was always accompanied by alternative penalties and never applied automatically. The Government emphasised that the Contracting States should be allowed a margin of appreciation in deciding on the appropriate length of prison sentences for particular crimes (they referred to L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, \u00a7 46, 20 May 2014)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1b208136-1b1d-4c5d-8e80-84a94a08d6ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that in the present case a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was difficult to prove because there had been no effective investigation. He disagreed with the Government\u2019s contention that his complaint was belated \u2013 he had submitted the complaint one week after his discharge from the hospital, on 8 September 2003, and one week later it had been forwarded to the police. He argued that he was not obliged to provide conclusive evidence in support of his allegations as the obligation to investigate and gather evidence was incumbent on the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d6f0c88f-c1b1-4687-95c7-2a3fc400743d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government argued that the sterilisation procedures had been performed in a medical institution in accordance with the law and with the aim of protecting the applicants\u2019 health and lives. The applicants themselves had requested their sterilisation and had signed the relevant documents. The fact that the formal approval of their legal guardians had not been obtained as requested by the law was not relevant from the viewpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention as, in view of their age and the fact that they lived with partners and children, they could be considered mature enough to decide on their own health. They had therefore not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0eb2b1ff-64b4-4ee9-8412-3fbc4cdd7db2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the second applicant, Zinnet Onay, who is the mother of the first, was not a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that it was clear from the documents of apprehension and detention that the young man's parents had not made any attempt to visit him or challenge his detention, although they had been promptly informed of his arrest."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5b4d7b77-d9a5-41a0-9233-4010cbcefee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government argued that in a situation such as the present one, where the applicant claimed, on the basis of the same circumstances, a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time before the domestic authorities and a violation of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, it was necessary to examine whether the complaint had already been appropriately addressed by the competent domestic authorities and whether the applicant had already been granted just satisfaction. Recalling that the applicant had been awarded and paid compensation for non-pecuniary damage before the domestic courts, the Government emphasised that in deciding the applicant\u2019s claim, the domestic courts had taken account of the particular circumstances of the criminal proceedings, emphasising that the applicant, then a minor, had been a victim of a series of offences over a long period of time, and that during the criminal proceedings she had been required to repeatedly testify and relive the abuse she had suffered. In its judgment, the competent local court had considered the whole duration of the proceedings and the way in which their particular circumstances had affected the applicant. The court had evaluated all these circumstances in relation to the activity expected of the competent authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c52d8aa8-faf3-4454-93e1-8fb7afc30c7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that police officers had used excessive force against him at the time of his arrest and had insulted and beaten him. He also alleged a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention maintaining that the lawfulness of his detention had not been decided speedily by the courts, due to the fact that his correspondence had been delayed by the authorities. He further alleged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention given the unfairness of the criminal proceedings and the unlawful publicity about the proceedings in the media, which had negatively affected their fairness. Under the same provision the applicant also complained about the poor quality of his defence conducted by a legal-aid lawyer. In addition, under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that visits from his family in prison were rarely granted and his letters to his family were open and read. Finally, the applicant alleged that in view of his overall treatment in the course of the proceedings, he had been discriminated against contrary to Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a7df28c1-cb73-4a43-b98b-6b6f61d05818", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government denied the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill-treatment and considered them unsubstantiated, referring to the findings of the inquiry conducted by the prosecutor in response to the applicants\u2019 complaints and to the conclusions reached in this regard by the trial and appellate courts. The Government further submitted that the investigation conducted by the Russian authorities had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8f0aa627-1249-4397-9f36-4ec77210cc0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if extradited to Belarus, he risked being sentenced to the death penalty; he would be ill-treated in Belarusian detention facilities, in particular, with a view to extracting a confession from him in relation to the criminal offences he was accused of; and that he would have to suffer from appalling conditions of detention in such facilities. The applicant also alleged that the above matters, in particular concerning the risk of ill-treatment, had not been properly examined by the Russian authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c5742278-04b8-4ccd-bfa7-163278b82ebb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The applicant\u2019s representative submitted that the applicant had been forcibly handed over to Uzbek State agents by the FSB agents \u201cTimur\u201d and \u201cZakhar\u201d. The applicant had been subjected to torture while in detention in Uzbekistan. The Russian authorities had belatedly opened an investigation into the applicant\u2019s abduction and had failed to take all the requisite measures to elucidate its circumstances, in breach of their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dbc62a6b-8617-47c3-998d-c223c06b3e92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's view, the investigation had not breached the requirements of that provision. They also claimed that \u201cthe perception of events is a very personal matter depending on emotional and other specific features of an individual's personality and relates in fact to the field of psychology\u201d, and that therefore \u201cit is impossible to assess the degree of the applicant's mental suffering from the views of the investigating officers\u201d, the latter being responsible only for investigating criminal offences."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8e265a04-6e4e-4303-9abf-f557fe7af930", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relative had been ill-treated during his apprehension and most likely tortured during his detention. The first, second and third applicants also claimed that as a result of their family member\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a4e947e5-f7eb-48c1-a90b-9cf1500dfb4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant referred to the Court\u2019s decision on the admissibility of his application and replied that he had provided the German courts with documents showing that he faced persecution if expelled to Iran right from the start of the proceedings. Accordingly, he requested the authorities to grant him refugee status and a work permit. He also sought an award of 22,060 German marks (DEM) and DEM 600 monthly for the period from December 2000 until the Court\u2019s judgment on the merits for pecuniary damage. His current immigration status was neither valid nor satisfactory. Referring to Ahmed v. Austria (judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), he asked the Court to rule on the merits, as, in his submission, he remained a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly he alleged that, owing to his unstable situation, one that prevented him from getting married or starting a home, he was also a victim of a violation of Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "55071cbb-e78d-4787-9e68-70c0042938ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, only Mr Mang\u00eer adduced medical evidence proving that he had been diagnosed with concussion after his release from detention. The other applicants failed to adduce any evidence, such as medical documents or witness statements, in support of their allegations. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complaint under Article 3, in respect of the four other applicants, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "15966c06-0313-433b-bfc4-c41bdecdd1d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant further complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy through which to assert his claim that he had been summoned and sentenced in absentia to seven years\u2019 imprisonment and 70 lashes of the whip by the Revolutionary Court of Teheran and would therefore be exposed to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Article 13 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2857d3c6-f4ce-4230-9ea8-ba39483a9315", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that no effective investigation into his complaints had been carried out. He further complained that he had had no access to adequate medical treatment in detention and that the material conditions of his detention had been poor. Lastly, he complained that he had not been provided with food and water on hearing days. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1de2e6f9-56c9-4666-924d-91a0fe51d4c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been beaten and had had pepper spray used on them by police officers who, owing to an inadequate investigation, had been neither identified nor punished. They also complained that the German legal system did not provide them with an effective judicial remedy to complain about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation. In this connection, the applicants relied on Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eea0fe4c-2699-4bda-9f1d-c56c3384e753", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The Government have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof and to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the applicant\u2019s injuries recorded following his transfer from Kentron Police Station. The applicant, on the other hand, has consistently and repeatedly raised his allegations of ill-treatment before various domestic authorities (see paragraphs 37, 44 48, 55, 81 and 86 above). In the absence of such explanation, either at the domestic investigation stage or before the Court, the Court concludes that the applicant has suffered treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention at the hands of the police."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "db2264ff-084c-4b83-b20c-e675244d9770", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that during the abduction of Murad Gelayev, the second and fourth applicants were subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. They further contended that Murad Gelayev was subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 of the Convention following the abduction, while at the hands of State agents. They further complained that the Russian authorities failed to comply with the procedural obligations arising from Article 3 to investigate these alleged instances of ill-treatment and torture. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9b709f0f-9767-4b68-9cb3-adaf140afc94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government firstly submitted that the obligation to investigate under Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In that connection, they submitted that the investigation of the assault against the applicant had been prompt, independent and adequate \u2013 the investigating authorities had established all the essential circumstances of the assault and had identified the perpetrators, the applicant had been sufficiently involved in the proceedings as a victim and as a civil party, and there had not been any lengthy periods of delay. The Government argued that the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings due to the expiry of the statute of limitations had not automatically rendered those proceedings ineffective."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "38ef83bd-5827-4a37-b915-9ce2cd9b263c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant maintained that he had been ill-treated and tortured by the police in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of his assertion he submitted the transcripts of oral submissions of F (the co-suspect in the alleged killing of MS), B, M and V (his ward mate in Hospital no. 39) taken by two human rights activists in 1999 as part of the unofficial investigation into the events of September 1998 (summarised above in the \u201cFacts\u201d part). Further, the applicant alleged that the statements made by the police officers during the investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment had been fundamentally inconsistent, reflecting the fallacious nature of the version of events advanced by the authorities. In support of his observations the applicant also referred to a number of documents from the official investigation case-file, but to which he had no access at present."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cffa5f21-52a3-4ba8-a7fe-32800cfa7f42", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the Gdansk Detention Centre had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells. In addition, the conditions of detention had been inhuman. The design of cells made it impossible for two detainees sharing the same cell to move around freely. Cells were equipped with separate toilets but the surface of the toilet was included in the calculation of the surface of the cell."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2ad60bac-3a6d-4453-b089-3d912ec56040", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submitted that on 24 July 2008 the applicant had been released from \u0141owicz Prison. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0e4ebe1e-be89-4a1a-9a15-04f318169497", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant claimed in particular that he had been transported in cramped conditions to and from the City Court on one hundred and ninety-five days. At the courthouse he had been kept in a cell measuring 1.5 square metres with two to three other persons. There had been no bench, no ventilation and no natural light in the cell. He had been given no food or drink on those days. The applicant argued that his confinement at the assembly section of the remand centre prior to departure, his transport in overcrowded vans and confinement at the courthouse, including lack of food on those days, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a31cb6bc-2449-4ff6-9e87-1f69a050f7b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill\u2011treatment at the time of his arrest on 19 October 2001, that he had been kept in solitary confinement, that he had been detained under the special regime reserved for \u201cdangerous prisoners\u201d and that the prison authorities had failed to provide him with the ophthalmological care required by his medical situation. Furthermore, he complained under Articles 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention of a lack of sufficient evidence for his arrest and the alleged lack of a legal basis for his pre\u2011trial detention starting from 18 March 2004. He also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention of the impossibility, prior to the CCP being amended by Law no. 281/2003, to appeal against the interlocutory judgments extending his pre\u2011trial detention and the lack of a legal basis for his pre\u2011trial detention after 17 June 2004. He further complained about the length of that period of detention. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention of the alleged lack of impartiality on the part of the judges who had extended his pre\u2011trial detention and the breach of his right to presumption of innocence following the alleged publication of press articles containing \u201ccompromising accusations\u201d about him before the judges had examined the extension of his pre\u2011trial detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "944afcf7-09b2-4894-b923-257e000ee83b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in the light of the case-law of the Court. They submitted that the judgments cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all the necessary measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment did not reach the minimum threshold required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute in itself just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5cb7c7fd-0851-4fb4-b608-8f7b699d07dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant made three distinct complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention: he alleged (i) that the material conditions of his detention in prison no. 7 had been poor; (ii) that he had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis there; and (iii) that he had not been provided with appropriate medical care for his various diseases in prison. The relevant provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "778f27df-62e5-49c8-8951-08695dd2b171", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the author of the \u201cprotest letter\u201d that had been found by the authorities. The applicant was only one of about 135 prisoners who had signed the letter, which had been addressed to the Minister of Justice. Moreover, the letter voiced the prisoners\u2019 criticism of proposed legislative changes and should under no circumstances have been considered as putting the security of the prison at risk. The applicant pointed out that no collective remonstrance had taken place in the months following the incident, which proved his assertion."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3cad886e-abbb-4c07-bbe6-a5cd3306618b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government stressed that the applicant had had the right to receive a visit from a family member or a phone call once a week. Moreover, once a week he had the right to visit a \u201cday room\u201d in which he could participate in cultural and educational activities. The Government concluded that the treatment to which he had been subjected had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to find no violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8e1a05c0-c058-4458-96fa-bbe0d3ccb739", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the conditions of his detention under the additional security measures, in particular the use of handcuffs on him at all times when he was outside of his cell and his being banned from using the prison\u2019s sports facilities and exercising, the restriction on his movement and communication with others and the ban on participating in social and family events, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d0280a27-1bb6-4973-8a55-243d8ba0b28b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of that inadequate medical care had been secured to him in Dobrowo and Koszalin Remand Centres. He submitted that because of the poor sanitation conditions and limited opportunities for keeping clean he had contracted various skin diseases. Some of those ailments still affected the applicant up to this day. The applicant also complained that, contrary to doctor\u2019s recommendations, he had not been assigned a bottom bunk bed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0924e437-f857-473b-9b5d-ce7910836775", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant maintained that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, the prison officers had \u201cused violence and caused injuries\u201d to him. He considered these actions unlawful. The applicant referred to his injuries as identified following a forensic medical examination (see paragraph 34 above). With a reference to the Ribitsch judgement (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no.  336), he alleged that physical force against him had not been necessary. He further argued that the use of restraint measures against him had not been justified or proportionate, as his behaviour could not have been considered an attack on prison officers. The applicant pointed out that there were three prison officers against him. He had been in prison for a long time, was not armed, and was far from young."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "da1d5b94-c829-4276-8e55-4ff54c783c15", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government argued further that any suffering on the part of the first applicant during the events at issue had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They claimed that the prosecution authorities had been well aware of his state of health, and had carried out their actions \u2013 searches of his premises and cars, preparation of the necessary documents and court hearing concerning the proposal to place him under house arrest \u2013 as quickly and painlessly for him as possible. Moreover, the first applicant\u2019s care assistant and the second applicant had been allowed to help him, and the first applicant had been allowed to remain in his car, where the police had brought the equipment necessary for the bringing of charges. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the authorities had never meant to deliberately humiliate the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a72ddb2e-50a0-45aa-ae09-894082be1b0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant sustained a fracture of the jaw and some other injuries (see paragraphs 37, 46, 52 and 54 above). Although some of the injuries did not constitute damage to health by national standards, this does not prevent the national authorities and the Court from establishing whether those injuries were sufficiently serious to reach the \u201cminimum level of severity\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention. Giving an affirmative answer to this, it remains for the Court to examine whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3 for the injuries."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "de7efce2-535e-4d2e-9c1f-8196b2e698e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained that his proposed removal would place the United Kingdom in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While the domestic authorities found that certain aspects of his account were not credible, he now relied solely on facts which were not in dispute, namely that he was a southern Bhutanese of Nepalese origin, who was a failed asylum seeker forcibly being returned to Bhutan."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "17680f2a-95d5-4785-8d45-5ad11caa403c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant submitted that his detention pending the moratorium on executions amounted to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given the fear of a possible resumption of executions, the long time spent in uncertainty (1990 -98) and the detention's material conditions and regime. That situation was exacerbated by the fact that no judicial remedies capable of improving the applicant's situation were available."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ef0c1493-2ad4-4173-985b-43879004e1ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["140.  The applicant submitted that the reason why his action had been rejected as unsubstantiated had been the refusals of the courts to carry out an on\u2011the\u2011spot inspection of the detention facility and to question the director of the National Investigation Service. On the other hand, the administration of the detention facility had refused the experts\u2019 access to it, thereby hampering the establishment of the conditions in it, which were the basis of the applicant\u2019s action. The possibility to prove the impact of these conditions on the applicant had therefore become pointless. For this reason he had not brought witnesses, hoping that the Supreme Court of Cassation would consider the refusals of the courts below to order an inspection and an expert report serious breaches of the rules of procedure and remit the case. However, because of the legislative changes in November 2002 the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation had been discontinued, thus excluding this possibility. In the applicant\u2019s view, the particular requirements of the State Responsibility for Damage Act, coupled with the stance of the courts and the impossibility to have an appeal on points of law examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation had rendered the action under the Act an ineffective remedy against the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. On the other hand, it was not open to the applicant to make a claim under the general tort law, because of the rule of section 8 of the Act."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "75f1e177-4bfa-4d96-b64e-f72e738be456", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government accepted, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court, that the applicant had been detained by the army for five days in April 1996 and ill-treated in the manner described. They maintained, however, that he was not of sufficient interest to the Sri Lankan authorities to warrant his arrest and detention on return and, consequently, that there would be no risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fc009b66-77bf-40ff-bbbc-03c2975f5331", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government noted at the outset that, in contrast to Peers v. Greece (no. 28524/95, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2001\u2011III), where the applicant had spent at least two months in a remand facility and the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in the present case, similarly to the Court\u2019s decision in Karalevi\u010dius v. Lithuania (no. 53254/99, 6 June 2002), the applicant had spent only seven days in the Anyk\u0161\u010diai Facility. During that time, he had been held with another person for only three days; for the remaining four days he had been held alone. Furthermore, the remand facility was very small, consisting of only seven cells in total. The inmates were taken out of the cell daily for an hour\u2019s walk, which improved their well-being."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2d403d9d-1f70-4b52-af1c-9f02f5d1fb2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government argued that in so far as the applicants complained of a breach of the authorities\u2019 procedural positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to investigate the incident of 1 February 2011, their complaints were inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule. They first explained that the incident in question was to be regarded as a one-off act which had not produced any permanent consequences or a continuous situation. The Government further referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, according to which in the absence of an effective remedy the six-month time-limit begins to run from the moment the event complained of occurs. That was precisely the situation in the present case, where the applicants complained that the response by the domestic authorities to the incident of 1 February 2011 had not been appropriate."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dbb04f7c-68ff-4ac2-a57f-09d27d18315f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that their relatives had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 and that no investigation had been carried out into this claim. They also stated that as a result of their close relatives\u2019 abduction and subsequent murder and the authorities\u2019 complacency in the face of their complaints they had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eb0969f1-0cbb-4fa7-875e-a26af95e10ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture in police custody on 1 May 2004 and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The Court considers that the complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f72da201-92c2-4106-b154-6a134e54bad7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the applicant\u2019s relatives had been abducted by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s mental suffering. As to the level of suffering allegedly caused to the applicant by the fact of her relatives\u2019 disappearance, that, in the Government\u2019s view, was beyond the evaluation of the law enforcement authorities and could not be objectively measured, as it related to psychological aspects, such as the emotions and personalities of the individuals concerned."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1ebd49c7-7a4a-48cc-bc80-87671fff752a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant alleged that in thus rejecting her request for a stay of execution, the Aliens Appeals Board, contrary to the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, had deprived her of the only possibility under Belgian law of obtaining automatic suspension of the expulsion measure, which was liable to be enforced at any time after 22 December 2010."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ff9b2c81-386a-48fb-8db2-4d959a6bd253", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and intense physical and mental suffering because, even though the domestic authorities had been aware of her serious medical condition, on 6 November 2014 she had been forced to wait eight hours for an interview at the DNA\u2019s offices without water, food or a seat. She had then been detained in an overcrowded, squalid and cold cell with smokers, without sufficient clean air, physical exercise, food or water, with no access to warm water and without being provided with bed linen or a duvet. Moreover, the detention centre\u2019s doctor had refused to provide her with the treatment needed to prevent a miscarriage. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0f402a15-fa70-46a8-99d2-eba70d983107", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that the transport conditions provided for his prison leave to attend his grandmother\u2019s funeral, namely a small compartment without a seat belt or handles, had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court considers that this complaint should be analysed from the standpoint of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8e589124-2c10-40a0-a455-9a6aef919040", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had not been infringed and that there had never been any intent on the part of the Russian authorities to subject the applicant to torture through physical or mental suffering during the time he had been serving a prison sentence. In respect of the data provided by them as regards the correctional colony population, they provided certificates prepared by the colony administration in 2010 and a copy of the records of prisoner profiles."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "aa131659-aa9f-448a-b2f2-f0bfa3788a10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government noted that, in the present case, the first applicant\u2019s account of the risk of persecution by al-Qaeda until 2008 was essentially consistent and detailed, did not contain contradictory information, and was supported by relevant country-of-origin information. He had thus discharged his burden of proof and was therefore entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt. However, as the applicants had not sought asylum until December 2010 and September 2011, they had to plausibly establish that, as matters stood at the time of the domestic proceedings, they would still face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention upon returning to Baghdad. They had failed to discharge this burden of proof. It was only after the Migration Agency had denied the applicants residence permits that they had come up with new claims and evidence which had been incoherent and contradictory. As the essence of their account had changed, they could not be given the benefit of the doubt. As there was a lack of credibility, the domestic authorities and courts had no reason to investigate these claims any further. The applicants\u2019 situation had changed after 2008 and their need for protection had ceased. During the domestic proceedings the migration authorities had taken all relevant circumstances into account and ensured that the investigation of the case was adequate and complete. The domestic decisions did not imply that an excessive burden of proof had been placed on the applicants."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b7259083-bdb0-4806-a798-64471dfc61b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints had been investigated and it had been concluded that the applicant had not been ill-treated. The Government noted that the applicant\u2019s complaints at the national level had been too general and had been submitted too late (for example, his complaint of 25 October 2005 in which he had complained of his ill-treatment for the first time). They also stated that the medical evidence submitted by the applicant was irrelevant, as it did not contain information about the time and manner in which the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant. Therefore, the Government concluded that there had not been a breach of the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "15a1ba82-bb0c-49d8-aa80-e0bd411c6236", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been tortured in police custody during the investigation in 1999. He next complained under the same provision that he had suffered from diseases incompatible with imprisonment, while the doctors examining him had established incorrect diagnoses to make him ineligible for early release on health grounds. He further complained in this respect about the allegedly insufficient medical treatment that he was receiving in prison for atherosclerosis of the lower limbs. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant further alleged that between 1999 and 2005 many prisoners had died of starvation in Penitentiary no. 60. Finally, he alleged under this provision that he had been beaten by the prison duty officer on 27 October 2006."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "71b51c31-0fde-4898-bb44-14cc67a0c855", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant submitted that his detention gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as it was inapt to his conditions. He further claimed that he had been mobbed and sexually assaulted by other inmates. He explained that, due to his intellectual impairment and general inability to communicate, he was not in a position to complain of any assault or give indication of the inappropriateness of his circumstances, and that it was unreasonable to expect him to do so. He also noted that the visits of his mother, limited to two occasions per month, were not sufficient to address his problems and his communication needs occurring in detention. With regard to the governor\u2019s special instruction, the applicant asserted that it was unsuitable to deal with the situation of a deaf and dumb, intellectually disabled and illiterate person."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d4d6b38-0c53-417a-907e-93d003704d74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant alleged that the life sentence imposed on him by vice-presidential decree, in denying him any possibility of early release, is inhuman and degrading. He also complained about the conditions of his detention in Pleven prison, the excessively strict prison regime applied to him, the lack of a legal framework for the regime concerned and the quality of the medical care dispensed to the prisoners. He relied on Articles 3, 5 \u00a7 1 and 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d0805b8-ab78-42a5-8177-624826c06231", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["260.  The Government however went on to emphasise that improvement in prison conditions was a long process that engaged not only the authorities but society as a whole. In their view, the fact that the authorities had made efforts to improve these conditions and that overcrowding, while still a problem, had decreased as a result showed that the cases of the applicants were not representative of the penitentiary system as a whole. In recent times, there had been a discernible improvement in material conditions and the provision of medical care to inmates. The situation in the present case was different from that obtaining in Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski (both cited above), as in Bulgaria the Constitutional Court had not given any ruling with respect of conditions of detention. Nor were the prison authorities systemically failing to provide proper conditions of detention; any failings in relation to the refurbishment of old facilities and the construction of new ones, and the resulting poor conditions and overcrowding, were not due to a lack of efforts on the part of these authorities but to financial difficulties engendered by the country\u2019s economic situation. The situation in the present case also differed from that obtaining in Ananyev and Others (cited above) because the number of cases against Bulgaria in which that Court had found a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to this issue was not very high, and neither was the number of pending applications. Moreover, unlike in that case, in recent times overcrowding in Bulgarian prisons had ebbed as a result of measures taken by the authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "44ac7e31-9f11-4448-88da-a028ace5ac1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government denied that the applicant had been subjected to any form of treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention during or after his arrest. They acknowledged that abrasions on the applicant\u2019s back and the back of his head had been found on 6 July 2001, when he had been in police custody; however, they argued, with reference to the applicant\u2019s explanatory note of the same date, that he had sustained those injuries because he had fallen the day before."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cc9cfb3b-27fc-4e0d-b2d7-9222642ba801", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government contested that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They did not dispute the fact that on the day after his arrest, he had been taken to the specialist hospital in view of his complaints concerning lower back pain. The Government admitted that a hyperextension injury had been established, but noted that the applicant had a pre-existing spinal injury which had already been operated on. They pointed out that the doctors had not established any visible bodily injuries on the applicant\u2019s body. The Government relied on the police officers\u2019 statements, and argued that during his arrest the applicant had been aggressive and drunk. Having seen a gun in his pocket, the officers had pushed him to the ground, had pulled his arms backwards and had handcuffed him. The Government admitted that the applicant\u2019s spine had been twisted backwards extensively and that that a certain degree of force must have been used on him. They acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s pain might have been caused by the police officers\u2019 conduct."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c0c6c989-cd61-4eba-bc0a-1a72c31c8050", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant considered that his confinement to the restraint bed on 22 October 2009 and the use of force and handcuffs on him on the following day amounted to torture and inhuman punishment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the measures of restraint had been used for punitive purposes. He had posed no danger to the officers since he had been in a locked cell and could only communicate with the prison officers through a hatch. He argued that in these circumstances the use of force against him had also been unlawful under the domestic law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "047235d2-bc36-46f6-9285-83ebd20df1fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government submitted that the restrictions imposed on the applicant under the special prison regime had not attained the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed first of all that the restrictions in question had been necessary to prevent the applicant, who posed a danger to society, from maintaining contacts with the criminal organisation to which he belonged. It also had to be pointed out that not even the special regime had sufficed to keep the applicant\u2019s criminal behaviour in check as, in spite of the restrictions, he had been the subject of disciplinary action on several occasions on account of his conduct in prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "696fa319-e1eb-4d1f-8515-be3b9158f832", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant submitted that in the specific context of military service the Government had both positive and negative obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The positive obligation consisted in ascertaining that individuals drafted for military service are sufficiently healthy and fit for such service. The superficial medical examination carried out by the drafting commission in his case had proved to be insufficient to diagnose the condition which had led to his discharge and disability. Furthermore, as regards the negative obligation under Article 3, the applicant pointed out that military servicemen were hierarchically subordinate to their commanders and under the full control of the State authorities. His superiors had forced him to do physical exercise for which there was no military requirement, namely 350 knee bends. That excessive exercise had brought about an aggravation of his condition and disability. His account of the facts had been corroborated by the testimony of his fellow serviceman P. before the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7a26f3a9-ff9a-4cc0-9a90-9fc7e290aa0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but he had not availed himself of those remedies. In particular, they argued that under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal procedure the applicant could have appealed in court against the decisions of the district prosecutor\u2019s office to dispense with criminal proceeding into his allegations, but he had never used that remedy. The Government argued therefore that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "837b3813-d9d8-49d4-9b1f-7142bb39ec5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that in view of the short duration of the detention, the threshold of severity required by Article 3 was not attained. The Court is not convinced by this, especially when looking at all the above elements cumulatively and taking into consideration the applicant's state of health at the time. It considers that the treatment applied to the applicant could be qualified at least as degrading. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6e850275-3fa1-4c71-b226-6be5041a9769", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government submitted that when suspects and accused people who faced detention on remand as a preventive measure were escorted to courthouses they were placed before the court on benches \u201cbehind a barrier (metal enclosure/cage)\u201d measuring 355 cm in length, 225 cm in height and 115 cm in width. The metal enclosure was primarily intended to enforce the restrictions associated with the custodial measure, that is, to exclude the risk of flight, influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice. The applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage had not violated the principle of equality of arms and the presumption of innocence. The applicant had been able to communicate freely with the court, his lawyers, the victim and other participants at the trial and exercise his procedural rights without restrictions. When the applicant had not wanted to communicate with his lawyer in the presence of the escort, the court adjourned. Under no circumstances had the applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage meant that the court had been predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom had not amounted to a violation of the applicant\u2019s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, because the measure in question had been a reasonable and indispensable restriction applied within the framework of the criminal procedure existing in Russia and had not reached the minimum level of severity to attain the threshold of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8330531e-4928-4c50-8598-80ab520a5014", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicants complained that Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had probably been ill-treated while in the hands of Russian servicemen following their abduction. They further submitted that, as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured severe mental suffering. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9caa6757-a510-4ada-84eb-913d7847668a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government objected that the applicant had not exhausted effective domestic remedies. In particular, he had not requested the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in which those responsible could have been identified and punished for acts punishable under sections 142 or 143 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above). He had also deprived himself, if the public prosecutor had rejected his complaint, of the opportunity to take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor (see paragraph 44 above). Consequently, he had prevented the State from examining his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the compensation proceedings had not been an adequate avenue. In addition, the applicant, who had been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, was responsible for having sought compensation against the wrong defendants. Lastly, the applicant had failed to submit a fresh compensation claim against the economic unit, given the fact that the absolute time-bar (see paragraph 28 above) had not yet expired when he was served with the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9bd0188b-933c-454b-a67e-5a04f591ca54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government submitted that the allegation of the applicant's politically-based persecution had been checked by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order and had been rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Uzbek Prosecutor General's office that there would be no risk of ill-treatment for the applicant if he were extradited to Uzbekistan. With reference to assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0462ad43-7eb5-4b94-b3ca-620278c2a750", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government submitted that by not claiming compensation for the damage allegedly caused as a result of his detention in inhuman conditions, the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. They submitted a summary of forty-six cases examined by the domestic courts in which detainees had lodged claims seeking compensation for violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also pointed to an explanatory decision of the Supreme Court of Justice dated 24 December 2012 concerning the compensatory remedy introduced for violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f9c8eec0-7f47-43c5-9da6-9f6346ad0e11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained (i) under Article <mask> of the Convention that on 22 August 2004 the police had tortured him to make him confess to robbery and murder; (ii) under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention had been unlawful; and (iii) under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his detention records stated that he had \u201ccommitted murder\u201d. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a) to (c) of the Convention that (i) the classification of his actions and factual findings by the investigator and the courts had been wrong and that the courts had been biased; (ii) he had not been assisted by a lawyer during his hearing before the Supreme Court; (iii) the prosecutor who had taken part in the trial had unlawfully changed the charges against him, which had in turn hindered the preparation of his defence; and that (iv) the expert report concerning one of the main pieces of evidence (the bat) had been flawed and that the object itself had been switched."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b20d1932-0e66-4fa2-8956-c1446701a79a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government acknowledged that during almost the entire period of the applicant\u2019s detention in \u0141owicz Prison the space per person in his cells had been inferior to 3 square metres. They argued, however, that the applicant had not suffered inhuman or degrading treatment which attained the minimum level of severity within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ff444eb0-dcb7-48ff-aa08-25ae1868e3d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Dnipropetrovsk SIZO no. 3, including physical, sanitary and health-care arrangements, had been inhuman and degrading, that he had been beaten by guards on 28 February 2006 and that there had been no effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment. The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of these complaints, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "35ed1f19-b080-4a9e-a752-605bbba2d91b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f8186b1f-0995-4829-b841-7e33ca0f5de3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that on 9 June 2006 police officers had ill\u2011treated him in order to make him confess, and that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment had been ineffective. In particular, he complained that during his arrest and at the police station he had been punched and kicked in the head and body, and that a police officer had jumped on his chest and broken his ribs. In this respect he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "65f812e0-6b81-4c06-9c9c-aea2d609e024", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicants complained that their son Rasul Tsakoyev had been subjected to severe ill-treatment by the State agents, as a result of which he had died, and that the domestic authorities had failed to effectively investigate the circumstances of his death. Under the same head, the applicants complained of mental suffering caused by their son\u2019s death and the authorities inadequate response to their complaints. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7eb24423-7687-4862-aa67-80da664e243b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained of a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred to his earlier description of conditions of detention (see paragraphs 25-27 above) and added that the Government had failed to rebut several of his assertions about the conditions, such as overcrowding, high humidity, the fact that he had to sleep on a small wooden platform instead of a bed, sharing it with three other persons, that he had been exposed to passive smoking, that there was no toilet or tap water in the cell, that he could visit the toilet only twice a day and could not take a shower throughout his detention, and that he had no daily walks. Neither was it in dispute that the applicant's wife and daughter had been denied the right to visit the applicant and that he had been prevented from attending a church service after his mother's death."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d8f240d1-596f-40c1-b315-fe0d9574f0f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government firstly submitted that the positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention did not encompass an obligation on States to conduct compulsory screening for the presence of tuberculosis. They claimed in this connection that the first time the applicant had voiced his grievances concerning possible infection with TB was in January 2010, and by February 2010 he had been provided with all the required medical examinations and treatment. Hence, the examination for TB was not belated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "948dffe3-1918-4ea0-9c38-b988a3634992", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government did not contest that the applicants had been beaten by police officers. However, they contended that the applicants' suffering had not attained the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, they considered that the applicants had themselves provoked the beating because, together with their friends, they had been spying on other people at a sports centre by the lake. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicants' ill-treatment had not been intended to cause them suffering and humiliation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f731506e-ae88-47e4-aba7-9ef168a9524a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government confirmed that injuries had been caused to the applicant. As a consequence, the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been reopened on 20 March 2006 in view of the necessity of performing a number of additional investigative actions significant for the legal evaluation of the police officers\u2019 conduct. The Government further noted that although it was found that injuries had been inflicted on the applicant, it was impossible to conclude that the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as a result of the treatment sustained at the hands of the police officers, so long as all the circumstances surrounding the crime had not been investigated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b1aff2bd-e774-4604-ad80-ab9000bf749c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant complained that she had been subjected to an act of police brutality which had caused her serious physical and mental suffering and that the domestic authorities, including the investigative authorities and courts, had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the incident capable of identifying and punishing the police officer responsible, despite the fact that her allegations had been clearly corroborated by the testimony of several eyewitnesses. The substance of this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2b9d2a2f-40b7-4543-ba4a-95b0e794452f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government noted in their written observations that, according to the most recent information provided by the Migration Agency, the intensity of violence in Baghdad still did not constitute a real risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred, inter alia, to the United Kingdom Home Office\u2019s report from April 2015 and reports by the Norwegian Landinfo from 2014 and 2015. The applicants simply noted in their observations that the security situation in Iraq was deteriorating, without making reference to any supporting documents."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a58837dd-702e-4679-a335-ef30315b7572", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government raised a preliminary objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning that complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant and his representative had failed to challenge the decision of the prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings within the seven days provided for by law and that, therefore, the applicant had not exhausted the remedies available to him under domestic law as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government also submitted that the applicant\u2019s first complaint had been too vague and that he had not given the names of the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him until June 2001, more than four months after the alleged events had taken place. Had the applicant given the names earlier, the relevant authorities would have been in a better position to investigate the allegations. The Government maintained that the investigation conducted following the applicant\u2019s complaints had complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b5f9895b-7f44-4f65-a17e-9ff4dc0ea942", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government were also of the view that the issue of reducibility had been found to be irrelevant in Vinter (cited above), due to a newly established condition concerning the justification of the continued imprisonment on legitimate penological grounds. In this regard, they submitted that the applicant had so far served less than ten years of his sentence, which was much less than the statutory minimum period to be served of a life sentence before becoming eligible for parole. Offences such as those committed by the applicant, if they did not attract a life sentence, would normally entail a substantial sentence of imprisonment, perhaps of several decades, in any legal system. Therefore, any defendant who was convicted of such an offence must expect to serve a significant number of years in prison before he could realistically have any hope of release. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the irreducibility of a life sentence imposed after due consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, as in the present case, would raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention only when it is shown that the applicant\u2019s continued imprisonment can no longer be justified on any legitimate penological grounds (such as punishment, deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation), which was not the case in the applicant\u2019s situation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "90e6d575-546f-414a-a4c8-a0ac2e944f72", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government submitted that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the pecuniary loss allegedly sustained, since such a link can be established only in case of finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, not of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further consider that the finding of a violation, if any, will constitute sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage sustained."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "424993b3-9560-4315-925e-4f6e8e3d8ec6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government submitted that the respondent State had fully complied with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, as the relevant authorities had not spared any effort to provide the applicant with due care in prison. In support, they stated that the applicant had been provided with comprehensive in-patient medical treatment in the prison hospital, which included various relevant medical tests, repeated consultations with medical specialists, the necessary medication and so on, on three occasions, between 8 July and 4 November 2006, 11 August and 18 August 2007 and 29 January and 3 April 2008 (see paragraphs 14-16, 18-21, 25-26 and 28-31 above). As regards the periods the applicant spent, between those dates, in Rustavi prison, the Government, relying on excerpts from his medical file, submitted that he continued to receive the prescribed medication on an out-patient basis, under the supervision of a doctor, a general practitioner, attached to that prison. The Government also emphasised that the applicant was continuing to be treated in the prison hospital since his fourth admission there on 30 October 2008 and to date. They further underlined that all the necessary medication and other types of medical treatment were being provided to the applicant exclusively at the expense of the prison authority; the State duly ensured that the necessary drugs were always in sufficient quantity in its pharmaceutical stock."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0dc72e5c-3fd9-421a-9ebd-78507fb3872e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government submitted that, in the present case, all investigatory steps necessary for establishing the circumstances of the case had been performed. A number of such steps had been performed on the same day. There had been five forensic medical examinations, however, the questions regarding the timing of the injuries and the way in which they had been inflicted remained unanswered. The applicant had not complained of any particular shortcomings of the investigation, and had not appealed against the decision of 2 April 2009. The Government concluded that, in the present case, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its procedural limb."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d9a338de-a63e-46d9-a09e-f720cb31eaca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government contested that argument. They argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. On numerous occasions he had failed to comply with internal regulations. He had been involved in fights and altercations with other inmates and refused to follow lawful orders given by the personnel of the remand prison and correctional colony. As regards the incident of 30 July 2005, the applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the warden and the guards and the latter had responded accordingly to put an end to his attack. The altercation had taken place in the narrow doorway of the disciplinary cell. The guard who had used the truncheon against the applicant had had to react promptly since the others had been unable to help him because of the limited space. The guard duly warned the applicant and only after that used the rubber truncheon to restrain him. The use of the rubber truncheon against the applicant had lasted only a few seconds and could not be considered to be \u201cinhuman or degrading treatment\u201d. Furthermore, the guards had immediately taken the applicant to the doctor, who had examined him and documented the injuries inflicted. The injuries had not been serious and had not caused any health problems. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been verified by the prosecutor and the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The prosecutor had questioned the applicant, the guards and the medical personnel. He had not considered it necessary to inspect the alleged crime scene. The prosecutor's findings had been confirmed by the courts. The investigation carried out by the authorities in response to the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been effective as required by the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8ec484d9-3478-4eec-93b8-db5937f7fd2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their son had been ill-treated in the course of his arrest. They alleged that the arresting police officers had caused their son's injuries by using disproportionate force and had violated his dignity. They submitted that their son had not resisted the arrest and stressed that hitting and kicking a person could never be justified, regardless of the behaviour of that person."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bd343934-1a83-4643-be72-5eed2e4715c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained that his detention in a regular detention facility, in view of his state of health, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained that the authorities\u2019 refusal to transfer him to an outside hospital had stripped him of the opportunity to receive effective medical care. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "03bbd90e-f916-46c0-9dc8-83daeb5c37d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicant also insisted that after the parliamentary elections were over, the Lithuanian authorities loosened their grip on him. However, this does not appear to be based on the facts of his criminal case. It is true that between November 2007 and January 2008 the prosecutor granted several requests by the applicant to visit medical establishments in Kaunas and Vilnius, which were outside the area designated in the court order of 8 October 2007 setting out the conditions for the applicant\u2019s house arrest (see paragraph 34 above and paragraphs 45 and 49 above). That being so, the Court does not consider that the State should be blamed for granting those requests, for it is clear that it would not have been in the applicant\u2019s best interests to have refused them. Furthermore, refusing to allow the applicant to see doctors could alternatively have led to his lodging complaints that the authorities had prevented him from obtaining medical care, which, in turn, could have raised an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. It is also pertinent to stress that some of the other requests granted by the prosecutor concerned the applicant visiting places such as the K\u0117dainiai sports school to take part in the Labour Party congress, that school being on the border of K\u0117dainiai town and thus within the area specified in the court ruling for his house arrest (see paragraph 44 above). On the other hand, the prosecutor did not allow the applicant to leave Lithuania for Belgium, or to take part in the television show \u201cDancing with the Stars\u201d, because the first event was to take place outside Lithuania, and the second was to take place outside the hours set by the court for him to be in his home (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above). Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant was released from house arrest once the pre-trial investigation was terminated and the applicant had been able to acquaint himself with the criminal case file (see paragraphs 49, 20, 52 and 53 above). In conclusion, no inconsistency can be established in the manner in which the prosecutor examined the applicant\u2019s requests to travel within Lithuania after the parliamentary elections of 2007."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e5f043f7-3206-46df-b05e-aa9a7eec6fae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant complained that she had serious grounds to believe that her son had been ill-treated while in the hands of the authorities. She further complained that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son\u2019s disappearance and the lack of an adequate response on behalf of the authorities. The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "645c26e3-a37f-4183-95c3-332342f51f63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["373.  The applicants' representatives alleged that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants, who were distressed and ill-informed, were subjected to acts of violence by the Georgian special forces. In particular, they drew the Court's attention to the case of Mr Aziev, who, when he refused to be extradited, was ruthlessly beaten with truncheons and received electric shocks. Covered in blood and with a serious eye injury, he was allegedly dragged along the corridor \u201clike a corpse\u201d and transferred in this state to the airport (see paragraphs 125 and 135 above). Mr Baymurzayev's jawbone had allegedly been broken by truncheon blows. The lawyers complained that the applicants had subsequently been prosecuted for events in which they themselves had been the victims (see paragraphs 97 et seq. above). Apart from the injuries inflicted on the applicants, the denial of due process in itself entailed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1eb7211b-1dea-45e4-98ea-3569ca52690f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been ill-treated during the preliminary stage of the investigation. They relied on Article 5, complaining that their detention was unlawful. They relied on Article 6, stressing that the criminal proceedings in their case had been excessively long. They also raised a number of complaints under Article 6 of unfairness of the proceedings. The first applicant complained that he had not been tried by jury and that in several other regions of Russia persons accused of the same crimes were tried by jury. Lastly, he complained under Article 34 of the Convention that he had had difficulties in sending documents to the Court in support of his application."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dd4f02a4-927f-4b96-8011-4ca7191f4cad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant also noted that the indictment issued by the Federal Grand Jury showed that he could face two sentences of life imprisonment. He also contended that his case was comparable to that of the applicant in Trabelsi (cited above), where the Court had declared that the life sentence liable to be imposed on the applicant in that case could not be described as reducible for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention and that by exposing the applicant to the risk of treatment contrary to that provision the Government had engaged the respondent State\u2019s responsibility under the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "732d7dbc-053f-4689-82ec-b61abdff74f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bc1e9bf9-aaae-4c1b-b696-65843f918d93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention as regards the confinement in glass cabins was lodged out of time. They pointed out, in particular, that the six-month time\u2011limit should have been calculated from the day when the alleged ill\u2011treatment ceased, and not from the end of the criminal proceedings, because the court of appeal was not capable of providing a remedy against courtroom arrangements during the first-instance trial. Thus, they contended that in relation to the confinement in glass cabins the six\u2011month period began to run on an unidentified date in September 2013 when the proceedings moved to different court premises, where the defendants were confined in metal cages and therefore the conditions were different. In relation to the latter the six-month time-limit should have run from the day following the end of the first-instance trial."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f5fe1344-bebc-4644-934b-519ed0ece20b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant disagreed. He maintained that the treatment to which he had been subjected in the Odessa SIZO, during his transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony and upon his arrival there had been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that he had had no effective remedies for his complaints within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. He referred to numerous internet and other public sources describing conditions of detention and transport of prisoners in Ukraine and argued that this information was sufficient to draw the conclusion that those conditions were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and were indicative of a structural problem. He also noted that while he himself could no longer recall the details of his stay in the Odessa SIZO, the cells had been overcrowded, the sanitary arrangements and medical assistance had been poor. Relevant descriptions should have been provided by some of his co-defendants in the criminal proceedings, who had also complained to the Court about the conditions of their detention in that facility."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "950629b5-3056-4568-a8a9-918fd07cf907", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government contended that the domestic authorities had taken all reasonable steps in order to discharge their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. They specified that the examination of the applicant\u2019s complaint had been carried out with the requisite expediency and thoroughness. At the same time the effectiveness of the domestic investigation was significantly undermined by the fact that the applicant complained of ill-treatment belatedly."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "83cdaf3a-bc4a-41e0-9a3c-e501a395ece1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government further submitted that the investigation had been opened immediately after the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment, that numerous investigative actions had been carried out, such as interviews and confrontations between different witnesses, that all the essential circumstances of the applicant\u2019s arrest had been established, that the applicant and his mother had been involved in all the stages of the proceedings, and that there had not been any unreasonable delays. Accordingly, the Government contended that the pre-trial investigation had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "776281d5-7452-49de-b6e4-115b76cb793b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government contested that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed to alleged discrepancies between the applicant\u2019s submissions to the domestic authorities and his submissions to the Court. The Government, firstly, noted that he had lodged his complaint with the domestic authorities almost one month after the events and that he had not produced any evidence or described the alleged perpetrators. Secondly, he had only belatedly informed the domestic authorities about possible witnesses and had not properly identified them. Moreover, the statements of V.S. had varied, whereas the testimony of the police officers concerning the place and time of the detention had remained consistent. Thirdly, the applicant had not raised any complaints when leaving the police station or in the hospital. The Government relied on the applicant\u2019s statement as noted by the attending doctor, that he had fallen on the street. They further considered that the applicant\u2019s allegations regarding facial injuries, raised at a later date before the domestic authorities, were unfounded as the administrative detention report had noted that they had been sustained previously. These discrepancies, in the Government\u2019s view, significantly undermined the credibility of the applicant\u2019s statements."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "76a373fb-1cf7-4c8a-9573-284e0b5b64a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated by the actions of the national authorities. The use of force against the applicant was strictly necessary and was called for by the applicant\u2019s unruly and threatening behaviour. The injuries he had sustained had not been serious. His allegations of ill-treatment had been subjected to prompt, thorough and comprehensive investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1951b59f-23b6-49b7-89dd-cdccd6ab4c55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that the conditions in which the applicant had been transported were in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. Neither the prison vans nor the railway carriage were filled beyond the capacity for which they had been designed. The ventilation, heating and lighting were in good working order and in compliance with applicable technical standards. The Government also submitted copies of travel logs concerning the duration of the transfer between the remand prison and the courthouse and from the remand prison to the correctional facility. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant had effective remedies in respect of his grievances about the conditions in which he had been transported. In particular, it was open to him to draw his grievances to the attention of the Russian Parliament, the President or the Government of the Russian Federation or its constituencies. Alternatively, he could complain to the prosecutor\u2019s office, federal prison service, an ombudsman or a public supervision commission. In fact, the applicant had submitted three complaints to the prosecutor\u2019s office. In response, the latter had asked the authorities in charge of detainees\u2019 transport to conduct an inquiry. No violations had been disclosed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "573cb77c-e103-457e-a5a3-2de2466b04ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained that during their arrest and subsequent detention they were subjected to acts of police brutality which inflicted on them great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment. They also complained that the Greek investigative and prosecuting authorities failed to carry out a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident. They argued that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d600a52f-37b1-4017-b374-b886b6a8b4ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicants stated that in the proceedings before the Appeals Board Mr Lors\u00e9 had not asked for a decision on the compatibility with Article <mask> of the Convention of the EBI regime as such, but that he had confined the appeal to the extension of his detention in the EBI. The arguments presented on behalf of Mr Lors\u00e9 in those proceedings had centred rather on the psychological condition of the applicants, and the restrictions, which had been in place for many years, on Mr Lors\u00e9\u2019s private life as well as the restrictions on contact between him and the other applicants. Mr Lors\u00e9 had thus claimed that his rights under the Convention and those of his family would be violated if his detention in the EBI was extended."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3591ac85-e2eb-4d95-90f8-6ddbae8ec8f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants complained that they and their deceased relatives had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and that there had been no effective investigation of their complaints, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further cited Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants further alleged that the violations they had suffered as a result of the brutal incident at issue had been predominately due to their Romani ethnicity. They therefore considered that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the above Articles and with Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "63eb9612-6822-48f0-922c-88dba15d8dcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that, if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, he would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because he belonged to the Uzbek ethnic minority. He referred to various sources, including publications by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c318e79f-533c-410a-af73-354e13c761f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychological assistance, and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0b4d38e1-376b-4682-b8b3-61e3cc0332ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any non\u00adpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2cbd2466-4b88-4f9e-ac79-573858a603a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the satisfactory sanitary conditions. He had been given bedding and at all times had enjoyed at least eight hours' sleep. The food met the applicable standards. The applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance and his health had improved in detention. The Government annexed to their submissions copies of certificates showing the results of a sanitary inspection of detention facility no. IZ-47/1 carried out in November 2004. The certificates indicated that when the inspection was performed, the temperature, lighting and humidity levels were satisfactory, although below the norms established for detention facilities. The Government further submitted that they were not in possession of any documents showing the number of inmates in the cells in which the applicant had been detained. However, they considered that the fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells could not by itself serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the applicant's detention were satisfactory. The Government pointed out that overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of the Council of Europe."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "279c6064-19e2-4f5e-aad1-3c17fc1e9c24", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government considered that the award claimed by the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damages was grossly exaggerated. They cited the Sarban case on which the applicant had relied earlier and in which the Court had awarded EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages. In this respect, they pointed out that, unlike the Sarban case in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the present case only concerned Article 5 of the Convention. The award for non-pecuniary damages should accordingly be reduced."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c0090c00-adeb-41fd-8794-b00dd5a49fec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant alleged that his political activities as a member of the SLM-Unity and the DFEZ in Switzerland would put him at a real risk of persecution contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if returned to Sudan. Relying on the case of S.F. and Others v. Sweden (no. 52077/10, \u00a7 68, 15 May 2012) he pointed out that the Court had recognised that political and human rights activities in the state of residence \u2013 the so-called sur place activities \u2013 were of relevance for the determination of the risk on return to the country of origin. Depending on the situation of the country of origin, even people with a rather low political profile in their home country could be at risk of persecution if their activities abroad had been publicly exposed and visible. The applicant reiterated that he had participated in many public activities and demonstrations with the SLM-Unity in Switzerland and that his appointment as human rights officer for that organisation had been published online in 2009. He submitted that he had taken part in, amongst other meetings, the 11th and 13th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, and in the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy in March 2010, at which he had met the current Sudanese President\u2019s brother, who had reproached him by saying that people like him had brought Sudan before the International Criminal Court. He had also attended a seminar with judges of the International Criminal Court in Zurich in August 2010, at which representatives of the Sudanese embassy had been present. He claimed that his political activities had even had repercussions in the media at international level, which certainly had not gone unnoticed by the Sudanese authorities, who were monitoring the political activities of their citizens abroad. Relying on a report of the Swiss Refugee Council entitled Sudan: Persecution of returning nationals on the ground of their political activities in exile of 28 September 2005, he pointed out that the Sudanese government had infiltrated the JEM and the SLM domestically as well as abroad. Therefore, if people had stayed in contact with those organisations in Switzerland, they had certainly attracted the attention of the Sudanese authorities and were at risk of being detained. He concluded that if returned to Sudan, he would be detained, interrogated and tortured as soon as he got to the airport in Khartoum. Because of this, even relocation within Sudan was not possible."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4f8efc29-468e-44a5-8839-483b7c240b9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that they and Mr Ramzan Guluyev had been ill-treated by the State agents during his abduction. They also claimed that they had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of his disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e140441b-a5ab-460e-a14a-05f0e9ba5dad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants complained that if they were deported from Sweden to Uzbekistan they would be persecuted, arrested, ill-treated and maybe even killed, primarily because the first applicant had participated in the demonstration in Andijan in May 2005 and was still sought by the Uzbek authorities. They also claimed that the third applicant was in very poor health and would not receive proper medical treatment in Uzbekistan. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bfb0c51d-a9b8-483b-b69d-a05b90ba8ee2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that there was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected in remand prison IZ-77/1 had not attained the minimum threshold of severity required for that provision to apply. The conditions of detention in the remand prison were compatible with the domestic legal requirements and also with the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The number of detainees in Cell 243 had not exceeded two persons, the applicant included."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5a3bd863-84e0-4be1-8fe9-3eb6d25a9bac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by police officers on 27 November 2006 and that the authorities had not carried out a prompt and effective investigation of that incident. In his written submission of 5 January 2012, namely after the communication of the present application to the respondent Government, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 in connection with his grievances under Article 3. However, as it has decided in previous cases, the Court need not to rule on complaints raised after the communication of an application to the Government (see Vigovskyy v. Ukraine, no. 42318/02, \u00a7 14, 20 December 2005). Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings initiated by him have lasted too long, without any result. The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the above complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8d2f46c3-1fc0-4561-97a8-ca61634869ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained that, while he was detained in police custody between 14 and 17 July 1994, he had been subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of this allegation the applicant referred to the above-mentioned medical report of 17 July 1994. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "531d121f-127e-4a96-8df7-d4305a7b42e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government, referring to their arguments under Article <mask> of the Convention that that complaint was manifestly ill-founded because the applicant had lost his victim status under Article 34 of the Convention, maintained that Article 13 of the Convention was inapplicable. In their view, a manifestly ill-founded claim of a violation of the Convention could not be considered arguable for the purposes of Article 13."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5a55b0a8-f44a-4a7b-82d5-90e88fe4405a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Tver remand centre no. 69/1 from 24 November 2003 to 8 December 2004 had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his submissions in August 2006 he also complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand centre from October 2001 to April 2003 were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b40096f8-9b53-4012-85b3-8d932e9be766", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government indicated one non-judicial and two judicial remedies open to the applicants to challenge the effectiveness of the investigation, as protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. Upon the applicants\u2019 complaint about the decision of the public prosecutor to discontinue the investigation under Article 172 \u00a7 1 of the CCP (see paragraph 36 above) the Munich general public prosecutor, in its decision of 3 February 2011, reviewed the decision of the public prosecutor and the underlying investigation in detail and responded to the specific complaints submitted by the applicants. However, the Court notes that the Munich general public prosecutor was the superior of the Munich public prosecutor\u2019s office."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "77e68021-87c4-46d9-a787-aeb0af966be4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he had been subjected to acts of police brutality which had caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities had failed to conduct a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that, contrary to Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no effective domestic remedy for the harm suffered while in police custody."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f1943c3e-a68d-49d3-b7b7-713053bf05ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government submitted that the Court should refrain from examining the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, as it has already, in its judgment on the inter-State application Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above), found a violation of the right protected by Article 3 of particular nationals of the Republic of Georgia. One of the nationals named by the Georgian Government in these proceedings was Mr Togonidze. The Government argued that finding a violation of Article 3 regarding the same person under the same circumstances under proceedings instituted on an individual application would result in \u201cdouble jeopardy of the state\u201d, which would not be acceptable under international law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "323eca41-c056-4dcb-92e3-ec493070b0f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had contracted several diseases and had been ill-treated in the colony in 2000. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention that he had been denied a \u201cfair hearing\u201d in the proceedings concerning his transfer to a different detention facility as he had not been given time and opportunity to prepare his defence, had not been present at the hearings or provided with legal assistance and witnesses on his behalf had not been called to testify before the court. He further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of his right to education."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c5ce7055-3546-4ba7-a20d-01fce03ba1b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They emphasised that on 29 December 2006 the witnesses at the police department who had attested to the seizure of the drugs had not seen any injuries on the applicant. On 2 January 2007 he had been given a medical examination and his health had been found to be satisfactory. In that regard, they provided an extract from the medical records logbook kept at the police department. They further contended that the applicant had failed to request a medical examination to document the injuries after the alleged beatings. As to the illnesses diagnosed after his release, they submitted that there was no medical evidence to suggest that he had acquired them during his detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a7ca6507-e1ef-409f-806d-98e0ad8d47b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that during his arrest he had been subjected to degrading treatment, in particular that the manner of his handcuffing had been entirely unnecessary in the circumstances. The applicant underlined that his exposure in handcuffs to the hospital staff, patients and third persons during his arrest and the search of his car had been totally unjustified. Similarly, the applicant\u2019s arrest had been filmed with the aim of degrading him. In this connection, he also complained that the pictures of him handcuffed taken by the CAB during his arrest had been made available to the press and had been published on 13 February 2007 in all newspapers. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4dc5fb41-d9f1-43a7-b6b3-c0e755848867", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government observed that on the basis of the medical evidence available it could not be said that the applicant\u2019s treatment had attained the level of severity required for a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they also pointed out that the applicant, after having been examined in the hospital at 5 p.m., had been discharged a few hours later, at 11.20 p.m. Special Constable G.S. had also gone to hospital and had been given sick leave for nine days."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6d55145a-e250-41c1-8302-081c753059be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten in police custody and that the police had refused to send him for medical examination. He also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of his arrest on 2 June 1998. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in application of law and assessment of facts, that the judges had been biased and that some of the hearings had not been tape\u2011recorded. Finally, in his submissions of 26 March 2011 the applicant complained, without invoking any provision of the Convention, about unsatisfactory conditions of his detention in the SIZO and the colony."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fa19d234-78db-4589-824f-d41f870cadfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicants' relatives must have caused considerable emotional distress to the applicants, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities' actions and this distress, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investigation confirming the involvement of State agents in the aforementioned offences. According to them, the investigation obtained no evidence that the applicants had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0fa282a4-28ca-45e7-907c-978e1a7ced7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant further complained, in relation to his proceedings concerning his preventive detention, that his detention amounted to torture contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in that it was aimed at extracting a confession from him. Invoking Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention, he claimed compensation for his remand in preventive detention. Moreover, he argued that the domestic courts' failure to examine the circumstances leading to his arrest and their refusal to review the lawfulness of his criminal convictions violated Article 13 of the Convention as the court proceedings at issue were ineffective without doing so."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2f98904b-7a5b-41be-b8e2-a65f75ac10e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that the police had beaten him during and after his arrest and left him overnight in a squatting position chained to a radiator in the corridor of a police station with no rest facilities. He also complained that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had been ineffective. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6ab21cf1-9713-42a7-b53a-cbd845843df7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicant maintained his claims. He stated that by 15 April 2005 there had been substantial grounds for fearing that he would be subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention on his return to Tajikistan. Furthermore, he stated that he had in fact been ill-treated while detained in Tajikistan. The applicant further alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his unlawful transfer to Tajikistan and to ensure his return to Russia. He also asserted that he had exhausted all available domestic remedies in relation to his complaint."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "15eb642c-4a81-4390-bf88-2ccc05755d26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that on 27 April 1998 at R\u012bga Main police station he had been ill-treated by police officers who had put a gas mask and a plastic bag on his head and beaten him with the aim of extorting a confession. He alleged, in particular, that the manner in which the authorities had conducted the investigation and the excessive delays encountered showed a lack of intention on their part to establish the truth and punish the perpetrators. The Court considers it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention alone, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3035b1d-83e1-4f5a-96a1-c6c738856aea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant asserted that he had been detained in appalling conditions in remand prison no. IZ-44/1 in Kostroma. All the cells had been overcrowded. The applicant challenged the veracity of the data submitted by the Government as regards the population and the size of the cells in which he had been detained. In that connection he referred to the findings made by the Kostroma Sverdlovskiy District Court, which on 10 September 2009 had held that the cells in which the applicant had been detained had been overcrowded. He further relied on statements made by Kh. and V., who had been detained together with him at the remand prison and who had provided a description of the conditions of detention in the remand prison similar to that of the applicant. As regards his application to the domestic courts in connection with the poor conditions of detention in the remand prison, the applicant considered that it could not have been considered an effective remedy for his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the structural nature of the problem of overcrowding of remand detention facilities in Russia."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d8820b3-2b72-428c-8c11-177442fb2d22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government argued that the application was unfounded on the merits. They submitted that the \u201cminimum threshold of severity\u201d beyond which there was a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been reached. They compared the present case to that of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) ((dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V), in which a regime keeping a particular prisoner separate from his fellow inmates, which had been instituted for security reasons and had lasted longer than the detention complained of by the applicant in the instant case, had been held by the Court to be within acceptable limits. The present applicant was of a very dangerous and violent disposition, which made the special regime applied to him necessary. As the island of Aruba possessed no facilities suitable for long-term detention other than the KIA, his detention in the conditions he now complained about had been unavoidable."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0400b779-79d7-4a04-a36c-cac58bf178fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government acknowledged the overcrowding in all of the detention facilities in which the applicant had been held. More specifically, the statistics provided by the Government in reply to the applicant\u2019s allegations of overcrowding show that most of the time the applicant\u2019s personal space was significantly less than three square metres. The Court points out that those figures were even lower in reality, given that the cells also contained beds and other items of furniture. This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Fl\u0103m\u00eenzeanu v  Romania, no. 56664/08, \u00a7\u00a7 92 and 98, 12 April 2011; Iacov Stanciu, cited above, \u00a7 173; and Cotle\u0163 v. Romania (No. 2), no. 49549/11, \u00a7 34, 1 October 2013)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a58e8d68-8d85-4b72-8fbe-1de3758e74d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained that that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality which inflicted on him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained that the Greek authorities had failed to secure his rights as required by the procedural obligation imposed by Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5a8c630d-2f7a-4901-a47f-382668391270", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government submitted that the detention conditions at the Yalova police headquarters did not attain the level of severity required to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They provided photos of the detention facility, and copies of the logs recording the number of detainees held at the police headquarters throughout the applicant\u2019s detention. The Government also stated that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 in the light of the principles enshrined by the Court. Bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity, they claimed that there was no reason for the Court to depart from the conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "14e2b953-095f-499b-9c8c-63b73860f91f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the attack on their houses and their destruction had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, for which the State was responsible on the grounds that the authorities had been complicit in the attack and had failed to protect them from it and to investigate it effectively. They furthermore argued that the State was responsible for the degrading living conditions that they had experienced following their displacement. In addition, they complained that on account of the above they had suffered discrimination owing to their Roma ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ea52381e-1990-4004-916f-6f3b4f8c0856", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Said-Rakhman Musayev, Odes Mitayev and Magomed Magomadov had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that the investigation had been deprived of any exact information as to the state of the remains because of the hasty burial organised in February 2001. Later, in 2006 the applicants had objected to the carrying out of forensic expert examinations, which was the only way to establish the cause of the deaths and the nature of the injuries. Moreover, in the absence of evidence suggesting that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been abducted by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 mental suffering."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5b0ae862-7110-44ad-a3bf-1f6e8863e5a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant further complained that he had been unlawfully arrested. He complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that police officers had ill-treated him after his arrest. He also complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with a lawyer and had been forced to sign a waiver of the right to a lawyer; he had not had enough time to prepare his defence; and the courts had failed to examine the evidence properly and to question all the witnesses. The applicant also alleged that, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment on the grounds that he was Russian-speaking and had been a prisoner."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5844babf-9bd3-4ce4-ae2b-a7420b047b34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants complained that it was very likely that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this connection. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6078ad2b-cdba-4763-a1ef-e24554813cc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicant\u2019s representative submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s secret transfer to Uzbekistan, which could only have been carried out with the active or passive involvement of the Russian authorities, and that the Russian authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the abduction. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fe24f373-dca9-4908-b0c9-db175a6530ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, they argued that the applicant had failed to challenge the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 11 June 2008 before the higher\u2011ranking prosecutor, as required by the law, but had challenged it instead before the investigating judge. The applicant disagreed with the Government."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a770465e-9e28-474d-90cc-7563563cf9c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (see \u0141atak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, \u00a7\u00a7 63\u201164). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had already been released on 26 June 2008. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4a6ae332-028c-4c02-9efe-e0b6acf33a16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government maintained that the findings of the reports drawn up following the applicant\u2019s medical examinations, which noted only minor injuries, had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to any physical violence by police officers while in police custody. They argued that the injuries caused to the applicant had resulted from his own conduct, in that the police officers had had to exercise their statutory power of arrest when he tried to escape. They concluded therefore that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f8bd831e-e28c-45c6-9539-0af3abb5c9e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been ill-treated by police officers at the Tskaltubo Police Department with the aim of extracting a confession from him. He further alleged that the relevant national authorities had failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d61cbfeb-c437-4f06-9cdd-cfbacf4619f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the physical force and special means, such as handcuffs, which had been used on the applicant during his arrest fell outside the scope of Article 3 for two reasons. Firstly, the injuries did not result in a deterioration of his health or cause any lasting consequences. Secondly, the police officers did not use physical force to cause suffering to the applicant or to humiliate him; they merely fulfilled their duties, whereas the applicant resisted them. The use of force did not pursue any other goals, such as, for instance, obtaining a confession. The Government emphasised that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful demands of the police officers and that they had used lawful and reasonable measures for putting an end to his unlawful conduct. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and medical evidence had been carefully reviewed by the prosecuting authorities and the courts at two levels of jurisdiction in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "58398445-cc8d-4452-8c8a-4ed5fa88f4ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant contended that he had been ill-treated by the police and had endured psychological trauma as a result of that ill-treatment. He therefore considered that the Government\u2019s arguments that the injuries he had sustained did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention were completely inappropriate and misplaced."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "07096b07-9041-44b9-bb68-149b0047ddd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government further considered that neither the short duration of the applicant\u2019s confinement, nor the concrete circumstances, nor the aims pursued brought the applicant\u2019s detention within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The purpose of placing the applicant in the security cell had not been to punish him for his refusal to move into a multi-occupancy cell; rather, the placement had been due to the fact that a significant disruption in the prison order was to be feared because of his attack on the prison guards and his subsequent conduct."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bc0c2dc5-7be8-4a24-9b7d-5d26d2fb2812", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government considered that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant on various occasions had not constituted victimisation and did not amount to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been able to challenge such sanctions before the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice, although he had not done so on every occasion in due and proper form (paragraphs 46 and 54 above). Hence his complaints in this connection were inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0881c0b3-1cd2-4398-9643-17945bbb116a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that R.D. had not intended to kill the applicant. That had been established in the course of the criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 7 above). However, they conceded that, in view of the seriousness of the injuries sustained, the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment capable of falling within Article <mask> of the Convention, but argued that the State bore no responsibility under the substantive limb of that Article. Its responsibility ended with the criminal proceedings in the course of which R.D. had been convicted and punished. The civil courts, at three levels, had dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim, finding that the State could not be held responsible given the absence of a causal link between R.D.\u2019s action and his official duties. In that connection they reiterated that at the critical time R.D. had left his post during his working hours, without the consent of his superiors. The incident had happened after he had carried out his official duty, namely, to stand guard. In the bar he had not performed any official duty in the course of or in connection with his work. He had acted rather as a private person, as had been established by the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f6f9fafd-a57f-4d4c-8be4-96e447be6069", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained that, since the wearing in public of clothing designed to conceal the face was prohibited by law on pain of a criminal sanction, if she wore the full-face veil in a public place she would expose herself to a risk not only of sanctions but also of harassment and discrimination, which would constitute degrading treatment. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "282aea00-1f97-4b36-8bf6-1a5d2915a911", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government endorsed the domestic authorities' findings that in the light of the specific circumstances of the case the impugned measures were proportionate. They stressed that ex ante there was reason to assume that the applicant was a very dangerous person who was furthermore experienced in hand-to-hand combat. Moreover, the applicant had confronted the intervening police officers while holding a knife. The statement of a participating officer before the Independent Administrative Panel indicated that the applicant had been informed about the reasons of the police intervention at its very beginning. As regards the alleged blindfolding during the strip search, the Government pointed out that the applicant had alluded to his blindfolding for the first time in his complaint with the Independent Administrative Panel but had not mentioned it as a reason for his complaint. Therefore neither the Independent Administrative Panel nor the Administrative Court had to dwell on this issue. In any event, the strip search had lasted only for some minutes so that an eventual blindfolding happened during a very short time. Nor could it be established that a police officer had actually pressed his knee against the applicant's neck while he was lying on the ground. Furthermore, the applicant had admitted that he could \u2013 albeit with difficulty \u2013 watch the police officers during the search of his house which indicates that no pressure had been placed on his neck. In the view of the background of the intervention and its relatively short duration it could be assumed that the police officers proceeded with utmost care until they could be sure that the applicant would not attempt an act of violence or try to escape. They made efforts not to tear the applicant's clothes during the strip search, did not cause any disorder in the applicant's flat and brought him back home after his release. As regards the applicant's complaint about the handcuffing, the Government pointed out that the handcuffs were covered when he was taken to the police car. In the light of the massive reproaches against the applicant, his interrogation lasting three hours did not appear excessive either. The Government concluded that the intervention did not reach the minimum threshold of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e32c7ecb-3d3b-463a-9cff-3e6ed0928c17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["148.  The applicant complained that the unlawful taking and demolition of her flat had amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. She further complained that her forced eviction from her flat against her will had been in breach of her right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and had also amounted to a violation of Article 18 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "74160353-8bc6-45ab-a03b-979d7995e369", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by three detainee escort officers on the premises of Riga Regional Court on 8 May 2006. Referring to Article 1 and Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention he also complained about the investigation into these events. He stated that the investigation had not been thorough, diligent and impartial, and that it had been unreasonably long."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "58123f00-f15e-4772-89c7-46c7d0c91b90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government contended that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and had been thorough and effective. They submitted that the allegations raised by the applicant\u2019s mother in her initial complaint could not be considered credible as she had learned of them from the applicant\u2019s friends and the applicant\u2019s wife failed to reaffirm them. They, also, submitted that the effectiveness of a remedy did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant and that the domestic authorities had carried out all the necessary steps to examine the complaint raised by the applicant\u2019s mother; that is: they had examined all the relevant forensic evidence, collected medical documentation and related reports, and conducted interviews with the applicant, his mother, his wife and other witnesses."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3d26049-cce3-4e31-a0e5-11a3ee25d2c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant challenged the veracity of the data submitted by the Government in respect of the remand prison population. In particular, he pointed out that the figures concerning the remand prison population contained visible corrections. In any event, he asserted that, if the Government\u2019s allegations were accepted as credible, the personal space afforded to him during the periods of his detention in cells nos. 401 and 411 had been below three square metres, which fact alone had been found by the Court on many occasions as sufficient to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the correctional colonies, the applicant conceded that the conditions of his detention there had been better than the conditions of detention in the remand prison. Nevertheless, in view of insufficient personal space afforded to him and the scarcity and low quality of food there, he considered that those conditions had been incompatible with the standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c975bf6f-6a78-4cf5-acd7-2b71c684b4ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government, referring to their description of the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention submitted before the Court (see paragraphs 20-23 above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all necessary measures to ensure adequate conditions of detention for the applicant and that his complaint was groundless. In addition, the Government submitted that the short period of the applicant\u2019s detention should be taken into account when deciding on the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "df503913-b77a-4b9f-8cbe-a5db31e87b32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The applicants complained that, at the moment of their abduction and after it, Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev were subjected to ill\u2011treatment. The second applicant also complained that she had been beaten by the men who had abducted her brother. The applicants further claimed that, as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and the State's failure to investigate the crimes properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0e45f1c6-b1c3-4822-9036-88186d483928", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant maintained his submissions made in the domestic proceedings. He stated that his conversion to Christianity was genuine and lasting. Referring to a number of reports on the situation of Christian converts, he argued that his conversion in and of itself put him at a real risk of being killed or ill-treated, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Iran applied the death penalty for apostasy and Christian converts were at a much higher risk of ill-treatment than persons born as Christians in Iran. He pointed out that the Iranian authorities increasingly sought out members of Christian house churches. Finally, he was not only at risk of ill-treatment at the hands of the state, but also from non-state actors, and could not rely on the Iranian authorities to protect him from such groups."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1dec1cac-8b15-4eb2-b7a8-1560baec4b32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had duly processed all the applicants' requests and they had enjoyed the rights to which victims were entitled in criminal investigations. They stressed that the applicants had not witnessed the alleged arrest of their relatives and that, on the contrary, the latest documents available concerning the whereabouts of their sons attested that they had been absolved of criminal liability and released, demonstrating that the State had no reasons to prosecute them."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f48d8de3-286c-4582-b1d6-97ddd9d36629", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that on 15 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "69daef78-41e7-4bda-a008-5157fd783048", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on him had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He submitted, in particular, that he had never had a disciplinary punishment in prison and that for many years he had felt \u201cdepressed owing to isolation, loneliness and the many body searches\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "75d617d8-e843-4f77-b7e8-bf99054c4bcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations concerning the risk of treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention had been thoroughly studied by the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s extradition and those concerning his request for refugee status. The domestic courts rightly rejected the references made by the applicant\u2019s representative to various reports describing the general situation regarding the allegedly widespread ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan as being too general and insufficient for the purposes of blocking the applicant\u2019s extradition. The Government expressed their firm belief that any risk of ill-treatment that might arise from the general situation in Kyrgyzstan has been completely excluded in the circumstances of the present case since the applicant\u2019s extradition has been requested through official channels with the provision of the necessary guarantees. They further submitted that it was highly unlikely that the Kyrgyz authorities \u2013 who in 2014 had demonstrated their openness and commitment to cooperating with international organisations in fighting the ill-treatment and discrimination of ethnic Uzbeks \u2013 would breach those guarantees. The Government went on to affirm that no instances of non-compliance by the Kyrgyz authorities with the guarantees given in respect of extradited ethnic Uzbeks had been recorded so far in the course of the cooperation between Kyrgyzstan and Russia."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a309c08e-c724-4e3d-b3f4-fc5a9b97f583", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to physical ill\u2011treatment by State Police officers while being arrested on 26 March 2004. The applicant submitted that his descriptions of the event given at different points in time had been complementary. He further relied on the results of examination at Riga no. 1 Hospital and the expert\u2019s report and its conclusions. The applicant referred to Ribitsch v. Austria (4 December 1995, Series A no. 336), that in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which had not been made strictly necessary diminished human dignity and infringed Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "53fbff4c-cec9-4a66-b431-1467fdb32d66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and detention. He also complained that the conditions of his detention between his arrest and October 2006 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and about the authorities' failure to provide him with appropriate medical care while in detention. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f4f6c756-e29a-4e19-a09b-699ecbc0b3d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government maintained that the criminal proceeding had not been completed yet and it was therefore too early to make any conclusions as to the credibility of the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. They further submitted that domestic authorities complied with procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, contending that the investigation in question was being carried out thoroughly and comprehensively."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "98ee81dd-ec2a-4f3c-b8f1-7595b074d819", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant submitted that the police officers should have been punished in accordance with the Criminal Code and not merely reprimanded, and that there has been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in particular after he had been left suffering without medical assistance for twelve hours. According to him, his arrest and detention in harsh conditions were intended to punish him for having protested in front of the Government building and to discourage him from doing so in the future."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "282cf0d7-b13e-4547-9e3c-f17e795086dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that following his arrest on 6 December 2003 he had been subjected to psychological pressure and beatings by the police with a view to extracting his confession to the robbery and murder of Ms D. He also complained about the conditions of his detention in the police station. Namely, he alleged that he been deprived of food, sleep and medication. The provision relied on reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4a859c5d-cb49-4878-bf68-2c39be5c186a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that the application of Article 586 of the CC in his case breached Article <mask> of the Convention in that it gave rise to an excessive and disproportionate punishment. Indeed, Article 586 did not apply a ceiling on the length of the imprisonment to which a sum could be converted. In the present case, there was no relationship of proportionality between the severity of the punishment (two thousand days\u2019 imprisonment) and the minor infringement committed (the failure to observe a curfew). Moreover, this prison term, unlike in other cases, was not subject to remission for good behaviour."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7e13bab3-2c91-4bbe-a7ba-e1a892c6fb5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government failed to submit any document showing that the administrative authorities had conducted an assessment of the applicant\u2019s asylum claim in the light of the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor did they demonstrate that the applicant had been notified of the content of the decision rejecting his asylum claim. Moreover, there are no documents in the case file to show that the authorities issued a formal deportation order and that the applicant was notified of that order. In their observations, the Government only submitted that the applicant had been suspected of involvement in international terrorism; that he had not been able to substantiate his allegations of possible ill-treatment; and that his claims had been assessed by the Ankara Administrative Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "23685816-8fe5-4226-9a55-edf59c9611ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison. Referring to a number of court decisions in unrelated but relevant civil cases, where similar claims for compensation were allowed by domestic courts, the Government argued that the applicant should have sued the relevant State authority and requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code. Alternatively, he could have requested a domestic court, under Article 24 and 33(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, to order the relevant authorities to take additional measures for the protection of his health in prison. Since neither of those judicial remedies were resorted to by the applicant, the Government stated that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3cad2e1-20db-4cbe-abc2-d4f1e3b70d56", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant contested these arguments. He affirmed that he had been detained in Korydallos Prison until 20 June 2013 and on that date he had been transferred to Larissa Prison, where he has remained until this day. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the conditions of detention in Larissa Prison submitting that they were similar to those in Korydallos Prison and should, therefore, be considered as a continuous situation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "165328ae-2c0f-4324-90cd-6c1845888504", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that such ill-treatment had not been investigated properly. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, decided to examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is the relevant provision and which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "efed16fc-4736-430d-b3e0-3e9f5c17494b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicants argued that, after they were hindered from continuing their travels to Baku, they were under the direct control of the Russian authorities and therefore in a comparable situation to persons in detention. The applicants further submitted that by not providing adequate care and protection to the applicants, as vulnerable members of society, the Russian authorities violated their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the conditions during their stay in Derbent led to physical suffering, feelings of humiliation and subsequent negative effects on the applicants\u2019 health."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "13ada28e-0c24-4436-86ec-5d8cae8d856b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government further addressed the applicant's argument of ineffective investigation into the events on 22 September 2001. They asserted that the Russian investigating authorities had done everything possible to effectively respond to the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment. They instituted criminal proceedings against the police officer and prepared his case for trial, having collected necessary evidence for the charges to be upheld in court. In the Government's view, those efforts, despite the officer's acquittal, corroborate the fact that the Russian authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention in the applicant's case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "35a2ecb9-0f96-4536-b044-0a06c0d3b76c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant contended that there had been no effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 29 and 30 October 2008. In particular, he had been totally excluded from the investigative process and in fact there was no evidence that any effective measures had been taken to investigate his complaints. In the applicant\u2019s view this was obvious from the fact that the Zagreb County State Attorney\u2019s Office had rejected his criminal complaint solely on the basis of written material, which had been obtained without his knowledge and involvement. At the same time, no witnesses were questioned and no further investigative actions were taken. Similarly, in view of the very nature of the internal police assessment of lawfulness of the use of force it could not be said that such procedure aimed at the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8ec683d6-b407-4e89-8c88-7d1e0587d9ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained that being exposed to public view, being taken to the court hearings in handcuffs and chained to another inmate, the poor material conditions of detention, his exposure to hazardous substances on 31 May 2010 in the cells of the Bucharest Police Department, the inappropriate material conditions of detention in the court-house cells, and the poor transport conditions every time he was taken to appear at court amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "005a9693-dc2d-47a1-b186-58c5ff50d8a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government stressed that the applicant lodged his complaint with the domestic authorities about the alleged ill-treatment with a substantial delay. They also contended that the investigation into the applicant\u2019s complaints of ill-treatment had been effective and had been held in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they stressed that all requisite measures had been taken (namely, forensic examination of the applicant, interrogation of relevant persons, etc.), following which it had been decided not to institute criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cebbc882-0621-448a-8f0b-c78a4647174b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the remand prison had been compatible with the standards set forth in domestic legislation and the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on excerpts (22 in total) from the remand prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping places and the number of inmates in each cell, the total number of inmates in each of the seven wings of the remand prison and the total number of inmates in the entire remand prison, and on certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison concerning its population in August 2010. As for the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the correctional colonies, the Government submitted statements prepared by the colonies\u2019 administration."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "01cfb1ec-c8f2-40c5-a512-1b5dc61da5bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicants submitted that the manner in which the police operation at their home had been carried out was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. On 31 March 2010, before dawn, a group of masked and heavily armed police officers had forced their way into their house without prior authorisation. The special officers had entered Mr and Mrs Gutsanovi\u2019s bedroom and pointed their weapons at the couple\u2019s two minor daughters. Mr Gutsanov, an influential and respected politician, had been forced to kneel down and been handcuffed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b1f99a5b-ccee-4179-8ce5-2c4185c66165", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government also contended that the injuries found on the applicant\u2019s body were not so serious as to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is not convinced of this, especially taking into consideration the applicant\u2019s vulnerable state due to his very young age (fifteen at the time of the events). It considers that the treatment applied to the applicant could be qualified as inhuman and degrading. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive limb."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "63fb3c44-5f1b-46f0-93e6-0fa04409f6d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 3 October 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing the medical expert opinion with their own assessment of the applicant\u2019s situation. Yet, that is exactly what the Government have done in the present case (see paragraph 38 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of a relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, \u00a7 222, 14 March 2013."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "470ae988-46a3-4f65-9699-eb72feac7a43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention could not be considered to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the sanitary conditions in all the cells where the applicant was detained were found to be satisfactory and they were monitored on a regular basis. The applicant was allowed daily walks and was in good health. In particular the Government stressed that the applicant underwent a medical examination upon arrival and that during his detention he made no request for medical assistance. Finally, the authorities had no intention to make the applicant suffer, physically or morally, to debase his human dignity or to humiliate him during his detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "537c2134-8460-4c6e-a96a-0b53e28252ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his time in police custody. In that connection, he claimed that he had been blindfolded, beaten and subjected to Palestinian hanging and had received electric shocks to his genitals several times. He further alleged that the medical examinations had not been conducted diligently and that his complaints had not been taken into account by the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3c1e0c51-7180-4ea8-8dbb-6479ab19c826", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government admitted that the domestic authorities failed to take appropriate measures to protect the second, third and fourth applicants from ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further admitted that the authorities failed to meet the positive obligation to respect the family and private lives of the second, third and fourth applicants. Nevertheless, the Government contended that the second, third and fourth applicants were no longer victims because they were provided with satisfactory redress at the national level."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b0986a87-be28-4f9e-8c37-e200ec980561", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government further noted that the situation of asylum-seekers in other EU Member States was constantly monitored and that assessments were made on the basis of current developments. There was a regular exchange of information between the Federal Asylum Office and liaison officers in Hungary, which also ensured the possibility of conducting individual investigations, where necessary. With reference to the pending proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s second asylum claim, the Government considered that the issue of whether the applicant\u2019s transfer to Hungary would be in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention could not be answered in abstract terms."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dc64a5ae-07d0-427f-87e3-f4e80e8ea508", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant initially complained that his life sentence was de jure and de facto irreducible and that there was no separate regime for life prisoners or a special regime for detainees with psychiatric problems in the prisons where he had been held. In his letter of 2 November 2012 (see paragraph 3 above), following the conclusion of the periodic review of his life sentence, he further complained that even if a de jure possibility of conditional release had been created, de facto he had no hope of release as he had never been provided with any psychiatric treatment, and for that reason the risk of recidivism was deemed to be too high for him to be eligible for such release. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "206f2e70-387a-4656-86d4-95aab04334a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant submitted that the strip searches to which he had been subjected had been debasing and humiliating. He had been ordered to strip naked despite severe pain in his back. He had then been subjected to a search, including an inspection of his penis and anus. In his view, the prison guards had acted with the intention to humiliate and debase him and had not shown any respect for his human dignity. The applicant argued therefore that the situation complained of had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "95ee1345-c447-4673-b99d-93939a402a80", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. Their cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions had been adopted in their favour. Mr \u0160ukys had received adequate and sufficient compensation while Mr Vitanis had received an acknowledgement from the courts of a violation of domestic regulations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b028b69b-15d7-4359-a6f3-c2dfffca40e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government observed that if a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on the applicant in the United States then Article <mask> of the Convention did not require the existence of a compulsory parole system as the one and only means to ensure compliance with the Convention. They further noted that the US Government had provided additional information about a shift of administrative practice in the kind of offences in question after the judgment issued in the Trabelsi case. According to the Government, the details furnished by the US authorities about how the Presidential clemency system now worked meant that the conclusion reached in Trabelsi should be reconsidered. In particular, the Government stressed that the objective, pre-established criteria that were currently at the cornerstone of the US Presidential clemency system, of which prisoners had precise knowledge at the time of the imposition of a life sentence and which meant they could obtain attain a reduction or commutation of their remaining time of detention if it could no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds, deserved careful consideration by the Court in the instant case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9741a116-aa0a-4c92-ad64-c498ad27f5fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant noted that where an individual was taken into police custody in good health but was found to be injured at the time of release, it was incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how these injuries had been caused, failing which a clear issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this case no such explanation had been given."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "516e1625-e570-4707-849e-e964bfcfa77c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicants complained that they had serious grounds to believe that Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment before having been murdered and that no effective investigation had been conducted in that respect. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with the killing of their relatives and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the events concerned. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which states as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6f071885-f0d2-4f65-a49a-9b5cdb474eeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance. However, since the involvement of State agents into his abduction had not been established, the State could not be held responsible for their sufferings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "75a612ad-b967-40f1-b842-1a2b576c27ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government acknowledged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the absence of an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of rape. They observed that the courts of the Dagestan Republic had repeatedly criticised the ineffectiveness of the inquiry carried out by the investigative authorities and held that the latter\u2019s acts and omissions were in breach of domestic law."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9ba17205-b10c-4534-8ed6-9914c22d7888", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they reasoned that he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution (see paragraph 91 above) and section 1405 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 92 above). Moreover, he could have invoked directly Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8db898c4-0b12-4f4a-8d49-ed99a4132bfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government observed that, as had also been noted by the criminal investigator in her decision of 21 January 2003, within one month of the alleged violence occurring the police had been called only twice, but the applicant had made no allegations of being physically attacked by J.H.L., either in her statements to the police or to the officers who had attended her apartment on those two occasions. She had only complained that J.H.L. had refused to let her enter the apartment which they both shared as co-owners (see paragraph 16 above). However, on four occasions the applicant had taken it upon herself to ask the forensic experts to issue reports about the alleged injuries. In this connection, it had to be observed that, having analysed the evidence, the criminal investigator had had certain doubts concerning the nature of the disagreements between the applicant and J.H.L., and in her decision of 21 January 2003 the investigator had considered that the criminal investigation could have been initiated by the applicant because there existed unresolved financial disputes between her and J.H.L. For the Government, the latter decision by the investigator also revealed inconsistency in the statements given by J.H.L., the applicant and some of the witnesses regarding the alleged acts of violence, such discrepancies being an important aspect when deciding the issue of the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e5e659f0-4df2-4b36-9deb-2233a0b3e353", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his custody. He also maintained that he had been arrested on 5 September 1999, not on 8 September 1999 as indicated in the arrest report. According to the applicant, he was beaten on the head and neck by a truncheon, punched, kicked and his testicles were squeezed during his interrogation at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate Building. In this respect, the applicant relied on medical reports dated 14 and 15 September 1999."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9000070b-489e-4877-b325-c560663c38c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government further submitted that detention conditions in IK-3 and prison hospital had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that in both facilities the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, sufficient food, clothes and bedding; and that the sanitary, hygienic and temperature norms had been met (set out in paragraphs 12-14 and 19-20 above) and claimed that detention conditions in both penitentiary facilities had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government enclosed statements by several inmates who confirmed that in IK-3 there had been sufficient heating and that the detainees had never slept in their clothes."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b14326af-fbcd-4a3e-9720-68447d75114d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicants alleged that they had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, at the hands of the Belgian authorities. They explained, firstly, that they had been left for more than ten days in the transit zone without any legal or social assistance, without any means of subsistence, without accommodation or washing or sleeping facilities, without any place to enjoy a private life, without access to means of communication, without being able to receive visits and without any possibility of having the conditions of their detention reviewed by external independent authorities. Secondly, they had been beaten several times and insulted. They relied on Article 3, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8615031d-d063-40dc-a10e-33588540b6c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The Government contended that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged atmosphere of fear and uncertainty should equally be rejected for being out of time. From the time when she was recognised as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings, she could no longer claim that the atmosphere had been uncertain because the body found in Tarashcha had been identified with a high degree of certainty as being that of her husband, and criminal proceedings for murder had been initiated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "98db4fe9-c377-4bfa-8fa1-ae620aae703a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the Kerch ITT. He also complained under the same provision that there had been no adequate forensic examination of the injuries sustained by him in his fight with Mr and Mrs L. According to him, those injuries had been more serious than the courts claimed. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that the domestic courts had erred in their assessment of the facts of the case and had misapplied the law. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) that his representation by the lawyers appointed for him had been inadequate. The applicant also invoked Article 3 of the Convention in this connection. He further invoked Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) without providing further details. He also complained that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence with the Court, having allegedly opened and read without his permission the Court\u2019s letter of 24 August 2006 addressed to him. Lastly, in his reply to the Government\u2019s observations the applicant raised for the first time a complaint under Article 6 about the hearing in the Supreme Court held in his absence and without him being legally represented, but in which the prosecutor participated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "de1a811a-7c00-4480-895d-3b60d9df355e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant also maintained that ARV treatment was not accessible in all cases in Nigeria. In fact, only a minority of people living with advanced-stage HIV had access to it free of charge. The applicant had no funds and no social network and was liable to be stigmatised and discriminated against in seeking access to the labour market, in common with HIV sufferers generally and women in particular. It would therefore be very difficult if not impossible for her to fund her treatment, and a return to Nigeria would place her at risk of death within a short time in conditions of physical and mental suffering attaining the threshold of severity required by Article 3. In the applicant\u2019s view, the Court should apply the same reasoning as in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom (2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III) and find that the difference between someone already close to death and someone who would die within a short time was minimal, and that expelling either a dying person or a person who was going to die within a short time was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9e13d36d-9faf-4f0a-8cfe-553d59688c95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that at the time the authorities had been unable to provide four square metres of cell space per detainee in this remand facility, as required under Russian law (see also paragraph 46 above). The problem of overpopulation had been widespread at the relevant time and could not be resolved in view of the high level of crime and a lack of funding. However, the mere fact of non-compliance with the national requirements concerning cell space per detainee, in the Government\u2019s view, did not suffice to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The remaining conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention (the fact that he had an individual bed and bedding, the light and temperature conditions in the cells, the presence of a toilet and table) had been acceptable."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e5842179-1e73-490b-8144-330de8f9b541", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government further submitted that the allegations of psychological ill-treatment were manifestly ill-founded and that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable, given that the alleged ill-treatment had not reached the minimum level of severity required by that Convention provision. In this regard the Government submitted that the applicant had not specified in sufficient detail the manner and extent of the alleged psychological ill-treatment and its consequences. However, the fact that the law-enforcement officers had explained to her the negative legal consequences of the crime could not be interpreted as treatment prohibited by the Convention. Moreover, no indications of ill-treatment had been found by the domestic authorities, who had carried out a thorough examination of the matter."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "35fbbe0d-d319-4b82-b76e-5cd572cbe2f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained that between 7 and 10 September 2007 he had been physically and psychologically ill-treated by his fellow inmates at the Warsaw-Mokot\u00f3w Remand Centre and that the administration had not ensured his safety. He did not rely on any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e12a2ed7-5486-41bd-a0ab-b57cb3dd8b3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (see \u0141atak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had been moved to a cell in which he had been secured at least the statutory minimum standard space of 3 m2 per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "245b09e3-cb98-4cf8-822d-6c3db3b126bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not been suffering from any illness incompatible with his detention. He had been given all the medical care recommended during his detention, with the exception of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment. However, the latter was only an additional treatment that had not been proven in clinical trials to have any discernible effect on patients with medical conditions similar to the applicant's. The applicant had been seen by a number of doctors during his detention and had subsequently been placed under the medical supervision of prison hospital doctors, who had followed all the treatment prescribed to him by specialist doctors. His conditions of detention and treatment had not therefore amounted to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d50a8782-e05c-46cc-8182-303f44ac9293", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. She also complained that as a result of her husband's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2512f61c-0c2f-4be1-a2d6-5f55c6370e22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government argued that the first applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court about the conditions of his confinement at that court\u2019s convoy premises. On the merits, they relied on the letter from the President of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court and submitted that the first applicant\u2019s conditions of detention at the courthouse complied with the requirements set out in the Detention of Suspects Act. With reference to the certificate issued by the head of remand centre IZ-77/2, they claimed that the first applicant had been provided with a dry ration on the days of the court hearings, and concluded that the conditions of his confinement at the District Court\u2019s premises had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ffe087ac-fc7c-4e34-9756-ebd4b29901a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about ill-treatment by the police and the lack of any investigation into such ill-treatment. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, he complained that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and arbitrary. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention that his case had been unlawfully transferred to the Sumy Regional Court, which had no territorial jurisdiction over the case; that the investigation had concealed important pieces of evidence; that the courts had been biased; and that the proceedings had been excessively long."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "07bafab0-8b41-402e-90a2-0a70ae9e2a76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention in Ploie\u015fti Prison and of the general lack of adequate medical treatment for the venous thromboses in his legs. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, a lack of water, a lack of physical exercise and poor nutrition. Moreover, he complained that during detention he had been diagnosed with venous thrombosis in his legs and that he had not been treated adequately because of a lack of medicines and budget to pay for the medical expenses. He relied in substance on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c7e6e5fe-4b1a-442d-bc00-3d6ab244dae9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government maintained that the level of severity required for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be regarded as having been attained in the instant case. In particular, as regards the applicant\u2019s detention in Omonoia police station, the Government cited the Court\u2019s decisions in Ciocan and others v. Greece (dec.) (no. 41806/13, 6 October 2015) and Preci v. Greece (dec.) (no. 9387/15, 17 November 2015) and maintained that the applicant\u2019s detention there for twenty-seven days did not reach the required level of severity. In respect of the applicant\u2019s detention in Larissa prison, the Government referred to their description of facts and to the Court\u2019s judgment in Kalamiotis and Others v. Greece, no. 53098/13, \u00a7\u00a7 41-42, 29 October 2015). They argued that the applicant had actually benefitted from privileged conditions of detention and medical treatment owing to his disability, and invited the Court to reject the application as manifestly ill-founded. They also added that their version of the facts should be accepted by the Court as the application had been communicated under the immediate and simplified procedure and the applicant had not contested the facts as presented by the Government."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8eff5160-5ec9-47bd-8ad9-666e7305ede5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations about the risk of ill-treatment in the event of execution of the expulsion order of 18 October 2013 were speculative and \u201ccould not be considered by the [domestic] court during the administrative proceedings\u201d. Nevertheless, they had been thoroughly reviewed and found to be unsubstantiated by the Moscow City Court. In any event, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be expelled to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8092a21c-79e1-4635-9b74-9b2175c79082", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been debased, ill-treated and denied medical assistance while being detained in 1985. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 1, she complained that her arrest in 1985 had been unlawful and that the inviolability of her home had been infringed. In substance she also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that she had been denied a fair trial in the criminal proceedings (unfair conviction and sentencing). She further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her claims for damages had been dismissed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f9e71a86-9f39-4609-bb5d-62d9db606364", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government did not deny that the injuries on the applicant\u2019s body had been caused by police officers during his arrest. However, they maintained that the use of force by the police officers had been justified by the applicant\u2019s behaviour, in particular by his resistance to arrest, and that the intensity of the force used had not been disproportional to the applicant\u2019s resistance. They relied on forensic medical report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007, in which it had been noted that a bruise and scratches had been found on the arms of one of the arresting officers. The Government maintained that in any event the suffering caused to the applicant had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required by Article 3 and asked the Court to dismiss the applicant\u2019s complaint under that Article. As to the effectiveness of the investigation, the Government submitted that the prosecutors had done everything which it had been necessary to do in order to investigate the applicant\u2019s allegations. Therefore, the investigation had been effective within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e9821deb-c17f-49d5-bdb1-626ce0bf2f7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government further asserted that the complaint of a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was not supported by any evidence. The applicant\u2019s reference to the forensic medical expert\u2019s report of 6 March 2004 was irrelevant, as the report had only evidenced a light injury which had clearly pre-dated the time of his arrest and detention. Moreover, his complaints to the domestic authorities and the Court had been too vague and inconsistent."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "766d0bf7-d8cd-43ad-a36c-bf8ce3e86696", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Governments of Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom observed that in the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment (15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) the Court had stated the principle that in view of the absolute nature of the prohibition of treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, the risk of such treatment could not be weighed against the reasons (including the protection of national security) put forward by the respondent State to justify expulsion. Yet because of its rigidity that principle had caused many difficulties for the Contracting States by preventing them in practice from enforcing expulsion measures."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "132028c3-3209-4bc9-bdd9-5d2181553888", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment, since the results of the domestic investigation had proved that the applicant\u2019s injuries had been self-inflicted. They further insisted that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment had been carried out thoroughly and comprehensively. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive or procedural limb and the applicant had had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "183ee8d9-b0d7-4ecd-a878-c84719ecf92d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to physical ill-treatment and psychological pressure by the police on 18 August 2005 and thereafter, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He also complained under the same provision about the conditions of his detention in Ladyzhynska prison no. 39. Article 3 of the Convention relied on by the applicant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "685d4845-b093-42a9-a4b3-16e2856dd233", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police used excessive force against him during arrest and under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached. However, it is noted that the applicant did not use any of the remedies available to him under domestic law. In particular he did not attempt to initiate proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him and against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which had allegedly breached his right to be presumed innocent. In view of the above, these complaints must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6ffae31f-8487-43b4-a008-d906a9cc17f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["251.  The Government endorsed the Supreme Court\u2019s findings (see paragraphs 159 and 160 above) that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They did not deny that the applicants had suffered as a result of their diving, and that they had consequently found or were still finding themselves in unfortunate circumstances. They might also feel that they had been treated unfairly and unjustly by the Norwegian authorities in that they had not succeeded domestically with their Convention complaints. However, their situation could not sensibly be viewed as inhuman or degrading treatment as understood in the Court\u2019s case-law. Whilst any \u201csuffering or humiliation involved must ... go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment (see Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, \u00a7 92, ECHR 2000\u2011XI), the applicants had engaged in diving activities voluntarily and their employment ought to be regarded as \u201clegitimate\u201d for the purposes of the Court\u2019s assessment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fce5425d-408f-4509-907e-a9da95c5cbaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant and argued that it was excessive. Referring to the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government reiterated their position on the merits and claimed that the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. As regards the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of the violation of Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4, the Government argued that a simple finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5d16bc88-bcff-43fc-9095-9bbc58f2f0c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government argued that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment concerning the police officers was not in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and did not result in impunity for them as their sentences would be executed if they committed another wilful offence during the five-year period following the judgment. In this respect, the Government maintained that the police officers concerned had also been ordered to pay the legal costs and expenses incurred by the applicant during the proceedings. Finally, in terms of promptness, they submitted that the said proceedings had met the requirements of the Convention in that additional reports and medical evidence had been collected and witness statements had been heard during the entire period."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ea93e237-c45f-4d7e-ac90-daf95074446d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant further argued that the domestic authorities had wrongly established the facts relating to the incident in question. He claimed that the police officers and S.\u2019s brothers had beaten him up and had used force against him that had not been necessary as he did not resist. With respect to his behaviour during the incident, the applicant noted that he had not been found guilty of any offence. He therefore insisted that his treatment had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6f6a4412-5961-4f7f-84fa-98c1487e89c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant has not submitted that there existed any exceptional circumstances preventing him from complying with the six months\u2019 rule. The Court therefore considers that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about being placed in metal cages was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "43366398-1708-4201-bc95-847742950e35", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases regarding both periods he complained of had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicant\u2019s favour had been adopted. The sums awarded to him in compensation for non-pecuniary damage had been adequate and sufficient, and had been calculated in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law and by taking into account the entirety of the relevant criteria (the duration and the extent of the violation, the consequences for the applicant\u2019s health of the violation, the actions of the aggrieved person, the economic living conditions in Lithuania, examples of similar cases, the criteria of equity, fairness and reasonableness, and the principle of proportionality) and the individual situation of the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1b1480fe-7ed1-4235-9934-154360394c02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued that the force used against the applicant on 29 March 2007 did not reach the level of severity necessary for the application of Article <mask> of the Convention. The force had been used only in order to prevent the applicant from attacking a prison guard. The prison doctor who had seen the applicant the same day had not noticed any injuries to his body."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "804c9750-3609-4717-bc43-d49284d6d5c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant disputed the Government's factual submissions concerning the conditions of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility from 19 October 2005 to 25 October 2007 (see paragraphs 80-82 above) and maintained that the actual conditions of his detention, as described by him (see paragraphs 75-79 above), amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further claimed that the Government had relied selectively on the 2002 CPT Report and that this same report also contained \u201cnumerous criticisms\u201d of the conditions in the MNS Detention Facility. In any event, in the applicant's opinion, the 2002 CPT Report was old and outdated and did not provide an accurate representation of the conditions of detention during the period of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f1e8117f-2020-4aba-a2f7-f9db69bde63c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been ill-treated to extract their confessions. They alleged additionally under Article 6 that the domestic court had erred in its assessment of evidence in the case, which had led to their conviction, although they had been innocent, and that the domestic courts had lacked impartiality. The first applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) that he had been unlawfully arrested. He also complained under Article 6 that the trial court had not questioned other, unspecified witnesses for the prosecution and had refused to question witnesses suggested by him. The first applicant also invoked Article 13 of the Convention. In addition, the second applicant complained of having been arbitrarily detained on the basis of false accusations and of having lacked remedies for his situation. He referred to Articles 1, 2, 5, 8, 13 and 17."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1624a6d0-a26e-4fd7-a9c7-ea6606406b53", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicant complained about a further separate violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of her own suffering resulting from the authorities\u2019 failure to establish the circumstances of her late husband\u2019s death. Leaving aside the question of the applicant\u2019s standing (compare Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, \u00a7 120 et seq., 6 November 2008, with further references) and in view of the Court\u2019s findings under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, it is not necessary to give a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the present complaint."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a0cab232-921f-4dea-b970-e144d14becf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government considered that the first applicant had made detailed and credible statements concerning his PDPA membership, his employment as a prison guard at Pol-e-Charki Prison and subsequent employment by the KhAD/WAD where he reached the rank of either lieutenant-colonel or major. However, the Government considered that his return to Afghanistan would not, solely for this reason, entail a risk of treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a2ae2fd1-fd5b-4492-9e0a-fa3bad3f9fe8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government maintained that the applicant did not face a particular risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention upon his return to Sri Lanka. In this connection they contended that the applicant was unlikely to attract the suspicions of the Sri Lankan authorities, given that he had never been politically active, had worked for the LTTE under duress and had carried out peripheral tasks only. Furthermore, and by his own admission, the applicant had been released by the soldiers in September 1995 when they were unable to confirm their suspicions that he was involved in the LTTE. He had also been given a travel permit to visit Colombo. Although the applicant had stayed in Colombo for longer than the prescribed seven days, he had nevertheless been able to leave the country by air \u2013 a means of travel subject to particularly strict controls \u2013 using a passport in his own name. There was, therefore, no reason to suggest that the Sri Lankan authorities harboured any particular suspicions about the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0d6f1a63-245d-41b1-80b5-2b202e535c82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been compatible with the requirements of Russian law and Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that although on 29 June 2005 the cells were crowded to the limit, the period of several hours is too short to attain the threshold of severity required for a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cc1603fd-cd99-4f8b-be2c-f0f43d79a7b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government contended that there was no evidence that Apti Isigov or Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They added that the investigation into the alleged abuses committed during the special operation of 2 July 2001 in Sernovodsk had commenced in accordance with the procedural rule and within the statutory time-limit and therefore had not breached the requirements of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a40336de-454d-4215-9421-24c4349e1506", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant argued that although the extradition order had been cancelled it remained possible for Russian authorities to remove him from Russia by way of administrative removal or deportation. Thus, he continued to be at risk of ill-treatment, if removed from Russia to Uzbekistan. The applicant maintained that there was still an issue to be determined by the Court \u201cunder the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "902dc1f8-11eb-4305-b232-cd0d1fa26473", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government submitted that in their view the applicant had not complained in concrete terms before the Court about the material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison and they asked the Court not to examine that part of the applicant\u2019s complaints. Moreover, they argued that that part of the applicant\u2019s complaints was inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae because the applicant did not claim to be the victim of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that while the applicant had made a general statement that the conditions of his detention were inappropriate, he had never referred expressly to overcrowding or the hygiene conditions in prison. Moreover, the fact that the applicant might have raised these issues before domestic courts did not imply that he wished to raise a similar complaint before the Court. In his application before the Court the applicant had failed to provide details about the conditions of detention he had been faced with personally and had been content to refer to the conditions of detention described by a different applicant in a separate case. Thus, had he desired to lodge a distinct complaint before the Court with regard to the material conditions of his detention, he should have complained of and described his own conditions and not confined himself to noting that such conditions were common knowledge."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ad878ba5-a982-402e-b8b7-9537bae2ba92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicants referred to their submissions on the exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 50 above). They also pointed out that the prosecuting authorities and the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not opened disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who had carried out the searches, even after becoming aware of the applicants\u2019 complaints before the Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "939a46a3-f5e2-4bbd-8d5d-55fcf0d24501", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant argued that in his letter of 6 October 2004 he had duly informed the investigating judge assigned to his case of the police brutality against him and had thus properly made the relevant domestic authorities aware of the alleged ill-treatment. As to the running of the six-month period, the applicant argued that it had not started to run from 24 April 2004 when the ill-treatment took place, but that it was connected with the State's obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment by the police. Since the relevant State authorities had so far not complied with that obligation, the six-month period had not yet started to run."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3f15da8-8227-40db-8a63-669109948bec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant maintained all his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that his frequent transfers to disciplinary cells amounted to a \u201ccontinuous situation\u201d falling within the six-month time\u2011limit. He further insisted on the lack of any opportunity to obtain an expert report on the origin of his medical condition and complained of ill\u2011treatment by the prison guards."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "33ac4a15-b441-457a-af88-fe3b38733730", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were ill-treated under police custody. They further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of their police custody and subsequent detention on remand. They also submitted that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. Lastly, they referred to the different procedural rules applied before state security courts and ordinary criminal courts and invoked a violation of Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "92262f6b-f621-487e-878f-bee49d051a78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60. The Government argued that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court considers that the ill-treatment of the applicant, which on three occasions caused her physical injuries, combined with her feelings of fear and helplessness, was sufficiently serious to reach the required level of severity under Article 3 of the Convention and thus impose a positive obligation on the Government under this provision (see E.M. v. Romania, cited above, \u00a7 57; and Milena Felicia Dumitrescu v. Romania, no. 28440/07, \u00a7 54, 24 March 2015)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "17c5061b-fc03-41f4-a29e-325d5d74156c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that in his constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court, which had been an effective domestic remedy concerning the conditions of detention, the applicant had only complained of inappropriate medical care and lack of personal space in detention, as well as the alleged discrimination following the decisions of the Bjelovar County Court. However, he had failed to raise any other argument or complaint concerning the conditions of his detention and had thus failed to observe the principle of subsidiarity with regard to the other complaints he had brought before the Court. Furthermore, he had not invoked any of the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing protection from ill-treatment and respect for human dignity, notably Articles 23 and 25 (see paragraph 30 above); nor, for that matter, had he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he had not sufficiently substantiated his constitutional complaint. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had been legally represented and that it had been incumbent on his lawyer to properly use the constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court. Had he done that appropriately, it would also have been open for the applicant to lodge a civil action for damages in the event that a violation of his rights had been found by the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "45ba7c8c-f3f0-46a3-83d9-694b8edfb8cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance while serving his sentence in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective domestic remedy had been available to him in this regard. Articles 3 and 13 were both cited above (see paragraph 90 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bae326d5-0692-416c-bc03-5678a24eedd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained that his forced transfer to Hungary would subject him to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 5, he further complained that he would be likely to be detained after his transfer to Hungary, which would subject him to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court considers that the complaint regarding the detention conditions in Hungary in fact also falls under Article 3, and will consequently be examined under that head. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "428fc299-9dd6-40f7-9461-dbdc8b37fd28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she could have lodged a civil court action seeking compensation for the alleged violation, similar to those brought successfully by the applicants in the above-cited cases of Drugaliov, Gristiuc, Ipate and Ciorap. Moreover, she did not submit a complaint concerning the alleged inadequacy of her medical treatment to any of the domestic authorities, such as the Penitentiaries' Department. The only complaint made was addressed to the investigating judge, who was not competent to decide on that issue. That competence lay with the civil court examining any complaints seeking compensation for damage caused."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "06314994-901f-443f-96d0-6b4f2ed28f1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had caused them stress and that their reputation in society had been damaged by the case. They further complained under Article 14 of the Convention on the basis of the same facts. Finally, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that at the end of the proceedings they had managed to obtain only a partial result to stop the unlawful occupation of their land."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f159e718-17e1-4521-aaea-876401bd2be6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["271.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal in respect of the alleged violations of his rights, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented him from using those remedies. In particular, the applicant had been granted victim status in criminal cases nos. 21088 and 61857 opened into his allegations of ill\u2011treatment and the theft and destruction of his property respectively and could have availed himself of his procedural rights which had been explained to him. According to the Government, the applicant had received reasoned replies to all his queries in the context of the criminal proceedings, and therefore had had effective domestic remedies as regards his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3663a7fa-abf1-417c-887c-326ed599aee5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant further argued that, in view of the reasons for the respondent Government's adoption in July 2006 of a moratorium on decisions on asylum requests and on expulsions of Libyan nationals, the boldness with which the respondent Government maintained their denial of the existence of a \u201creal risk\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention in his case was questionable."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9fd5bd0b-ad43-4548-9fdd-b505368d4d30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant submitted that she had been subjected to an act of police brutality which had been completely unprovoked by her. The clubbing she received amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. She further submitted that the domestic authorities failed to proceed with a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d744794d-34b0-4282-a654-6546f4622598", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government submitted that the second applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any non\u00adpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f0b6c179-9ed4-4ef6-afef-3c2dd7a72db8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government accepted the first medical assessment submitted by the applicant, prepared by a clinical psychologist (see paragraph 37 above), but argued that it did not prove that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. On the other hand, the Government contested the statement by A.Z., on the grounds that she had not been registered with the Bulgarian Medical Union as a medical practitioner. On these grounds, the Government contended that the first applicant had abused his right to individual application and urged the Court to dismiss his complaints in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ad75d431-0977-41e5-8fe2-5ac5957e84a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants alleged a breached of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of their forced expulsion from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "004bd739-0f6d-4a62-be45-75c293d5f637", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time and high temperatures in the cells."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "20f9d7eb-6af8-4473-9a71-3d0da33f4d68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture. They referred, in particular, to the methods of ill-treatment to which they had been subjected in Ingushetia and in Khankala, to the conditions of detention in Khankala and to the threats of execution. The applicants also complained under Article 3 that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e9dc22e5-ba62-4738-a1ee-a482de8e928f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, insalubrious sanitary facilities, the presence of lice, poor quality food, lack of hot or cold running water, lack of adequate activities and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time. He further complained of inadequate health care and that in response to his repeated requests for dental care he was told that there were not enough funds."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d43f1ac1-4636-4817-acb6-86ffc615f4dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that the low amount of compensation awarded to him in the domestic civil proceedings had not provided him with proper redress for the violation of his right not to be subjected to treatment proscribed under Article <mask> of the Convention, and that he was therefore still a victim under that Convention provision, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c5120f88-12f5-4392-890c-0699103d3b3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their son's abduction and killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that it was highly probable that Mr Anzor Sambiyev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "436712ff-aace-465a-97ce-d58499f07b4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody. He also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers and the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment, which in his view had resulted in impunity. The applicant relied upon Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "26164c04-0aff-4687-8dc8-6ab045b42dc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his appointment to a lower post and the imposition of sanctions constituted degrading treatment. He further complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the impossibility to institute a criminal case against the command of his military unit. Relying on Article 6 the applicant complained about a violation of his right of access to court referring to the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to consider on the merits his complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an unfair hearing and the outcome of the proceedings in the civil case concerning his dismissal. He finally invoked Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention without any further specification."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2ab41642-5e8e-4eda-afe6-e985b4eb495e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government conceded that from 7 August 2003 to 3 December 2004 the floor space available to each detainee in the applicant\u2019s cell had been below the sanitary requirement of four square metres and that that situation had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that the Government only cited the average number of detainees in the cell, which implies that at times the actual number of detainees had been higher. This coincides with the applicant\u2019s submission that he had been obliged to share the cell with up to thirty-five individuals. As the Government only produced the cover page of the register and the page concerning the applicant alone, it is impossible to establish the exact number of detainees during the relevant period. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the cell was severely overcrowded and that detainees were afforded less than three square metres of floor space per person."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "499acbfc-0d4b-4396-aeb5-8ea830396d54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government further took the view that the applicant's continued preventive detention on the basis of a judgment delivered in 1985 had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant's preventive detention for an indefinite duration did not amount to an irreducible life sentence because the courts responsible for the execution of sentences had to examine at least every two years whether the applicant was still liable to commit serious offences and had to release him if that was not the case. The fact that the applicant may have supposed at the time of his conviction that he could not be placed in preventive detention for more than ten years did not warrant protection because in accordance with Article 2 \u00a7 6 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34), the maximum duration of preventive detention had always been susceptible to be changed. It was only the Court's new case-law developed in M. v. Germany which led to the conclusion that the said provision could only be applied to a limited extent in respect of preventive detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "98136868-7eb3-40db-a302-315124e338cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that conditions of her detention in remand prison IZ-52/1 between 23 August and 20 December 2007 had been in breach of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. She further invoked under Article 34 of the Convention alleging hindrance with her right to individual petition on account of undue restrictions on access to her representative before the Court. The relevant provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "01e897a6-e4ec-4498-a3f9-9c3e8e135346", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government pointed out that the procedural obligation imposed on the States with regard to Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In their submission, the investigative procedures brought before the two investigating judges were sufficient to consider that the Spanish State had fulfilled its obligations, irrespective of the fact that the police officers were ultimately not convicted."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "84093600-30e4-4571-9c0e-30d345c5e77c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government have not sought to invoke convincing security reasons requiring the applicants\u2019 isolation. Likewise, they have not said why it was not possible to revise their situation so as to permit adequate possibilities for human contact and meaningful activities outside the cell. While they stated that the applicants could take part in collective activities, apart from mentioning the library and the prison chapel, they did not specify what those activities were, or their frequency. The Court notes in this connection the CPT\u2019s findings in its reports on its 2012, 2014 and 2015 visits to Burgas Prison, namely that there appeared to be little or no structurally planned intervention on the part of staff to attempt to provide appropriate mental and physical stimulation to life prisoners and that the vast majority of inmates had no access to organised out-of-cell activities and were left idle for up to 23 hours a day. It appears that this situation is to a great extent a result of the automatic application of the legal provisions regulating the applicants\u2019 prison regime. In its recent judgment in Harakchiev and Tolumov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 203-09), the Court found that such automatic isolation, even in application of the relevant statutory provisions, was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fdad3b19-9055-4ece-bfbd-8cb873870355", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant complained that his inability to receive conjugal visits from his wife during his pre-trial detention had caused him intolerable mental and physical suffering and had threatened to break up his family. He was also displeased that his entitlement in that respect had been more restricted than that of a convicted person serving a prison sentence. He alleged that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b671e014-5ad8-4a30-9829-00209312529b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government argued, firstly, that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint as he could have applied to a court for compensation of damages caused by allegedly poor conditions of detention. The procedure for making claims was established in Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. They further claimed that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in IZ-16/1 of Kazan had been fully compatible with the standards of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also asserted that the applicant, in their opinion, had failed to substantiate his allegations by any evidence, such as, for example, statements of other inmates who had shared the cells with him."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "984c994e-182d-4cb3-90e2-1ab6db64ee58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submissions. He submitted that even if the physical injuries inflicted on him were not very severe, the assessment of the severity threshold required under Article <mask> of the Convention should take account of the racist motive for the violent acts and the possible effects of such motivation, namely feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2076f0b6-59d1-4e50-958e-5cd6b01aeb0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government disagreed with their allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They further contended that the first applicant's allegations had been unsubstantiated because the medical documents confirming his injuries had been obtained by him at a much later date."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "62f99b9d-31e3-4833-955d-30d43942f34b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant\u2019s allegation, as set out in his complaint to the prosecuting authorities, that the police had subjected him to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in the course of his arrest was arguable. It was made shortly after the events and was supported by medical evidence, which showed extensive bruising on his body and limbs, as well as other material (see paragraph 15 above). The authorities were therefore required to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7a7c273a-3add-4146-9eac-8ffe165c8dda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant reiterated his complaint in respect of the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and contended that the conditions of detention in which he had been held were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He did not sustain or substantiate any complaints in respect of the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "40486528-9599-4f75-a039-ef37c2392232", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention (cited in paragraph 76 above), of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in a severely overcrowded cell at the Mozhaiskiy District police station of Moscow between 30 July and 6 August 2013. He alleged, in particular, that the cell in which he had been held for almost seven days had been originally designed for short periods of detention not exceeding several hours, and that it had been severely overcrowded."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "09cef85f-3d53-4583-b8ed-d21832bfa36d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to lodge his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention within six months from the date of the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. More precisely, the applicant was entitled under Article 290 of the CCP (see paragraph 114 above) to contest the decisions of the investigating authority before the domestic courts. The applicant successfully exercised this right by instituting two sets of proceedings: the first one contesting the investigator\u2019s decision of 7 June 2004 rejecting his allegations of ill-treatment and the second one contesting the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 30 August 2004 terminating the criminal proceedings against him. The six months period must be calculated from the date of the final decision in the first set of proceedings, which was taken by the Court of Cassation on 24 September 2004. The application, which had been lodged with the Court only on 10 November 2005, was therefore out of time. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s submission that the six months period must be calculated from the date of the final decision in the second set of proceedings, namely 13 May 2005, was ill-founded, since those proceedings concerned a different issue, namely the termination of the criminal proceedings, and none of the court decisions taken in those proceedings concerned the applicant\u2019s request to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of ill-treatment or contained any ruling on the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "96c12bd8-abad-4d56-ac90-98a253f2eaaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison. He alleged that he had been allocated less than 3 sq. m of personal space for several non-consecutive periods amounting in total to fifty days, and that there had also been several non-consecutive periods in which he was allocated between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space in the cells. In this connection he also alleged poor sanitary and hygiene conditions and nutrition, a lack of work opportunities, and insufficient access to recreational and educational activities. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eb33317c-cf03-4363-93e4-e76fa61794fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article <mask> of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State\u2019s positive obligations under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as inhuman treatment. On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a2b6c15f-4f65-4435-b344-5e61dbf3518e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government argued, first of all, that the third applicant\u2019s submissions as to the origin of his injuries had been inconsistent: having alleged on 13 March 1999 at the trauma unit that he had fallen down a fire escape, he later reported on 19 March 1999 he that he had been beaten up by the police officers. Besides, his allegations had not been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities in due time. In any event, they had been addressed by the Prosecutor\u2019s Office, which on 19 January 2001 had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, a decision which the applicant had not challenged before a court. Subsequently, the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to make submissions regarding the alleged beatings and to question those who had allegedly taken part in them. The police officers who had been questioned had denied having applied any physical force against the applicant, for which reason on 28 February 2001 the criminal prosecution against them had been terminated for lack of corpus delicti. The trial court had also examined the applicant\u2019s allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated. The Government concluded that the domestic authorities had undertaken all necessary measures in order to investigate the circumstances in question. However, it had not been established that the applicant had been subjected to any treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "520ed06d-8bfc-4f77-a91b-2b89b13ae76f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected by the police officers to degrading and humiliating treatment. In particular, she complained that she had been thrown to the muddy ground and then handcuffed and taken straight to the police station. She had been placed in a dirty cell, where she had been kept for approximately twelve hours without any food, water or bedding. The next day she had been taken to the court and publicly exposed in the same muddy clothes. Article 3, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1495663c-8b32-4fa5-8415-3c46b6adb60d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained, relying on numerous articles of the Convention, that he was beaten by the police officers when he was detained on 19 December 1996 and that there was a lack of an effective investigation by the authorities relating to the aforementioned. The Court finds that, considering the specific circumstances of the present case, these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides the following:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9347b1bc-bcf2-4451-a203-0bced36ba210", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that the delays in the criminal proceedings against the individuals who raped her or participated were at variance with the respondent State\u2019s obligation to provide an effective system of prosecution of the criminal offences committed against her, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She also relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, alleging that her right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated in these proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a847f5ad-bedb-4e89-9fe5-8bde112a7e4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants further maintained that on 16 May 1998 they had been beaten by the police. They pointed out that the Government had acknowledged that the incident in question had taken place, and had failed to contest the applicants\u2019 arguments that the perpetrators had been police officers. The applicants insisted therefore that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4f2dd0c4-5a20-4c5f-86c5-2d3ea5d052ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant also complained of an infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention, since the unreasonably long investigation, which had not produced any result, had caused her moral and physical suffering. She alleged that the further lack of investigation had made her despair of any effective outcome of the investigation. She stated that her complaints had been ignored. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "69d00214-a8a9-4a99-924e-e23170311812", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government posited that as regards the applicant\u2019s complaint that he had no prospect of release and that the pardon option was inadequate and ineffective, the applicant could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, since he had been released from prison after a request for pardon had been granted on 31 March 2014."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7396caa2-d2b3-4990-a51e-d0e9f20f6685", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The applicants complained that Muslim Nenkayev had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate the ill-treatment. They further complained that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the authorities\u2019 reaction amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "792ce0f7-0342-4942-ac76-4834183c9333", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government stressed that the general situation in the prison complained of by the applicant, namely space, sanitation, catering and health-care conditions, was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the applicant\u2019s complaint about the lack of recreational activities, the Government submitted that detainees were provided free of charge with newspapers and, once a week, could choose books from the prison library. During 1998 the following cultural and recreational events were organised: several sports tournaments, four theatre productions, fourteen concerts, two art exhibitions, two television game shows, six visits by national celebrities, eighty cinema screenings and 200 video shows, as well as eighty-two religious services. The Government disputed that the applicant had not been afforded adequate medical assistance on 11 June 1998 or immediately thereafter, because no request for such assistance had been made via the special telephone line, as required by the Interim Prison Rules. Overall, the Government considered that the general conditions in the prison were compatible with Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5f30035a-1968-4daf-bdb0-eaaf4a0335f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that the State had failed to discharge their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect her from domestic violence and to prevent the reoccurrence of such violence. She was a particularly vulnerable person given that, at the age of 72, twenty-two years after divorcing A.M., she had to endure his physical and verbal attacks."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a01044cb-3ce7-4f09-a3c8-d6fe271f19d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["190.  The applicant complained that in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow he had regularly been beaten by his cellmates and threatened with murder, allegedly with the consent or even under the instructions of the prison and investigative authorities, who had tried to force him into self-incrimination. The Court shall examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f32b1bcf-1d8a-4c68-9578-62aea71283cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government merely submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had complied with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. He had an individual sleeping place and bedding and received food which corresponded to sanitary norms. Relying on medical records and reports, they further argued that the applicant had received necessary medical assistance and had only been released from the prison hospital after his leg had recovered."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b6322140-7719-44f8-8f4b-99de9f0995fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government denied that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s opinion the applicants and other inmates had caused a riot, opened fire at the soldiers, set fire to their dormitories and corridors and attacked the soldiers by throwing stones at them and hitting them with sticks. It had not been possible to provide medical assistance to the applicants until after the riot was over, because they had continued rioting even after they were injured."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "afb5c916-3c25-4680-ad3a-ae429d4f390e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant submitted that, for the reasons set out above, the situation in his case was completely different from that in the case of H. v. Iceland, cited above. He reiterated that in the present case the reopening of the criminal proceedings based on sections 655 to 657 of the Criminal Procedure Law was not to be regarded as \u201can extraordinary remedy\u201d (he referred to Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003\u2011X), but in fact appeared to be the only remedy available to him by which to obtain redress for the breach of his rights enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c7c4f3f4-e198-4cf3-9faa-532594cbd057", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained about the material conditions of his detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non\u2011smokers, in the Bac\u0103u Police Department\u2019s detention facility and Bac\u0103u Prison. He alleged, in particular, that the detention facility had been overcrowded, squalid and unhygienic; the sanitary facilities had been defective; the noise made by the other detainees had prevented him from sleeping; the food was of poor quality and insufficient; there had been insufficient opportunities to take outdoor exercise; the cells had lacked ventilation, beds, cutlery, furniture at which to take meals, blankets, pillows and bed linen; and he had had to share the cell with smokers. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "82abfa5c-c00c-4c0c-ad37-2eac483bc614", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government contested the applicant's allegations. In particular, they submitted that the physical findings noted in the medical reports did not attain a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, the Government maintained that an effective investigation had been conducted into the circumstances of the case. In this connection, they referred to the steps undertaken by the public prosecutor."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b74c8df7-cf90-4a0c-bc73-6a87f4b19ce8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, they further alleged that the criminal and administrative responsibilities of the accused police officers had not been established as the criminal proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time, so had ultimately become time-barred. They had therefore not been fair. The police officers had also not been suspended from duty, which had allowed them to enjoy impunity during the criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "497de6f0-bcc6-4386-8003-bf564b900f4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that following their abduction Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "31b3dc40-b7be-4038-9663-8d53067441f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government did not contest the fact that the injuries on the applicant's body had been caused by the police. However, they stressed that the arresting police officers' actions had been justified in the circumstances because the applicant had used a firearm and resisted arrest. In the Government's opinion, the gravity of the situation had been proved by the injuries later found on the body of one of the arresting police officers. The Government also pointed out that the applicant was dangerous because he had practised judo and that the use of force against him by one the arresting police officers had been a last resort in order to neutralise and arrest the applicant. Moreover, the injuries received by the applicant were light injuries, exactly like those received by one of the arresting police officers, which proved that the ill-treatment had not reached such a level of severity as to trigger a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant had been passive in pursuing his case before the domestic authorities because he had challenged the prosecutor's decision not to initiate criminal proceedings only after eight months, despite having been immediately informed of it."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "82764287-c09b-4fc7-9f1f-1be5c82d1b3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been handcuffed whilst being taken from official buildings to court during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered that this treatment had been disproportionate and had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "79618664-7b69-4681-a318-f90fc295b46f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that the applicant had made use of his general right of complaint under section 36(1) g) of Law-Decree no. 11 of 1979 (see paragraph 14 above) which entitled him to request the review of the reasons for his security classification by a body independent of the penitentiary service and authorised to take action. The Borsod-Aba\u00faj-Zempl\u00e9n County Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office had held that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had not violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and provided detailed reasoning."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6fffd4a3-5612-45d1-801c-d9cbf4866cbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 2 was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, because that Article could not be construed as requiring the State to allow access to unauthorised medicinal products. The same was true for the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The refusal to allow the applicants access to the experimental product MBVax Coley Fluid, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, could not be regarded as inhuman treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7b36e2c6-9c24-4cdd-a036-854127d6a2d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that upon their abduction Abubakar and Salman Bantayev were subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b13ad1b4-109d-49c8-ba32-3ae8c282c03f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government asserted that in her original application of 22 May 2006, the applicant had only complained of a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time in the criminal proceedings. She had only raised the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in her submissions made on 23 June 2009, in which she had claimed that the State had failed to provide her with effective vindication of her right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by conducting unduly long criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the criminal acts against her. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Government, the applicant\u2019s latter complaint was lodged after the expiry of the six-month period and was therefore inadmissible."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "df2f79ae-a44e-4ae1-aae9-73f3307f3b0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant, relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, complained that the conditions of his detention were inadequate and that his state of health was incompatible with incarceration. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2015) considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9c24fd8c-85ac-4b58-8bb2-d2a096f0e491", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government asserted that the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don, and the conditions of her transport to and confinement at the courthouse, had complied with both the requirements of domestic law and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were unable to provide exact information on the number of persons detained simultaneously with the applicant in each cell due to the destruction of registration logs upon expiry of the time-limit for storing them. They submitted, however, that notwithstanding the existing overpopulation of facility IZ-61/1 in 2001-2005, the cells for female convicts had not been overcrowded given the small number of female inmates at the material time."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "579f7d38-7cc8-450e-9dd7-4706bd0c4bbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government referred to the Court\u2019s case-law concerning Article <mask> of the Convention and its application to detainees. In similar cases (in particular, Keenan, cited above, and Aerts, cited above), the Court had held that the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned was incompatible with the standards of Article 3 had, in the case of mentally ill persons, to take into consideration their vulnerability and their inability, in some cases, to complain about how they were being affected by any particular treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ca0d5ecd-01d2-4931-b4a1-6844520b7925", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government further submitted that that the applicant\u2019s continued detention was not contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in order for a punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved had to attain a particular level and in any event had to be other than the usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment (they cited Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, and Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2000-XI)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1a3e384d-7a10-4e6c-89d9-65e4ac6e00b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the first applicant\u2019s life had been put at risk and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, who had beaten him with truncheons, had punched and kicked in the face, head, stomach and back. They further complained under this Article that there had been no effective investigation into his allegations. Relying on Article 13, they complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, they complained under Article 6 that they had been denied the right of access to court due to the failure of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint by means of a formal decision. The Court considers that this last complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, as it concerns a particular aspect of the right to an effective remedy under this provision. It further considers that the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning the risk to the first applicant\u2019s life should be examined under Article 2 of the Convention. Articles 2 (the applicability of which the Court will examine, see below), 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b0bce0c0-a8d6-4e48-a963-c90c3fe58bcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government argued that the conditions in the detention centres where the applicant had been detained during the period under consideration could not be considered to amount to \u201cinhuman or degrading treatment\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the sanitary conditions in all the cells where the applicant had been detained were satisfactory. In particular, in cell no. 101 at the Volokolamsk detention centre the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping berth. From 11 January 2004 the number of bunk beds in cell no. 101 had been reduced to 8 and no more than 8 detainees had been kept in that cell. According to a certificate signed by the head of the administration of the Volokolamsk detention centre, cell no. 101 was in compliance with sanitary and hygiene standards and no parasite insects had been detected there. The applicant had been in good health; he had undergone a medical examination upon arrival and during his detention had made no request for medical assistance. The applicant had been given the necessary bedding and crockery."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1083f09c-c866-434a-8bad-4f99212ef0f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government submitted that the allegation of politically motivated persecution of the applicant had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill\u2011treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "832154a8-2618-4276-b463-ee920a0d39bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust an effective remedy that had been open for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of bedding and food and insufficient light and ventilation. They considered that a complaint to the prosecutor\u2019s office would have allowed the competent authority to resolve his situation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "42ab6fc9-0b62-4727-b540-c3684a1ce69a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police officers after the arrest and that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. He further complained that the courts convicted him relying on the self-incriminatory statements obtained from him by the investigating authorities through ill-treatment. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the court had misinterpreted the facts and wrongly applied the law in his case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3847e11c-4035-4f63-ac2b-ee9f8bca8422", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["169.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody upon his arrest; under Article 6 that he had not been informed of the charges against him and had not been presumed innocent in that he was held in custody merely on the ground of the seriousness of the charges against him; that the tribunal which convicted him on 17 May 2004 had been unlawful; that two members of the Supreme Court had on several occasions participated in the review of his pre-trial detention and conviction at second instance and, therefore, could not have been impartial in their decisions. He further complained that the Supreme Court had not read out the full text of the appeal decision of 10 March 2005. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy with regard to the alleged violations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "52172035-7c99-4b08-9188-e7f52682d959", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that he required specialised medical care and direct and constant assistance from another person in his daily activities, which had not been provided to him during his detention in Pozna\u0144 Remand Centre. Considering his particular health condition, namely severe epilepsy and other neurological disorders, the lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance, constituted, in the applicant\u2019s opinion, a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e52f04f8-cb3f-4944-9b51-330f4f948d7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicants complained that they all suffered from mental health problems and that deportation of the first, second and fourth applicants to Kosovo or Serbia would amount to treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention both in respect of the third applicant\u2019s health, since to separate him from the rest of the family would jeopardise his chances of getting well, and also in respect of the other applicants\u2019 health."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "472ccd6e-b73c-41e2-a0e6-d765713633bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government submitted that the police had dispatched officers to ensure the safety of the participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade, in view in particular of the threats made against them. The group of fifty to seventy persons intercepted by the police behind the National Palace of Culture had been armed with knuckledusters, torches, empty bottles, rocks and wooden sticks. Their failure to heed the officers\u2019 orders and their provocative conduct had prompted the police to arrest the most aggressive among them, including the applicant, and take them to a police station. The officer who had arrested the applicant had now been identified and had stated that neither he nor his colleagues had used force or gear other than handcuffs in the course of that operation. Based on that, the Government submitted that there was no evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the police had used disproportionate force when arresting the applicant, or that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c9725486-a6f2-4169-8c08-02427de6e1e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant maintained her complaint, stating that she was Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov\u2019s mother, had witnessed him being abducted and had actively searched for him. She argued that the way the domestic authorities had treated her applications had amounted to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, given, in particular, that she had not received adequate information concerning the fate of her son or the course of the investigation into his disappearance."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f1cb3bd7-a095-4142-ba5c-099d2e063ce5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of his ill-treatment by unspecified police officers with the aim of extracting a confession from him and that the conditions of his detention in the ITT had been inhuman. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully detained between 21 January and 9 February 2000. The applicant stated that he had been unlawfully sentenced to life imprisonment, as in 1999, when he had committed the crimes, such a punishment had not existed. The applicant cited Article 7 of the Convention in that regard."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "db7be4bd-2cf6-4738-be80-72ee43062571", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that a special prison van, in which the applicant had been transported on 11 December 2002, was designed for twenty-four people. They annexed a certificate issued by the Board for Security of Suspects and Accused, according to which the conditions of the applicant\u2019s transportation had been satisfactory; there had been twenty-three detainees and one police officer in the van. The travel time had been around 30 minutes. According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant\u2019s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government emphasised that the applicant had never lodged any complaint in respect of the conditions of his transportation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0489fa7a-85f9-45d7-adbf-fd880c5878c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that on 22 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "81615924-9db6-42ad-819b-6159718b1610", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government argued that the fact that the applicant\u2019s flat had been sold did not constitute such a substantial change in her circumstances that it was unreasonable to expect the applicant to continue to live in her home country. Nor did the continuous, gradual weakening of health of a relative due to ageing constitute such a substantial change in that person\u2019s circumstances to make it unreasonable to expect that the person continue to live in his or her home country. The applicant had not substantiated her allegation that she had no access to the necessary medical treatment in Russia in her own language. In the event of execution of the deportation order, the executing authority would examine whether the state of health of the deported person affected the deportation. In such cases the transportation could be, and had been, organised by ambulance, for example. Therefore, in the Government\u2019s view, the applicant could receive the treatment she required in Russia. There was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b2323dad-8cd0-4418-9767-765d3aa151ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Cemal Sevli, Re\u015fit Sevli, A\u015fur Se\u00e7kin, Salih \u015eeng\u00fcl, Yusuf \u00c7elik, Naci \u015eeng\u00fcl and Kemal \u0130zci had been beaten by members of the security forces before being arrested. Z\u00fcbeyda Uysal and Emine \u00c7elik also complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that they had both suffered miscarriages as a result of the violence to which they had been subjected by members of the security forces. The applicants maintained under Article 8 of the Convention that on the day of the events giving rise to the present application the security forces had conducted searches of their houses, seized their belongings illegally and subsequently destroyed the houses. The applicants further submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that they had been denied an effective remedy in respect of their aforementioned allegations. They also complained of violations of a number of rights in respect of Cas\u0131m \u00c7elik, A\u015fur Se\u00e7kin, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf \u00c7elik, Mirha\u00e7 \u00c7elik, Naci \u015eeng\u00fcl, Sedd\u0131k \u015eeng\u00fcl, Re\u015fit Sevli, Kemal \u0130zci, Hayrullah \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, Salih \u015eeng\u00fcl, Hur\u015fit Ta\u015fk\u0131n and Abdullah \u0130nan under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants finally complained, under Article 14 of the Convention, that all the alleged breaches of their rights enshrined in the Convention had been motivated by their Kurdish ethnic origin."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6e05909c-6827-4e3c-a9ee-b28ae40c188f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant had informed the Russian authorities that he had feared persecution because of his alleged involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities. In particular, on 22 August 2008 he had informed the Moscow City Court that in 2001 he had been told that upon his return to Tajikistan he would be arrested. The applicant had been on a wanted list since 2001, which was proven by the fact that on 27 October 2001 he had been detained with a view to extradition as a person wanted in Tajikistan. The applicant stated that when questioned by the Moscow City Court on 22 August 2008 he had not been assisted by a lawyer and thus could not understand the legal consequences of his statement that he had arrived in Russia to look for employment. He also asserted that he had had a right to apply for refugee status at any time, not necessarily immediately upon his arrival in Russia. The applicant doubted the validity of the diplomatic assurances given in his case. In sum, the applicant claimed that his extradition to Tajikistan would be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d37d94d7-4245-454a-89d2-be024a65ad42", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant claimed that the treatment which he had been subjected to by the police officers in the form of punches, slaps, kicks, electric shocks to his genitals and verbal insults had attained the minimum level of severity and had amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained that despite his numerous complaints to the administrative and judicial authorities and the medical reports indicating the presence of injuries on his body, which had rendered him unfit for work for three days, no meaningful investigation had been carried out and that those who had inflicted ill-treatment on him had escaped justice without any punishment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "de4b7053-17d4-49d3-bc64-75a4bc31e23e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. They stressed that he had not appealed against the decision of 17 June 2002 to the competent domestic court. In the alternative, the Government submitted that there was no objective evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to treatment contrary to the requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the expert medical reports, including the most recent one of 4 May 2006, confirmed that the applicant\u2019s illnesses were congenital or had been acquired in childhood. The illnesses could not have resulted from traumas allegedly caused during his military service. At the same time the Government acknowledged that one of the expert reports, namely the one issued by the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442, stated that the applicant had \u201cacquired the illness during his military service\u201d. However, the Government, relying on Regulation 46 of the Regulations on Military Medical Examinations, provided the following interpretation of the expert finding. They insisted that by virtue of Regulation 46, a military medical commission issued a conclusion that an illness had been acquired during military service even if that illness had been present before conscription for military service, but had been diagnosed during military service. In the Government\u2019s opinion the phrase \u201cacquired during military service\u201d did not mean that the individual, in the present case the applicant, had been injured (or felt sick) during military service."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4245a106-ae1b-4f1f-b487-6bd1d8ce5759", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government alleged that the applicant had not made an arguable claim concerning the incompatibility of the conditions of his detention with Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaints under Article 13 were therefore likewise unsubstantiated. They noted, in particular, that, as regards the conditions of detention in the Odessa SIZO, the applicant\u2019s complaint was very general. He had neither described in detail the conditions in which he had been detained, nor elaborated on the nature and extent of the distress he had suffered. Likewise, he had not elaborated on the conditions of his detention during transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony. They further contested the applicant\u2019s allegation that the prison authorities had refused to dispatch his mail and submitted that the applicant had first deposited his hunger-strike declaration on 30 October 2006. He had been medically supervised as from that date. Following a proper medical report concluding that his health had deteriorated, the applicant had been force-fed from 8 to 15 November 2006. He had not complained about the manner in which he had been force-fed. Lastly, as regards the conditions of detention in the Kryvyy Rig Colony, the applicant had not lodged any relevant complaints either with the domestic authorities or with the Court. This part of the application was therefore incompatible ratione personae with the Convention provisions."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "88882d72-6a20-45a3-adac-85396f24e902", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government did not dispute that the injuries sustained by the applicant reached the minimum threshold required under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that no responsibility could be attributed to the State, given the fact that the prison governor, as established in the course of the compensation proceedings, had not been alerted to the alleged aggressiveness of the bull. Nor there had been any information in the records of the veterinary hospital responsible for the livestock in the prison that the bull had been aggressive. In addition, the bull\u2019s behaviour had been unpredictable and the authorities should not have the impossible burden placed upon them of preventing every claimed risk from materialising."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c400bacb-d5ac-424a-992b-ab7a647a442c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The applicants complained of a violation of the positive and negative obligations in Article <mask> of the Convention given the impact on them of the restrictions on abortion and of travelling abroad for an abortion. They maintained that the criminalisation of abortion was discriminatory (crude stereotyping and prejudice against women), caused an affront to women\u2019s dignity and stigmatised women, increasing feelings of anxiety. The applicants argued that the two options open to women \u2013 overcoming taboos to seek an abortion abroad and aftercare at home or maintaining the pregnancy in their situations \u2013 were degrading and a deliberate affront to their dignity. While the stigma and taboo effect of the criminalisation of abortion was denied by the Government, the applicants submitted that there was much evidence confirming this effect on women. Indeed, the applicants contended that the State was under a positive obligation to protect them from such hardship and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4ad6e0c6-ebf7-4abe-bce4-36f924bf0c1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicant complained that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, the care and conditions of his detention from 7 January 2001 to 28 February 2001, from 1 September 2003 to 26 May 2004 and from 2 September 2005 to 18 June 2008 had been incompatible with his special needs, in view of his paraplegia. That provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1f14c11d-8a3f-4363-aed1-7d92e18e2d5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. First of all, he argued that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention. He also complained of the conditions of his transfer to and from the court-house and the conditions of detention in the convoy room of the Moscow City Court. Lastly, he stated that his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearing had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e737b92e-d32f-44b9-a7b8-a5400288d000", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant was assigned to Unit 6. The precise number of prisoners in the unit is a matter of dispute between the parties. While the recent certificates obtained from the facility director and the original documents gave the maximum number as eighty-six persons, the applicant maintained that the unit population had exceeded one hundred individuals. The floor plan indicates that the dormitory of the applicant\u2019s unit measured 164 square metres. It follows that, even if the lower occupancy figure were to be accepted, the available personal space per prisoner fell even below the domestic statutory requirement of two square metres. In previous cases against Russia concerning conditions of detention in correctional colonies, the Court has found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in similar circumstances (see Sergey Babushkin, cited above, \u00a7 56; Yepishin v. Russia, no. 591/07, \u00a7 65, 27 June 2013, and Kulikov, cited above, \u00a7 37)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "02da3b1f-bbb8-41bd-aa85-cd2a07796ddc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government submitted that there was an inevitable element of suffering inflicted on the applicant inherent to the imprisonment and that he had not been subjected to any premeditated form of ill-treatment that fell foul of the standards required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention were the same as those of other prisoners, were compatible with respect for his human dignity, and did not subject him to distress and hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering in detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "599c922e-608c-4463-b8e8-29bb66168cff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government explained the overcrowding in the cells by the fact that at that time the courts of Sevastopol had been considering an extensive number of criminal cases and all persons detained in the ITT had been taking part in their respective criminal proceedings in the courts. The Government further noted that as for other conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention, they did not reach the minimum threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had been detained in the ITT for the short periods of 10 and 4 days, respectively. The applicant\u2019s situation was not different from the situation of any other person suffering from limitations related to the deprivation of liberty."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "351ebadb-c96f-4d15-b583-ca8ec1153b8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about being ill-treated by the police and under Article 5 of the Convention about his unlawful arrest. Referring to Article 6 of the Convention the applicant further complained about unfair trial, in particular, that he did not have a lawyer between 24 and 30 May 2002. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about an ineffective investigation following his complaints about ill-treatment. The applicant finally invoked Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention in respect to the first set of criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "00bc4d63-2c06-43d6-b6b4-6dc4c2b2dc60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers and substantiated his complaint with medical documents attesting to abrasions on his forehead. The applicant\u2019s claim was therefore shown to be \u201carguable\u201d and the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, most recently, Manzhos v. Russia, no. 64752/09, \u00a7\u00a7 33-35, 24 May 2016, and the case-law cited therein)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6bb288e1-5988-4777-960c-8615af3a47c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government submitted that the burden of proof in cases of treatment or punishment allegedly incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention rested on the applicant; however, in the present case the applicant had failed to provide sufficient substantiation of his allegations. Upon his arrival at the SIZO in August 2001 the applicant had been examined by a doctor and found to be healthy. He had been diagnosed with tuberculosis only one year later and prior to August 2002 he had not complained of coughing or of any pain in his chest. After the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis, he had been immediately transferred to the special tuberculosis ward of the SIZO where he had stayed until 13 November 2004."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2da9db0d-417f-45ba-8d6a-9d0867d9f82b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government contested the applicant's argument. They stated that his allegations of ill-treatment had been thoroughly examined. It had been established, however, that the police officers had not subjected the applicant to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Accordingly, there had been no violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, either under the substantive or the procedural limb."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c0448aa9-690f-42ee-96cd-203cbb6e59b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives. All of the applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. The applicants also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there were no domestic remedies available to them against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1c54d369-f132-4b8c-ad27-26391987f217", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained of a failure by the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaint was not immediately forwarded to the prosecutor\u2019s office and no medical examination was carried out immediately in order to verify the presence of injuries before they disappeared. Moreover, video materials from the prison which could reveal whether he had in fact resisted the prison staff and attacked them was not requested from the prison authorities and was allowed to be destroyed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e1de3f39-ec07-4db1-b4ee-4bd55a0346ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that while in the custody of the police he was subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Under the same Article he also alleged that he had been ill-treated in the course of his transfer to prison. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill\u2011treatment and had thus deprived him of an effective remedy."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "00548730-8d24-48da-8d22-19038a649794", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government considered that the mere fact of detention in one cell of a number of inmates exceeding the designed capacity of that cell was not in itself a ground for finding a violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, since other aspects of his detention had been in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. In particular, during his detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. Moreover, overcrowding in remand prisons was a common problem for many member States of the Council of Europe. In the Russian Federation the overcrowding was due to a high level of criminality and limited capacity of remand prisons. The remand prison administration had not had any intention to humiliate the applicant. The Government considered that the overcrowding of the cells in which the applicant had been detained could not in itself be a ground for drawing a conclusion about inhuman treatment of the applicant. In sum, the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prisons nos. 52/1 and 77/3 had complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a802b9d5-b9ee-4ce3-920b-1a9352e329c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["171.  The Government argued that the measures used in respect of the applicant had been therapeutic and necessary. Turning to the events of 25 January 2005, they submitted that the social workers had decided on their own to tie down the applicant as they had been afraid for her life. Although the exact length of time that the applicant had been tied up for was not clear, it could have lasted for only fifteen to thirty minutes and had not continued any longer than necessary. During the incident the applicant had been forcibly injected with 10 mg of Haloperidol, whilst the average therapeutic dosage of the said medication is 12 mg. Haloperidol is a common antipsychotic medicament prescribed for individuals suffering from schizophrenia in order to eliminate the symptoms of psychosis. According to the generally accepted principles of psychiatry, medical necessity had fully justified the treatment in issue. The Government also drew the Court\u2019s attention to the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 31 July 2006 to discontinue the pre-trial investigation in connection with the applicant\u2019s forced restraint. They also noted the absence of any other similar incidents at the K\u0117dainiai Home in respect of the applicant. The Government summed up that even if the treatment of the applicant on 25 January 2005 had had unpleasant effects, it had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "87ea5d20-a1d8-4eb0-a7ee-30579123c075", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants in five recent cases against France \u2013 R.M. and Others v. France (no. 33201/11, 12 July 2016), A.B. and Others v. France (no. 11593/12, 12 July 2016), A.M. and Others v. France (no. 24587/12, 12 July 2016), R.K. and Others v. France (no. 68264/14, 12 July 2016) and R.C. and V.C. v. France (no. 76491/14, 12 July 2016) \u2013 had been between four months and four years old, and had been detained for periods ranging between seven and eighteen days. The Court noted that unlike the detention facility at issue in Popov (cited above), the material conditions in the two detention facilities concerned in those five cases had not been problematic. They had been adapted for families that had been kept apart from other detainees and provided with specially fitted rooms and child-care materials. However, one of the facilities had been situated right next to the runways of an airport, and so had exposed the applicants to particularly high noise levels. In the other facility, the internal yard had been separated from the zone for male detainees by only a net, and the noise levels had also been significant. That had affected the children considerably. Another source of anxiety had been the constraints inherent in a place of detention and the conditions in which the facilities had been organised. Although over a short period of time those factors had not been sufficient to attain the threshold of severity engaging Article <mask> of the Convention, over a longer period their effects would necessarily have affected a young child to the point of exceeding that threshold. Since the periods of detention had been, in the Court\u2019s view, long enough in all five cases, it found breaches of Article 3 in each of them (see R.M. and Others v. France, \u00a7\u00a7 72-76; A.B. and Others v. France, \u00a7\u00a7 111-15; A.M. and Others v. France, \u00a7\u00a7 48-53; R.K. and Others v. France, \u00a7\u00a7 68-72; and R.C. and V.C. v. France, \u00a7\u00a7 36-40, all cited above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2a3aa59d-c000-46a2-8570-6702dc069d95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained that her detention for approximately twenty hours in a cell for administrative detainees at the District Department of the Interior\u2019s premises on 8 and 9 December 2001 was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention in that she had been injured and had slept on the floor and had not been given any food or drink."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3295ed6f-074f-4fc4-a829-f96167e05ff7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put by the Court in its decision of 16 October 2014. The Court notes in this connection that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing expert medical opinion with their own assessment of the applicant\u2019s situation. Yet that is exactly what the Government did in the present case (see paragraphs 20-23 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant, independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continued exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, \u00a7 67, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, \u00a7 222, 14 March 2013."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "91d54635-60b9-447e-8636-1b7958a6ef00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that the handcuffing had been aimed at protecting the applicant, in particular from any further attempt at self-mutilation. The handcuffing had been connected with a lawful arrest and detention and thus as such did not run counter to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular given the appropriate conditions of the applicant's detention (see paragraph 10 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0e625a9e-6dc4-43d2-8d99-4a46e46761b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government stated that the prosecutor\u2019s office had conducted an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s complaints of ill-treatment. In particular, the investigation was started immediately after the applicant\u2019s lawyer\u2019s complaints and a number of important witnesses were questioned, and a forensic medical examination was conducted. Later, more witnesses (the applicant\u2019s cellmates) were questioned and additional information was checked. The applicant\u2019s complaints of ill-treatment were carefully checked and finally rejected on 27 June 2013 as unsubstantiated. The investigation was full and prompt and all the court\u2019s and prosecutor\u2019s instructions were followed.  Therefore, there was no breach of the applicant\u2019s right to an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3ee4554-d1be-4dd4-bcf4-bcc863cda974", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody following his arrest, and that the medical assistance in IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don and the conditions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse had been inadequate. He complained under Article 5 that his arrest on 18 December 1998 had been unlawful. The applicant complained under Article 6 that the domestic court had used allegedly unreliable evidence, failed to obtain the attendance of several witnesses and victims and failed to presume him innocent by holding him in custody merely on the ground of the seriousness of the charges against him. He further complained under the same head that the tribunal which convicted him on 17 May 2004 had been unlawful and that two members of the Supreme Court had on several occasions participated in the review of his pre-trial detention and conviction at second instance and, therefore, could not have been impartial in their decisions. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 8 that his continuous detention had prevented him from taking care of his elderly father; under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic authorities had failed to look after his property and belongings while he had been in detention and under Article 13 that there had been no effective domestic remedy with regard to the alleged violations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ca0a3ded-1c02-4052-a0a8-c92614713d10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["252.  The applicant stated that there had been no effective investigation capable of establishing the facts of his detention and treatment, auxiliary to the investigative element of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, there had been no domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and his transfer into CIA custody, auxiliary to his rights under Article 5. The same applied to his rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b885f779-0aea-434e-b4f5-4c0d797f4c60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government claimed at the outset that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, the fact that the Court had indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that \u201cthe applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice\u201d meant that the applicant ran no proximate or imminent risk of being removed from the country."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2910ea33-74cd-4cb4-bae2-718626add2ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated in the decisions ordering and extending his detention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his Convention complaints. Finally he complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against in comparison with other defendants."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d76e33c0-cdcd-42ca-a086-5b6169aa1b08", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government disagreed, arguing that the facts of the applicants\u2019 alleged ill-treatment by the police had not been proven in the domestic proceedings, which had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant\u2019s injuries could have been caused by a third person in the course of a fight prior to the applicant\u2019s arrest, and there had been no medical evidence of the second applicant having suffered any injuries."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "92cda811-fc1b-4799-a03c-c297c90197fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government, in their written submissions of 20 May 2014, contended for the first time that the applicant had neither exhausted domestic remedies nor complied with the six-month time-limit as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, and his complaints under Article 6 relating to the pre-investigation inquiry."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "06a7f7f4-6a19-4855-a560-9f2d6555b2e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["265.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that there was no evidence of the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 arrest by State agents. Lastly, they averred that the relevant domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8e792b98-f4db-49d9-a3a6-19ede0662cbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant maintained that he had sufficiently established that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention if he were expelled to Morocco, given that the Moroccan authorities must be considered to be aware of his conviction for terrorism-related crimes in the Netherlands, his association with a dismantled Moroccan militant cell loyal to the Islamic State and his asylum application in the Netherlands. On this point, he referred, inter alia, to the requests for mutual legal assistance of 5 November 2014 and 20 April 2015 (see paragraph 9 above), to various news articles (see paragraphs 11 and 16 above), to an official translation of a report of 24 April 2015 from the Commissioner of the Team combatting terrorism of the police in Sal\u00e9m (Morocco) to the General Prosecutor at the court in Rabat (see paragraph 22 above) and to the judgment by which B.B. and eight others had been convicted (see paragraph 31 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2703fd69-2605-4aef-ada2-c0a4be029380", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant stated that the authorities had established and acknowledged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They had convicted the police officer and sentenced him to a fair punishment. Furthermore, they had awarded the applicant compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage. However, the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the suffering he had endured, and had been determined without regard to the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in similar cases under Article 41 of the Convention (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, \u00a7\u00a7 49-50, 10 April 2008, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, \u00a7\u00a7 202-16 and 213, ECHR 2006\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "73b20ec2-4570-4077-900a-cdb6fedbe8e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in the Sokalska Colony and about various aspects of the regime in it: the procedure followed whenever the cell was opened and when he had been escorted outside the cell, the organisation of washing, searches, the prohibition on using mattresses and bedding during the daytime, and the lack of disinfection measures. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "67a5e110-ec69-4ff4-86e8-911c64981c1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government did not comment on all of the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Instead, they commented only on a few issues she raised, concentrating mainly on the applicant's attitude towards her prison sentence and the prison environment (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above). In particular they submitted that the penitentiary premises were adequately furnished, ventilated and clean; the inmates' hygienic needs were satisfactorily ensured; the time was adequately organised both for working and non-working inmates; the penitentiary had a library, a fitness hall and computer equipment; and the applicant was provided with an adequate diet and medical assistance (see paragraph 27 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6e669887-d648-4464-8971-5cba3654b1ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives\u2019 abduction and killing and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also claimed that Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no effective investigation into the ill-treatment. Furthermore, the first and second applicants complained that at the moment of their sons\u2019 abduction they had been beaten. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4ba8f0e6-e545-4437-b6fd-b8c3c621dfdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["170.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that following their abduction Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ec356568-86a2-4cdb-944f-152d8999c0bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant further complained that the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention unit at Tuymazinsky police station between 19 January and 13 March 2002 had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been lengthy and unlawful. Furthermore, under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (a), (b) and (c) of the Convention, he claimed that changes were made during the trial to the scope of the charges against him, that the evidence was erroneously assessed by the domestic courts and that during the investigation, he had been interviewed as a witness in violation of his defence rights."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "10962b91-afe1-4c70-a503-443ece9bc8b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant argued that since 14 March 2007 he had been deprived of his liberty and, therefore, the authorities of Ukraine had been obliged to provide him with the appropriate medical treatment and assistance. However, it was not until 6 April 2007 that he had been diagnosed with cancer; his treatment had commenced on 12 April 2007, six days after the diagnosis was made. The applicant was of the opinion that he should have undergone a puncture biopsy to confirm the diagnosis, which could only have been performed in a specialised hospital. He believed that his treatment was aimed at relieving his pain and not at recovery. As a result his health had deteriorated significantly. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that his symptomatic treatment, including the morphine injections, had not been adequate, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8227956f-c4f9-4db3-8677-4aa1390e73c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant complained, relying in substance on Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by prison guards, in that he had been handcuffed to his hospital bed the entire time he was hospitalised for his open-heart surgery, and that in Rahova Prison he had been denied adequate medical care for his medical condition on account of a lack of funding prior to his open-heart surgery in May 2009. Moreover, he complained by relying in substance on Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private and family life had been breached, in so far as he had had limited contact with his wife and had not been allowed by the prison guards to see his children or to speak to the other individuals in the ward while in hospital for his open-heart surgery."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f3177982-224e-4ddb-9038-af5643a4eb7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants complained that as a result of their son\u2019s abduction and killing and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering. Furthermore, the first applicant complained that at the time of his son\u2019s abduction he had been beaten and that no effective investigation was conducted into the incident. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "61bd934c-f6a7-43ed-a214-5ac9a895f0a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. They maintained that the applicant had failed to put forward any concrete evidence in support of his allegations. They contended that the allegations were deceitful and were part of a scenario used by the terrorist organisation to dishonour the fight against terrorism. The Government further submitted that the reports of 27 December 1993 and 14 January 1994 should not be regarded as inconsistent. In this connection, they contended that the applicant had sustained the injuries mentioned in the second report as he had probably been beaten by his fellow-inmates in prison, since he had disclosed information to the police concerning the PKK. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "552593d9-81a9-4459-b7d9-df3ba96abf19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government maintained that the acts of the medical staff in the sobering-up centre, who were not state agents, could not be attributed to the State. In any event, according to them, the restraining of the applicant had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required for application of Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that it was more appropriate to examine the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Actually, the strapping of the applicant had been necessary for the protection of his own health, it not having been possible to use a less severe measure, such as tranquilisation with medicines, because the applicant had refused to give a blood sample in order for the doctors to be able to identify the substance the influence of which he had been under."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e5d8ee50-58fb-4351-94f3-ed2e539ab1bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he could have lodged a civil court action seeking compensation for the alleged violation, similar to those brought successfully by the applicants in the above-cited cases of Drugaliov, Gristiuc, Ipate and Ciorap (see paragraph 16 above). Moreover, the complaints about the conditions of detention which the applicant had made to the prison authorities were \u201cnot credible\u201d and were unfounded."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e324a282-c819-4004-bb59-92fdcc1c3d10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected at the police station amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that no effective investigation had been carried out into his allegations at the national level under Article 6 of the Convention. He complained that the national court had not concluded the proceedings within a reasonable time and that that failure had eventually resulted in those proceedings becoming time-barred."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "76d930c1-f51b-422b-85b1-664d348e91f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance afforded to him in remand centre no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg. In his opinion the medical records showed that he had not received any regular treatment for his rheumatoid polyarthritis. The recommendations made by a rheumatologist had not been complied with. An independent medical expert had confirmed that the treatment had been inadequate, in particular because the applicant had not been prescribed any disease-modifying drugs (see paragraph 72 above). As a result of the insufficient medical assistance afforded to him the applicant had suffered from severe pain and his disease had progressed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "94a5715a-4b36-4b85-aa3c-6248d078714a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated during her detention in police custody and that the national authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment. The Court recalls that on 3 April 2007 it delivered a decision in the case Azime I\u015f\u0131k v. Turkey ((dec), no. 63900/00, 3 April 2007), which concerned the applicant\u2019s complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3 and the alleged lack of domestic remedies under Article 13. It follows that this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 2 (b) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f808841a-f677-4fef-b40d-f651528dfdc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government argued that the use of physical force and special means against the applicant on 28 October 2007 and 14 February 2008 had been made necessary by the applicant\u2019s own conduct and had been lawful in domestic terms. They further argued that the treatment of which the applicant complained had not attained the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government made no comment on the issue of the compliance of the investigation in the present case with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2ea2f1f6-5694-400b-ba8e-69f1239a0e17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The applicant alleged in substance that his conditions of detention in Belgium had constituted treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained of the constant transfers from one prison to another, the conditions under which the transfers had taken place and the special security measures applied to him during his incarceration. He backed up this complaint with several reports drawn up by psychiatrists pointing to the negative effects of such a situation on his mental health."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "282bc5e2-ef10-49f5-8a67-a703a2196a75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant restated his complaints and relied on the findings of the CPT to corroborate his contentions. In respect of the conditions at the Pazardzhik Prison he also referred to the findings of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in its annual reports of 2001, 2004 and 2005, where they had allegedly deemed the conditions of detention at this facility to have been inadequate. In particular, the 2001 report detailed that there was overcrowding and insufficient access to sanitary facilities as there was only one toilet per thirty to forty prisoners. The applicant also alleged that during the period of his detention in the Pazardzhik Prison he had not been allowed any visitors and had had a daily walk of only an hour and that the food had been insufficient and of substandard quality. In spite of being held at this facility for just a month he argued that the minimum level of severity had been attained and that there had therefore been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on that account."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1564acf4-72f9-4d6e-b20a-f8ed7f6fd51e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government have admitted that the domestic authorities failed to take appropriate measures to protect the second, third and fourth applicants from ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government have further admitted that the authorities failed to meet the positive obligation to respect the family and private lives of the second, third and fourth applicants."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1f58e886-827a-415b-878e-4f20970bbafe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant complained of two distinct violations of Article <mask> of the Convention by prison staff while he was in Jelgava prison. First of all, he claimed to have been subjected to various unlawful disciplinary penalties; he particularly emphasised the illegal and unjust character of the last of these, imposed on 18 July 2000. Secondly, he complained of a brutal assault by prison guards which, according to him, took place on an unspecified date at the end of 2000 while he was again placed in a disciplinary cell. He claimed to have suffered serious injuries as a result and alleged that no adequate medical treatment had been provided to him. Finally, he alleged that there had been no effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bbbe6cd7-60b0-4a44-8b89-6cfc593a0618", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government's reference to the fact that the applicant did not apply for asylum immediately after his arrival in Russia does not necessarily refute his allegations of risks of ill-treatment since the protection afforded by Article <mask> of the Convention is in any event broader than that provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi, cited above, \u00a7 138). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Russian Office of the UNHCR acknowledged that, in its opinion, the applicant qualified as a \u201crefugee\u201d within the meaning of the 1951 Convention (see paragraph 46 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6fb7bc7c-0856-4852-bfaf-f59f38ea5d1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention had been submitted too late, as they had not been included in the original application form. They also maintained that the submissions of 13 April 2011 should in any case be dismissed as they failed to comply with the requirements of Article 47 of the Rules of Court. The Government further contended that if the date of introduction of the application was accepted as being 16 November 2004, then the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies since at the material time the criminal proceedings against the police officers were still pending."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e66dbb63-302b-4ccf-99bb-aceb1834575a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s allegation of ill-treatment at the hands of the police on 13 May 2004 at Tbilisi police headquarters had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt owing to the absence of relevant medical certificates or other evidence that confirmed with certainty the existence of marks of the purported physical violence on the applicant. They continued by saying that it was the first applicant\u2019s own fault that he had not requested a medical examination in the immediate aftermath of the alleged ill-treatment. He had also not reported the ill\u2011treatment to the public defence lawyer appointed for him on 13 May 2004 or to the doctor at Prison no. 7 upon his transfer there on 16 May 2004. As regards the domestic authorities\u2019 positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that as soon as the applicant\u2019s wife had complained for the first time to the prosecution authority about her husband\u2019s ill-treatment on 8 October 2004, the investigation had been launched immediately. They referred to the comprehensive investigative actions the authority had undertaken (see paragraph 52 above). The results of the latter examination had led to the decision of 17 November 2004 to close the case for lack of established facts that were arguably constitutive of a criminal offence. It was in the light of those findings that the relevant investigative authority had not deemed it necessary to involve the applicant in the investigation by granting him victim status."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ab3f9528-5192-4e0f-b0f7-9402cac3810d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government stated that the Romanian authorities had introduced a series of important measures aimed at ensuring full observance of Article <mask> of the Convention. Indicating that they were aware of the Court\u2019s findings concerning detention conditions and the case-law it had developed following the Iacov Stanciu v. Romania judgment (no. 35972/05, 24 July 2012), the Government gave assurances that they had redoubled their efforts to improve material conditions of detention and reduce overcrowding rates in prisons. Legislative, administrative and budgetary measures had been taken to that end."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6d3ffddc-6d03-44fd-8695-c8c9e78c1d4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained about a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention in prison no. 3 in Chi\u015fin\u0103u between 23 February and 15 November 2005 (see paragraphs 26-28 above). He also relied on the findings of the CPT and of the domestic authorities (see paragraphs 37 and 38 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "80e50c4c-31f8-4378-bdc9-894170a3262b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers on three separate occasions: 4-5 May, 28-29 June and 4 August 2005. He also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a proper investigation in this connection. The Court finds it appropriate to examine those grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0a473e63-91b1-4227-920c-a5efa08b14bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to torture at the Artashat Police Department on 23 April 2004 and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective instigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He invoked Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints fall to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d3417894-2270-42fc-a8ac-d29cc5b9d124", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government asked the Court to take into account the fact that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies as regards the complaint raised under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. As to the applicant\u2019s claim concerning the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention the Government submitted that the amount requested by the applicant was excessive."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "331c7dae-5c9a-403f-8e07-696a559609cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 and correctional facility no. IK-13 had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed that the Government\u2019s description of the conditions of his detention was not correct. He submitted that at all times during the period under consideration he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that he had not had his own bed or bedding. He further provided statements by the inmates detained in the same cells as him in the remand prison and the correctional settlement which contained a similar description of the conditions of detention there."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a2589c94-e8b8-48ce-aec1-bfb2614da941", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the State had failed to secure adequate living conditions for him throughout his detention. He maintained that during the whole period of his detention the cells allocated to him were designed for four but were shared by six prisoners."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9ce89f01-fa8e-4fee-942f-cd923cd3399c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicants disagreed with the Government. They claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence that their injuries had been inflicted by the prison officers and that the Government had failed to provide a credible alternative explanation as to how they had sustained them. They further argued that the investigation conducted by the authorities into their allegation of ill-treatment had not been thorough, effective and independent and that the Government had therefore failed to meet their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8e8bddd4-188c-426a-851f-504496f2661d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant's situation was also comparable with that of an applicant in the aforementioned Kalashnikov case, who had been confined to a space measuring between 0.9 and 1.9 m\u00b2 for a period of slightly more than two years, if counting from the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Russia. The Court emphasised in that case that such a degree of overcrowding in itself raised an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (loc. cit., \u00a7\u00a7 96-97)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "149359f4-0b43-4369-ae0a-6c4f3844e380", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result of their son's killing. However, since the involvement of State agents in his abduction or killing had not been established, the State could not be held responsible for their suffering. They also stated that the investigation had not established that Mr Anzor Sambiyev had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0d51bb47-c2f3-4c75-a2cd-a16fe6651be2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government further argued that the injuries sustained by the applicant did not suggest that the alleged treatment reached the threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the investigative authorities had not found that the injuries had been inflicted by the officers. The Government thus considered that Article 3 of the Convention did not apply in the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "11222de8-eab2-4e8b-8c05-26a25aae2bbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of ill-treatment by the police and investigators on 11 May 2001 in the Centru District Police Station and of the prosecution's refusal to initiate a criminal investigation into their alleged ill-treatment on that date. They also complained, under the same Article, of ill-treatment on 13 June 2001 in Ialoveni Police Station and of delays in the proceedings regarding their complaints of ill-treatment on that date. Article 3 of the Convention reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "395bee93-fdda-41bf-8673-1b220e3f9100", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The Government refuted the applicants' arguments and claimed that the evidence given in the fact-finding hearing in the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal had shown that the applicants' allegations were ill-founded and that there had been no violation of any provision of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that there was no proof that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment or that the authorities breached Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the Government considered that the witness evidence, taking into account a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies given in the course of the fact-finding hearing, clearly showed the lack of a factual basis for a possible finding that the prisoners had been beaten or ill-treated in Zamkova Prison on 30 May 2001 and 28 January 2002."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b6b6da94-594f-463b-9e6d-59092f8ce2fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that after his arrest he had been subjected to beatings by the police in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out a prompt and effective investigation into that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's obligations under Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a44bfd59-4def-476a-ac70-680658f1949e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time and high temperatures in the cells. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "869e0ab1-e08a-41c2-b261-6b07b2fd4899", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["250.  The Government suggested the following remedies: complaints to the prison or prosecution authorities and complaints to the domestic courts, according to the procedures provided by the national law. The Court, taking into account its case-law as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies described above (see paragraphs 247 - 249 above), will examine the effectiveness and accessibility of these remedies in relation to each of the applicants' complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8a600f6c-8066-4603-b6e9-62aaf4bbe2cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicants also alleged that the Belgian authorities had engaged in treatment proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention in that they had deported the second applicant without awaiting the Canadian authorities\u2019 decision on their application for family reunification and had failed to ensure that she would be met by a member of the family or, at least, a Belgian official. They said that the second applicant, who was only five years old at the time, had travelled without anyone being assigned to accompany her and had been forced to wait at Kinshasa Airport from 5 p.m. until approximately 11 p.m., when Ms T. arrived to collect her. In their submission, deporting the child of a person with recognised refugee status was contrary to the fundamental rule that asylum-seekers should not be expelled. There was, furthermore, a danger in such cases that the authorities in the country of origin would use the child\u2019s presence there to compel the refugee to return or even that they would seek to exact revenge on the child. The applicants added that the Government had been aware that neither B., who was a student, nor any other member of the family was in a position to look after the second applicant. In their submission, their case had to be distinguished from the case of Nsona v. the Netherlands (28 November 1996, Reports 1996\u2011V), in which a nine-year-old girl had been deported in an aircraft belonging to one of her father\u2019s acquaintances and had been accompanied by a (sufficiently) close relative. The present case was different in that the second applicant had travelled alone. It was not enough to say that an air hostess had been assigned to look after her by the airline. Furthermore, the complications in Nsona had come about following the intervention of counsel for the applicant in that case, which was not the position in the present case. The fact that the Belgian authorities had been aware of the first applicant\u2019s refugee status in Canada and that the second applicant had ultimately returned to Europe after five days indicated that the decision to deport her was disproportionate. Lastly, as the applicants had already stated with regard to the second applicant\u2019s detention, the Government had had other means at their disposal."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a33b292-38e6-467f-8575-2a4d6bf31465", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government argued that the applicant had provided the Court with incomplete and misleading information, as he had failed to disclose the fact that he had been released from prison three years ago on 15 July 2010 and had been a fugitive from justice ever since. Consequently, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s behaviour constituted an abuse of his right to lodge an application and his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected as abusive under Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eea2d741-b4d4-4bd8-bcb9-9ce3e33600dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police both during his transport to the Zagreb Police Department and during the police questioning and that during that questioning from 6 a.m. on 1 June 2004 until about 1 a.m. on 4 June 2004 he had been deprived of sleep and food and forced to sit on a chair. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "565c2180-65d7-4934-8e61-4636ecd96533", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants complained, in respect of each incident described above, that they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "18790f47-63b7-41a8-b1c3-8c39dc8153cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof. The assessment of whether the force used by the police officers had been indispensable and not excessive was not part of the superficial domestic inquiry, which fell short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. Accordingly, given the applicant\u2019s minor age and the particularly serious nature of his injuries, the force used by the police officer was clearly excessive, unjustified and aimed at intimidating the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "82a994e1-900a-4c19-b37c-27f7f5ef3189", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his removal to Tunisia would expose him to a real risk of torture and other forms of ill\u2011treatment on account of his affiliation with Ennahda. He further submitted, without relying on any Article of the Convention, that he had not been interviewed by the competent authorities regarding his asylum request until November 2009, and has not been informed of the outcome of that interview. The applicant also contended that he was not able to challenge the decision to deport him as he had not been informed of any deportation order made in his respect."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "da191e90-2225-4374-a957-5cfb6dba20d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his brother had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment during his time in police custody from his arrest on 13 April 1996 until his admission to hospital on 16 April 1996. He further complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his confinement in hospital from 16 April to 3 May 1996, when, in great pain and in need of care and support, he was deprived of all contact with his family while police officers were posted permanently in his ward. As his death had been caused by serious and severe injuries, the treatment he had been subjected to amounted to torture. The applicant further claimed that his brother had been tortured for the purpose of compelling him to confess to certain crimes."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b30cd0a6-431d-4024-a5d1-a171a75804c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government submitted that the pre-trial investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment had been prompt, thorough and independent. They noted that the investigation had been started on the same day that the applicant had complained about ill-treatment, that numerous investigative actions had been carried out, such as interviews and confrontations between different witnesses, that the witnesses asked for by the applicant had been questioned, that the applicant had been able to submit various appeals and requests and several of those had been successful, and that all the decisions taken in the course of the investigation had been well reasoned. Accordingly, the Government contended that the pre\u2011trial investigation had complied with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ef078230-0c30-4534-95a6-5a5eae63b35a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["397.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and under Article 5 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had no domestic remedies at their disposal against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Articles 3, 5 and 13 read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a2501173-ec58-4bd4-9197-ecd5aeea0953", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that by challenging the prosecutor\u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings concerning his allegations of ill-treatment during the trial against him the applicant had chosen an inappropriate remedy. They submitted that he ought to have challenged such a refusal in separate proceedings specifically aimed at this end under Article 236-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the alternative, noting that the applicant had eventually used the above procedure under Article 236-1, they considered that he could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 3, as he had not challenged the second refusal of the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings concerning his allegations and therefore had to be considered as having accepted that refusal."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3781c0e6-1ab9-46e6-911f-c75569806194", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government submitted that the applicant's request for temporary asylum had been examined and rejected by the competent authorities. They noted in this connection that the applicant had entered Turkey illegally and had omitted to request asylum for several years. Moreover, he was accused of being a member of the terrorist organisations Ennahda and Al-Quada. They maintained that the Ministry of the Interior had decided on the applicant's request taking into consideration the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, the provisions of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the UNHCR's decision to recognise the applicant as a refugee. The Government concluded that the applicant's removal to Tunisia would not expose him to any risk."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "50a8f659-44c8-4698-9073-c13d5de373b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant submitted that on 13 February 1999 she was arrested in a manner contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. She further alleged that she had been beaten up upon arrival at the police station by the officers who questioned her and then again on the same day by the police officers when she refused to let them search her flat. She alleged that she had sustained injuries, such as bruises and abrasions, and that she had felt intimidated due to such treatment. She also alleged that she had received no medical assistance subsequently."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a72f6eec-b288-49df-b3d0-da6ea747d0fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute of itself just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "89bbeb5e-6f51-486f-be28-ad5649bb4751", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb and that the authorities had complied with their procedural obligations under this head. They argued that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment concerning the police officers had not been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as their sentences would be executed if they committed another wilful offence during the five-year supervision period."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e0d9b257-4f7e-43fe-a1d2-18d531c54258", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stated that the police officers had tried to improve the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the administrative-detention cell. They had allowed his relatives to bring him food and given him their permission to use a toilet located on the premises of the police station."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e4bf7002-3143-45c1-9c6f-1b3a40dfa461", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["222.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, as certain applicants had been minors at the time of the abductions of their parents. The Government also noted that the domestic legislation provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4d66a891-a9f4-4a62-be51-8d64840cc8aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant was detained in a sobering-up centre, a health care facility that was part of a psychiatric hospital, the purpose of which is to treat persons under the influence of drugs. The fact that the applicant was a person suffering from a mental illness was or should have been known to the staff of the centre, as it was already stated in the record drawn up by the ambulance staff who had brought the applicant to the psychiatric hospital. Therefore the Court considers that the rules and standards on using restraints on patients with mental disabilities in psychiatric hospitals are relevant for the interpretation and application of Article <mask> of the Convention to the facts of the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "89a9e919-4fed-4c9a-89f7-ea9281eddb3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government submitted that as of 26 November 2009 the applicant had been detained in a cell in which the statutory minimum space of 3 square metres per person had been respected. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "be962a1c-bb96-45cd-b227-017a3ccedf99", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government, having submitted the applicant\u2019s medical file in its entirety, accounted in detail for many factual circumstances, unknown to the Court prior to the communication of the application, concerning the treatment provided to the applicant in prison. Referring to those numerous circumstances (see paragraphs 37 and 43-58 above), the Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s treatment fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, rendering the applicant\u2019s complaint manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8bc907ff-e9e3-46a1-b1a8-d681f8abaaf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government commented on the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention. In particular, they submitted that, in violation of the domestic requirements, the applicant had usually been detained in poorly lit cells with no ventilation, lavatory pan or furniture, apart from bunk beds. The cells had not been disinfected. Detainees had received small quantities of food once a day and had not been provided with bedding. Nonetheless, the Government argued that those conditions of detention did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their subsequent submissions to the Court, having commented on the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction, they again asserted that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 3 of the Convention had not been violated. They noted that the applicant had used domestic remedies: he had applied to the Russian courts and had received RUB 500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, the Government stressed that the applicant could therefore no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f399eb47-879e-4057-93a6-c844859f9cb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government contested that argument. They claimed that the strict life imprisonment being served by the applicant was based on a court decision and was prescribed by law. It was, moreover, not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant\u2019s imprisonment amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The execution of his sentence was thus compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8a76066c-bc62-4ec6-8881-77e0e4791678", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.   The Government maintained that the applicant had received entirely appropriate treatment for his injury, including treatment in specialised clinics, an operation on his foot, regular check-ups and physiotherapy, which had led to a full recovery. Admittedly, there had been a delay in the treatment, but it had been for several hours only and moreover it had been caused by the applicant himself, as an experienced doctor had concluded that the applicant\u2019s immediate transfer to hospital was not possible due to his intoxication. In their view, the delay had not been serious enough to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "63008208-80cb-4ab1-90c0-959af496e0ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant submitted that such a prolonged imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for subjecting him to the regime. All decisions imposing and extending the regime had lacked justification and had not referred to any individual circumstances imputable to the applicant. The regime had been imposed arbitrarily and extended automatically. Moreover, his good behaviour in the remand centre had not been taken into account by the commission."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2e7f5721-bed2-48e8-98e7-0b6024757484", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government admitted that the applicant had indeed sustained some minor bodily injuries. They stressed, however, that he underwent a medical examination four days later, after his release from the police station. Accordingly, the injuries could have been inflicted on him somewhere else. The Government still accepted that some of these injuries could have been caused to the applicant in the course of his arrest at the scene of crime, but emphasised that the use of force was necessary because of his own conduct. No excessive force had been used against him and no beating had taken place in the police station. The Government finally maintained that the investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegation about ill-treatment had been carried out effectively. In particular, the victim and all important witnesses were duly questioned and forensic medical examinations were held. Therefore, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in any regard."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1d473ecc-a2c5-41be-97aa-5acf43c17337", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicants had been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any suffering they might have experienced did not exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the CFECC remand centre were appropriate. A doctor was employed there. In case of an emergency, detainees could be taken to a nearby hospital (in Sarban, cited above, the Government specified that the Municipal Emergencies Clinical Hospital was situated 500 metres from the CFECC remand centre), as happened on 18 November 2004 in the case of Mr Istratii. There was no obligation under the Court's case-law to transfer detainees outside their places of detention if they were offered appropriate medical assistance there."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4df7d79a-d881-4729-86d4-d8b84b2bc791", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["247.  The applicants further submitted that the domestic investigation of their alleged ill-treatment had been ongoing for years without any meaningful attempt to establish the truth and to punish those responsible. Referring to their complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of that investigation, they argued that they were under no obligation to await its completion. In any event, the Government\u2019s objection as to the admissibility of their complaint under the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention could only be examined together with the examination of the merits of their complaint under its procedural limb."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c1a79bb0-f341-4146-9ff9-85f957faf74d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants argued that the State had failed to discharge its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect them from domestic violence and to prevent the recurrence of such violence. The authorities had been informed of M. M.\u2019s actions, but had only fined him, which had had no effect on his behaviour. The failure to immediately remove M. M. from the common residence had resulted in the applicants being put at a constant risk of further ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "68e9359a-28f0-4e23-8c73-254abd5dc80c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison no. 52/1 (between 8 July 2003 and 12 January 2005 and between 6 December 2005 and 14 February 2006) and in Moscow remand prison no. 77/3 (between 13 January and 5 December 2005) had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e73f604a-7c4b-4fa4-a4bb-f0904a3a98a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the complaint was belated. The applicant had been transferred out of the detention facility on 7 July 2010; however, he did not mention the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in his application form of 28 July 2010. Although he stated his intention to lodge such a complaint in his letter of 2 November 2010, his subsequent submissions of 7 February 2011 did not meet the requirements of Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court and the Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings. The Government concluded that the date of the application form of 16 April 2012 must be taken as the date of introduction of the complaint. The final decision on the applicant\u2019s claim for compensation could not re-trigger the running of the six-month time-limit since the Court has already found that it was not an effective remedy to be exhausted (here they referred to Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "992db5a9-b618-4a7c-9031-adf27c2e7db7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government contended that they had received sufficient assurances from the Kazakh authorities that the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention would not be violated if they were extradited to Kazakhstan. The Government also stated that they had never received complaints about ill-treatment by the Kazakh authorities from people who had been extradited to Kazakhstan in the past. According to the Government, the applicants\u2019 prosecution in that country was not of a political nature."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6d7ccc01-f686-4570-80af-5df012a33129", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government referred to their description of the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention and maintained that even if they had not been ideal, they had not been such as to breach Article <mask> of the Convention. They drew the Court\u2019s attention mainly to the improvements that had taken place in 2015 and 2016, insisting, however, that even before these improvements the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention had been appropriate. Lastly, they claimed that the applicants\u2019 allegations were general and that a simple reference to the CPT\u2019s reports could not substantiate their claims, as those reports had concerned previous periods other than the applicants\u2019 detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "55f3b8e3-035c-454a-b6de-8bcd2fe4ef68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["212.  The applicant\u2019s representatives argued that the highly suspicious events surrounding the applicant\u2019s disappearance in Russia, his crossing of the Russian State border, and his ensuing return to Uzbekistan demonstrated that Russian State officials had been passively or actively involved in that operation. They concluded that Russia should be found responsible for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on that account."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7649bb34-44ce-4789-801b-ed3db2bd8e5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment when he had been detained in police custody both in 1996 and in 2002. He further argued that the national authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, despite the medical reports of 21 and 25 February 2002 having recorded injuries on his body."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3f55b28b-0329-45d6-814a-cd85368ac0b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant next complained about the fact that he was strip searched. The Court notes that it has already had occasion to apply the principles of Article <mask> of the Convention set out above in the context of strip and intimate body searches. A search carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for human dignity and for a legitimate purpose (see mutatis mutandis, Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, \u00a7\u00a7166-67, ECHR 2003-XII where there was no valid reason established for the shaving of the applicant prisoner's head) may be compatible with Article 3. However, where the manner in which a search is carried out has debasing elements which significantly aggravate the inevitable humiliation of the procedure, Article 3 has been engaged: for example, where a prisoner was obliged to strip in the presence of a female officer, his sexual organs and food touched with bare hands (Vala\u0161inas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, \u00a7 117, ECHR 2001\u2011VIII) and where a search was conducted before four guards who derided and verbally abused the prisoner (Iwa\u0144czuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, \u00a7 59, 15 November 2001). Similarly, where the search has no established connection with the preservation of prison security and prevention of crime or disorder, issues may arise (see, for example, Iwa\u0144czuk, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 58-59 where the search of the applicant, a remand prisoner detained on charges of non-violent crimes, was conducted on him when he wished to exercise his right to vote; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, \u00a7\u00a7 61-62, ECHR 2003-II, where the strip-searching was systematic and long term without convincing security needs). Finally, in a case concerning the strip search of visitors to a prisoner which had a legitimate aim but had been carried out in breach of the relevant regulations, the Court found that this treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3 but was in breach of the requirements under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, 20 September 2006)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "136a83ee-102e-4e1b-93c6-83fce38e76ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants complained that the treatment to which they were subjected by the prison authorities and gendarmes on 20 July 1995 in Buca Prison amounted to torture and inhuman treatment, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their observations dated 11 May 2006 the applicants further complained, without any elaboration, that the incident at Buca prison and subsequent developments also violated their rights under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "639a3d8a-6052-4415-866a-4eb7a0b43013", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted, in view of the judicial award in the applicant\u2019s favour, that he had lost his victim status, even though such an award did not signify that his rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed. The amount of the award had been commensurate with the severity of his injury. In the alternative, the Government asserted that the applicant could have sustained the injuries prior to his arrest, a fact which had been confirmed in the course of the effective investigation conducted by the authorities in response to the applicant\u2019s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment in custody. The investigating authorities had taken all the steps necessary to verify the applicant\u2019s allegations. They had questioned the witnesses and studied the medical documents. Both the investigating authorities and the courts had repeatedly looked into the matter. Accordingly, the national authorities had complied with their obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cb39a9a9-aee8-4beb-84e6-e3dfd1d6b49d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicants finally submitted that the refusal by the Appeals Board of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice, in its decision of 22 November 2000, to examine their complaint of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 22 above) meant that they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention at their disposal. "], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c121ff9b-1a6e-4bac-82f8-40e80dfbe2a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government invited the Court to reject the application on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. With regard to the fifth, seventh and ninth applicants, the Government contended that they had been released or transferred to other prisons, and should therefore have instituted civil proceedings under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, in conjunction with the Penal Code and Article <mask> of the Convention, which was directly applicable to the national legal order. The domestic remedy was capable of affording those applicants adequate redress in the form of monetary compensation for any damage caused to them."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "806d8800-9f85-43eb-b22a-98efb33bda4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government opened their line of arguments by attracting the Court's attention to the circumstances of the applicant's husband's arrest and her extreme reaction to the police officers' lawful actions. The Government stressed that the applicant had unlawfully sought her husband's release, which had been effected in compliance with domestic requirements, including that of informing an individual of the reasons for his arrest. The applicant, who in the trial hearings did not deny this, was drunk, acted aggressively, attempted to resist her husband's arrest, used offensive language, grabbed the police officers by their uniform, threatened them with violence and even kicked an officer on the leg. She continued her outrageous behaviour in the police station by breaking the panes of glass in the entrance door and bursting into the building. The Government argued that in those circumstances the use of force by the police officer, as well as the use of handcuffs, was a justified and lawful response to the applicant's conduct. Moreover, it was the only possible and effective response, as no non-violent methods were capable of calming the applicant down. In the Government's opinion the force used against the applicant did not run contrary to the guarantees envisaged by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the force did not reach the minimum level of severity required by that Convention provision for it to become applicable. The damage caused to the applicant as a result of the use of force did not lead to any long-term negative consequences for her health and was considered \u201cinsignificant\u201d by the experts. Furthermore, while applying force and handcuffing the applicant, the officer had no intention of causing her physical or psychological suffering or of humiliating her. The Government concluded that the force did not reach the limit of inhuman or degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9e9a156a-7c1a-470e-a76b-46fab52b1514", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government maintained that while in detention the applicant had been provided with the necessary medical assistance. The Government noted that there was no evidence that \u201cbefore August 2013\u201d the applicant had informed the detention facilities\u2019 administration about his HIV status. However, the applicant has been HIV-positive for a considerable period of time, and while at liberty he was not having any treatment. Once the applicant\u2019s state of health worsened, he had a number of examinations and was placed in a specialised hospital. There he was supervised by doctors and provided with the necessary medication in full. In particular, the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis in August 2012 and provided with the necessary treatment. Therefore, there was no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in the applicant\u2019s case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "322d35b2-80aa-4a7a-b5e0-10f633fe84cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicant submitted that they had reason to believe that their relatives had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. They also complained that as a result of their close relatives' disappearance and the lack of an adequate response from the authorities they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish amounting to ill-treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b1efe118-86b2-4fc3-8431-06684cf3aca6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government concluded that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been slight and that therefore the treatment complained of did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. Alternatively, even assuming that the treatment complained of could be regarded as falling within the scope of that provision, they argued that the use of physical force against the applicant by the staff of the centre had been made strictly necessary by her own conduct and had also been lawful. The Government were of the view that the suffering experienced by the applicant had not gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of otherwise legitimate treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d59aeced-1775-4016-a977-54238614758e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s claim should be rejected owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicant had failed to raise his complaint before \u201cprosecution bodies\u201d or a court. Secondly, they questioned the existence of a link between the allegedly inadequate medical treatment and the development of the applicant\u2019s cancer. They also stated that the conditions of detention in the remand prison had fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government supported their statements with certificates issued by officials at the remand prison describing various aspects of the conditions of detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b1ef8e93-bd53-4b70-bf42-21ab89784173", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s objections. She claimed that the remedy indicated by the Government had not been available to her, as copies of the decisions refusing to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment had not been given to her. She further claimed that she had raised the issue of ill-treatment before the courts dealing with her criminal case. She insisted that she had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of that contention, the applicant referred to procedural shortcomings by the authorities in that period, emphasising that they had failed to provide her with access to a lawyer."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5915b897-a5ef-43da-a52a-7533eb39f17c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant insisted that he had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained his version of events and argued that on 26 August 2003 he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by police officers who were taking revenge on him because he had shot their colleague. He also submitted that neither the authorities at the domestic level nor the Government in the proceedings before the Court had provided any plausible explanations as to the origin of his injuries."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4266cac7-eed0-4030-8aba-40071383bc9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that following the Iraqi authorities' refusal to admit him through the official Habur border post, he was locked up overnight inside a bus while handcuffed to a seat and was kept in various police and gendarmerie stations until he was deported to Iraq by illegal means, which exposed him to various deadly hazards, such as drowning and being blown up by a mine."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "80c0d992-d7f6-427d-b765-04314089dc81", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the investigative authorities during the pre\u2011trial investigation; under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention in SIZO no. 3 pending his trial had been unlawful; and under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) that the trial court had failed to summon Z., another purported criminal association member, as a witness. Finally, the applicant cited Articles 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17 in respect of the facts of the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f8c890c1-11d9-491b-b8a8-e9954f79d829", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained that his arrest had been carried out by six police officers who entered his house with firearms pulled out. The police officers had been masked so that the individual police officer could not be identified as author of a particular action. Furthermore, a police officer had threatened him to \u201cpick him off\u201d. He had been laid on a table and stripped, and then forced to the ground where he remained for some 15 minutes while one of the officers pressed his knee on the back of his neck and some other officers searched his house. Finally, he had remained handcuffed during all the time of his arrest and subsequent detention despite his calm and cooperative attitude. He submitted that this treatment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "36bc6884-4fca-4c30-80ee-cf6c13f24992", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government reiterated that Article 28 of the Constitution of Ukraine prohibited torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Constitution contained directly applicable provisions and could be relied on by a claimant as a legal basis for his or her claim. Moreover, in accordance with the Constitution, the Convention formed an integral part of Ukrainian legislation. The applicant faced no obstacles in bringing a complaint before the domestic courts in order to seek redress for alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "84b0f785-d0ba-47d3-8c71-9d6d05d01491", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police officers during his questioning on 20 April 2002, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective investigation into his ill-treatment complaint and he therefore lacked an effective remedy in respect of the above violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1d24b753-c37b-4843-a78e-c2954cb3dac0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained that the prison officers had not taken enough measures to protect his life, particularly in connection with the failure to provide medical assistance after he had been injured by another inmate. He complained further that he had been put in solitary confinement after that incident had taken place and that he had been placed in the same unit as his aggressor. The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2464314a-118e-47e5-9980-1a1f30550649", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also complained under this heading that Isa and Shamil Khalidov had probably been subjected to ill-treatment upon their abduction while in the unregistered detention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c97004dd-8ff8-40b2-af26-2565f8da9211", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant argued that there had been sufficient evidence establishing that he had been tortured by the police in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. All the medical evidence indicated that he had had very serious injuries, a fact that had been corroborated by the Canadian Consul. The applicant submitted that in Cyprus there was general solidarity between the doctors in State-run hospitals and the police concerning detainees taken for treatment in connection with injuries resulting from ill-treatment inflicted by the police. Unfortunately, there had been no independent witnesses during his ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "99ab55eb-5fc7-4718-8a40-7de53265de98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the police station in March 2009 and in remand prison IZ-47/4 between March and August 2009, and the conditions in which he was transported to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court in March 2009. Under the same heading the applicant complained of the lack of medical assistance during his detention in remand prison IZ-47/4. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9d206d94-d217-4a1c-a319-68781add71d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["165.  The applicants complained that at the moment of their abduction and after it Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev were subjected to ill-treatment. They further claimed that as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and the State's failure to investigate the crimes properly, they had endured profound mental suffering. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9e00dcd6-34f1-41f0-92ed-e3e0e00e158a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicants submit that they suffered deliberate, premeditated and consistent abuse over a period of years which constituted torture and that the responsibility of the local authority was engaged as they had failed to protect them from this abuse. The local authority was under a positive obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention to take preventive measures to protect them from N.C. That had required them to take the steps reasonably available to them to end the abuse of which they knew, or of which they ought to have had knowledge. They submit that the authorities were aware of the abuse. The first applicant recalled mentioning to the social worker, Mr C., that N.C. had hit them and \u201cother things\u201d. Though the applicants accepted that they had not expressed in unequivocal terms that they were being sexually abused, the things which were said and the way that the family was behaving should have alerted the local authority to the risk that abuse was occurring e.g. the truanting, the second applicant\u2019s soiling, the applicants\u2019 expressed desire to leave home, signs of distress at school and complaints of being hit at home. This should have led the social services to make serious investigation into the situation. They should inter alia have ensured that the applicants\u2019 names were on the \u201cat risk\u201d register, that there was active case management, held more regular case conferences and involved social workers of sufficient experience and adequate training. Instead, they failed to take control of the situation or to react effectively, inter alia, by removing the children on 8 July 1980 after there had been complaints that N.C. had been hitting the second applicant and his twin. Though a number of professionals suggested at various points that the children should be placed away from home on a long-term basis, no effective steps were taken."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c3a8ae02-a0b0-4f07-9eea-c9bf138f2922", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by the police. He referred to the Court's case-law to the effect that if an individual is taken into the police custody in good health but is found injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide plausible explanations as to how the injuries occurred (Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII). The applicant pointed to the decisions of the District Prosecutor who had confirmed the injuries sustained by him. He underlined that in respect of a person deprived of his liberty any recourse to physical force which was not made strictly necessary by his own conduct, diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant further argued that even assuming that the injuries had occurred in the circumstances advanced by the police, namely as a result of the applicant's own acts, the State remained responsible as the police officers failed to prevent them."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "617e63da-af4f-4adc-94dd-3de1e2336fd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected to acts of police brutality which had caused her great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment. She also complained under the same provision, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, that the Greek investigating and prosecuting authorities had failed to carry out an effective and impartial official investigation into the incident which could have led to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that she had been denied an effective domestic remedy for her sufferings."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b04c1b79-f8fc-42f1-a0b5-06e31ce41bc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant in order for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of medical care in detention and about the conditions of his detention in the correctional facility. They cited a complaint to the administration of the facility, a prosecutor or a court as possible routes for effectively alerting the authorities to his situation. The Government further drew the Court\u2019s attention to two judgments adopted by Russian courts in response to complaints by inmates about \u201cunlawful placement in an inmate disciplinary unit\u201d and unsatisfactory conditions of detention in a correctional facility. The two inmates had been awarded 25,000 and 50,000 Russian roubles respectively. The Government concluded that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of his complaints about the quality of the medical services and the conditions of his detention after conviction. In addition, while acknowledging the lack of remedies under Article 13 of the Convention for complaints about conditions of detention in temporary detention facilities, as established by the Court in the case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia (cited above), the Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as he had never complained to a court about the conditions of his detention in facility IZ\u201147/1."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0d9f78be-f737-4ec9-9938-86d8154fd10d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government argued that effective domestic remedies had been available to the applicants in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but that they had not availed themselves of those remedies. In particular, the first, third and fourth applicants had not challenged before the court the lawfulness of the decision of 8 August 2006 to dispense with criminal proceedings into their allegations. The second applicant, in his turn, had failed to appeal against the judgment of 22 December 2003 by which the Kirovskiy District Court had found lawful and justified the prosecutor\u2019s refusal of 2 October 2003 to open criminal proceedings. The Government argued, therefore, that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b9e65a76-60d5-4b0d-82d7-5874bd93de4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government referred to the findings of the domestic authorities and argued that the applicant had received his bodily injuries before the arrival of the police and had not been subjected to any treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention during the arrest or while in police custody. They further argued that the investigation into the applicant\u2019s complaints had been thorough and effective."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "41535d1c-c3da-4e35-9109-456f397aa34f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The applicants argued that their life sentences were neither de jure nor de facto reducible and were thus in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, Lithuanian law did not provide for release on parole for life prisoners; such a measure was applicable only to prisoners serving fixed-term sentences. Any attempt to apply to a court, or to request a court of general jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court, was futile. The applicants further maintained that Article 3 of the new Criminal Code, in allowing the retroactive application of the criminal law commuting a penalty or mitigating legal circumstances could not ease their situation either (see paragraph 63 above). Even though all eligible applicants in the present case had attempted to use that remedy, their attempts had been unsuccessful and by final decisions the courts had found no grounds for commuting their life sentences. They had only one chance to request such a review. Accordingly, even if over time the danger the applicants posed to the general public had diminished, they had no opportunity to reapply under that provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4ba07e24-66d1-4eb5-94b5-d5ac7277f58c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant observed that he had not disputed in principle that the Lingua analysis could be used as one part of the evidence pertinent to determining his origin and hence his asylum claim. However, according to domestic law, it was an expert opinion which did not bind the deciding authority. He claimed that \u201cclose and rigorous scrutiny\u201d was required by the domestic authorities to analyse the entirety of the evidence submitted to them. It was therefore incompatible with the requirements of Article 13 in combination with Article <mask> of the Convention for the domestic authorities to have relied on the Lingua analysis as the sole or main piece of evidence, despite the fact he had adduced various pieces of evidence, which viewed as a whole, were clearly capable of proving that he originated from Darfur. His birth certificate, the confirmation letter from the president of the SLM-Unity Switzerland, the petition signed by twenty Darfuris and his political involvement for the Darfur cause were evidence enough to prove that he originated from that region."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0df4d7d3-7ef2-4cdb-876d-0ffadf2ab0b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government noted that pursuant to the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, Hungary was the responsible EU member State to examine the applicant\u2019s asylum application and had accepted responsibility pursuant to Article 16 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Dublin II Regulation. A transfer to the competent member State was inadmissible only if systematic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the reception conditions for asylum-seekers constituted serious and substantive grounds for the assumption that the applicant was exposed to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention. A mere possibility, however, could not give rise to a breach of that Article, and it was for the applicant to prove sufficiently that it was very likely that he or she would be exposed to a real, serious and considerable risk within the meaning of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c3f4c6a6-2909-476f-b29b-161d5399e795", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because he had won several court cases against various State authorities. The domestic courts had acknowledged the violation of his rights and had also awarded him compensation. Moreover, he could claim compensation at any time from the domestic courts, and recent case-law confirmed the effectiveness of that remedy (see paragraph 25 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8c7b5708-1b99-4570-a18f-5341e2c53694", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Mariupol SIZO, the Sokiryanska prison no. 67 and the Dykanivska prison no. 12 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. In particular, the applicant complained of overcrowding in cells and a lack of proper nutrition, ventilation and daylight. He further claimed that despite his serious diseases he had not been provided with appropriate medical treatment and assistance. The applicant lastly argued that the regular practice of strip searches in the factory at the Dykanivska prison no. 12, conducted in the presence of other detainees, degraded his dignity. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3d7cfb85-8802-4b22-a946-cd55c380e689", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["152.  The Government contested that argument and broadly reiterated the observations presented under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning communication between the applicant and the members of his family. They pointed out that the applicant could communicate with his relatives subject to the restrictions imposed by legislation concerning high-security prisons and the execution of sentences (that is to say, in the present case, life imprisonment. They add that where a disciplinary sanction was imposed on the applicant for failing to comply with the prohibition on transmitting messages to his former armed organisation, this had an impact on the exercise of the right to receive visits."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "247f11e4-a60c-4bc2-bd2e-203a781bd5ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government argued that the first applicant's complaint was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted, firstly, that the first applicant could have brought a civil action for assault in respect of his complaint. In the context of such proceedings he could have complained that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 8 of the Constitution and Article <mask> of the Convention and could have sought, in addition to damages, a declaratory judgment that there had been a violation of his constitutional and Convention rights."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "870a2933-79b6-4d5b-b828-747752152761", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government also submitted that there was no evidence that the State authorities had openly disregarded the basic principles of humanity in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the Government drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that from December 2000 to December 2001 the applicant had received a monthly disability pension of approximately 25 euros. However, owing to the applicant\u2019s failure to undergo a medical sanitary examination the payments had been cancelled."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6c638481-0d3b-4bef-8d57-ffd8ce70e20d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of transport between the remand centre and the courthouse had been inhuman and degrading. The vans had been cramped, unheated and inappropriate for the transport of detainees. He had been denied food, drink and access to a toilet for up to eight consecutive hours. In his view, such treatment amounted to torture."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fcac6b93-a834-4079-bbef-2ce4840f4d93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violation because by virtue of the domestic court\u2019s judgment of 1 March 2013 he had been awarded compensation of PLN 7,000 (approximately EUR 1,750) plus interest. Additionally, the domestic courts had relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and had thus acknowledged a breach of the Convention. Moreover, the domestic courts had taken into account the fact that overcrowding alone had not contributed to the deterioration of the applicant\u2019s health. The Government invoked the inadmissibility decisions in the cases of B.G. v. Poland ((dec.), no. 61403/10 of 27 August 20013) and Dubjakov\u00e1 v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 67299/01 of 19 October 2004) and argued that since in those cases the amount of compensation awarded at national level had resulted in a finding that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, the same reasoning should be applied in the case at hand."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0e360871-acec-473d-9efa-9c537510279b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. In particular, he had not challenged the prosecutors\u2019 decision of 20 July 2011 before the investigating judge (see paragraph 22 above). They referred to Levin\u0163a v. Moldova (no. 17332/03, \u00a7 63, 16 December 2008), in which the Court had found inadmissible a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention since the applicants had failed to challenge the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation in court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ca95b89e-2cab-4f56-be00-8a8872c8171a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government submitted that after the conviction of the three police officers the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also contended that the investigation into the applicants' ill-treatment had been thorough and prompt, and had resulted in the identification of those responsible and their conviction by the courts."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "410284c2-9ec9-4b6d-bf7a-0218b042774c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government challenged the applicants\u2019 arguments, claiming that the facts that they had submitted to the Court were \u201chighly exaggerated.\u201d According to the Government, the applicants failed to prove that the treatment to which they had been subjected had attained the minimum level of severity. In their opinion, a conflict between two religious groups could not amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government categorically denied any participation by State agents in the attacks at issue. They maintained that the allegations made in criminal cases nos. 1 and 2 concerning the involvement of State officials (see paragraphs 9-20 above) were exaggerated and without foundation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "29a4cfa5-4250-47fe-b005-d5fa4088c9ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant\u2019s allegations of overcrowding, lack of outdoor exercise, problems with ventilation and lack of daylight in the cells, which are not disapproved by the Government, are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the physical conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention between 8 and 15 July 2002 in the Debaltseve ITT amounted to degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "874d87b8-75d9-40ac-a43f-4bf9820ae3fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to fourteen of the applicants, namely Ana Maria-Paula Bidi, Denes Biga, Erika Biga, Iosif Biga Snr, Iosif Biga Jr, Ladislau Biga, Rozalia Bucunea, Carol Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga), Ladislau Horvath, Petru Kalanyos Snr, Petru Kalanyos Jr, Ana Lingurar and Lela Potra. The Government contended that these applicants failed to join the rest of the applicants in contesting the Reghin prosecutor\u2019s decision of 16 July 2007 before the superior prosecutor and subsequently before the Mure\u015f County Court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d7b849c6-c460-49ad-810a-b3d75e0d50aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant stated that his extradition to Kazakhstan would breach Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed that the Kazakhstan authorities had deprived him of his property, which, in his view, proved that the rule of law was not respected in the requesting country. The Russian authorities had refused to examine his complaints of deprivation of property although, in his view, it was clear that the Kazakhstan police would do everything in their power to retain the property they had stolen from the applicant, including possible attempts at \u201cgetting rid\u201d of him with the help of criminals."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8f297624-5858-4f89-aca3-22e841680e35", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["166.  The applicant claimed an amount of EUR 15,000 or such amount as the Court deemed equitable in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage He submitted that the Government's failure to recognise that his expulsion would constitute a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had led to tremendous anxiety and suffering on the part of the applicant and his family, which could not be compensated by a finding of a violation alone."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ddab97cc-3526-40dc-be88-01cc1d2ee326", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["140.  The applicant further argued that there was no social assistance for disabled prisoners. The applicant had to rely on the voluntary assistance of his cellmate, which could not be considered adequate. He further submitted that being placed in a position of dependence upon the goodwill of other detainees, to whom he had to \u201cpay\u201d with cigarettes and tea, had been extremely humiliating for him. The applicant mentioned that, at times, he had been left outside in the walking area for long periods of time without a rain shelter, as he could not get into the building by himself. The applicant relied on the case of Farbtuhs (cited above, \u00a7 60) to argue that that leaving the assistance of disabled prisoners to other detainees was inadequate, since it in effect shifted the responsibility for such people to those other detainees, who lacked the proper qualifications, even if their help was only for a limited period of time. In his view, it was a serious issue under Article <mask> of the Convention that a disabled person such as himself had to endure concerns and worries about the inaccessibility of qualified medical assistance in an emergency. He argued that he had been dependent on the goodwill of other detainees to assist him, which had put him in a situation of uncertainty, and had caused him physical and mental suffering and distress. The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s distinction between the facts of the present case and those in Farbtuhs. He considered that the Government\u2019s analysis of the Farbtuhs case in relation to the appropriateness of the detention itself was irrelevant. The applicant submitted that the focus of his dissatisfaction was not that he had been held in continued detention despite his poor health, which had been the main problem in Farbtuhs, but rather that the conditions in Valmiera Prison had been unsuitable for him as a disabled person."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "1e29211d-ad7f-451f-9bfb-7ce70198a49c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, owing to belated payment of unemployment emoluments, she had been left without the means of existence and her very survival had been in danger. She further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the belated payment of unemployment allowances in an unlawfully reduced amount had impaired her property rights. The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with the above complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7d248ac8-91b3-401b-b3ae-aa587c28a207", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant stood by his description of the events of 5 December 1999. He noted that the results of the medical examination conducted on 3 December 1999 and his interview to the TV station on 5 December 1999 could serve as evidence that he had been in good health before his unfortunate encounter with the police. Furthermore, prior to that incident he had not been disabled, nor had he informed the emergency doctors that he was disabled, despite the Government\u2019s assertion to the contrary. He pointed out that although the Government accepted that he had been injured at the police station, they had not confirmed that the treatment he had sustained was contrary to the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, they had not commented on the effectiveness of the investigation into the events in question."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5c73199a-7e3f-4e0d-9bc5-7357a13dc1c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant submitted that as result of the police officers\u2019 actions he had sustained a number of injuries which were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The police had used excessive force against him and their use of the truncheon had been contrary to the domestic law in that he had been hit on the head with it."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5c60ac95-9b35-444d-a92d-3428efaeaf1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted that, contrary to the applicant\u2019s allegations, his conviction had not been based on the incriminating statements extracted from him in police custody in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant\u2019s conviction had been based mainly on the statements that his brother and P.M. had made to the police. In this connection, they contended that the statements of P.M. and the applicant\u2019s brother had been taken during the investigation in compliance with the relevant domestic legislation. The Government lastly argued that the applicant had not made any self-incriminating statements which could have been used against him at trial."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ff3099ff-ed3e-4c15-9950-d68878b97558", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government also referred to the argument in paragraph 68 above that it would be unreasonable to impose on a Contracting State, which provides more extended protection than suggested by Article <mask> of the Convention, an obligation under Article 8 to refrain from removing family members who do not have the right - either under domestic law or according to the Court\u2019s established case-law under Article 3 of the Convention - to remain in the country. In this regard, the Government emphasised that the applicant, who was born on 6 February 1991, was now 21 years old and that his health might improve over time. In the meantime there were several ways for the applicants to keep in contact."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fcc7411a-7752-4fab-95bc-ea3030f8c9a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained that following his arrest on 16 January 2002 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s substantive and procedural obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e7fab14d-df99-4115-8af3-ecf06083f018", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government contended that applicants who had already been released when they had lodged their application with the Court or who had been released following their application but prior to its examination had had at their disposal the remedy under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code, in conjunction with the Penal Code and Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the provisions of Presidential Decrees nos. 141/1991 and 254/2004, arguing that they could have been relied on before the national courts in conjunction with section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code. In the Government\u2019s view, the above-mentioned domestic remedy was capable of affording those applicants adequate redress in the form of monetary compensation for any damage caused to them."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f42fbbd2-30aa-41ac-a1a0-137fa286fc18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage that he had suffered as a result of the breaches of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention. He asked the Court to have regard to the intensity of his suffering and the various ways in which he had been ill-treated in the course of his arrest and detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e24755cc-c954-4fe8-8e8b-876323b23eea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his pre-trial detention. In particular, he complained about the conditions of his detention in the remand prisons. Next, he alleged that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention. Further, he complained about the conditions of his transfer to and from court and the conditions of his detention in the convoy room at the Moscow City Court. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4d2024e3-e6ab-461c-9a8e-bbf481130dc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant reiterated his complaints and contended that the conditions of detention in which he was held were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied, inter alia, on the findings of the Court in other similar cases against Bulgaria (such as, for example, Malechkov, cited above), the assessments of the CPT in their reports, the conclusions of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in their annual reports and the declaration of his fellow detainee, Mr R. Dobrev (see paragraph 33 above), in respect of the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility and Pazardzhik Prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d031a318-d4bc-4d06-a719-91ab594aa547", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicant simply reiterated his complaints and contended that the conditions of detention in which he was held at the Velingrad Investigation detention facility and the Pazardzhik Prison were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied, inter alia, on the findings of the CPT in their reports and the declarations of two other detainees at the Velingrad Investigation detention facility, Mr V.G. and Mr. D.A., who corroborated his claims."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a3aa097b-5228-4e32-968a-44f1630f13a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["215.  The Government submitted, with particular regard to the psychological and educational damage, that it related to the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken individually, which had been declared inadmissible by the Court in its decision of 1 March 2005. In their submission, there was therefore no causal link between any violation of the Convention and the alleged non-pecuniary damage. They further contended that the sum claimed by the applicants was excessive and that any finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5ed8b50a-281f-4da1-9764-2faa2d0266e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant complained that on 23 October and 7 November 2001 and 21 January 2002 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7ec7fc09-7f8c-4bf2-8c29-a6076de49720", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention as it had not attained a minimum level of severity. They further stated that in any event the reports drawn up following the applicant\u2019s medical examinations had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to any physical violence by police officers, who had been merely exercising their statutory power of arrest. With regard to the effectiveness of the investigation carried out by the Istanbul public prosecutor, the Government maintained that the public prosecutor had started an investigation in a timely manner, examined the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant, obtained photographs of all officers involved in order for the applicant to identify those who had ill-treated him and taken the statements of those officers to clarify the issue."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4df25ba7-7fb6-46fd-bc8e-d80f89f41515", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant argued that he had proved that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while he was force-fed and that the conditions of his detention, particularly between 28 October 1998 and 23 February 2000 (the date of his release from custody), were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He requested the Court to find the State responsible under Article 3. The applicant further mentioned that he had been held in detention from 16 October 1998 to 13 August 1999 without any proper sanction. He alleged an infringement of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1(c) and 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b9045c28-0448-4d7a-893c-57816f128049", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected was such as to fall under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that for the treatment to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention it must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum is, by nature, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst many other authorities, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, \u00a7 100, Series A no. 161)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fd2546ed-736c-4c2e-be54-a13b63e181cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained that he had been tortured by the police between 23 and 25 November 1999. He also complained, in general terms, that in the Donetsk SIZO he had not received adequate medical aid; that the food there had been of a poor quality; and that there had been a person with mental health problems detained in the same SIZO building with him. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8d106192-66e5-48a9-b6d5-435c711c5c10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant alleged that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in either of the detention facilities, including the prison hospital. He further complained of the inadequacy of the material conditions of his detention in Tbilisi Prison no. 5 and Rustavi Prison no. 6 and in the prison hospital. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "aebb69d1-018c-40d9-8763-091e8244b1c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about being ill-treated by the police on 20 May 2005 and suffering a head trauma and a prolonged state of stupor as a result. He also complained about lack of proper medical assistance while in detention and about the failure to investigate properly his complaint about ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d4f4ae76-8285-4731-95ba-5026a2ab5a98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["4.  The applicant, in his first application (Jeronovi\u010ds v. Latvia, no. 547/02, 1 December 2009), complained, inter alia, (a) that while he was being questioned in custody the police had subjected him to ill-treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, for the purpose of extracting a confession from him; and (b) that a statement so obtained had subsequently been used in evidence against him at his trial, in breach of the fairness requirement inherent in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e4495e05-4f96-4952-b365-d30c2b3a0096", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government asked the Court to take into account the fact that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies as regards the complaint raised under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. As to the applicant\u2019s claim concerning the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, the Government submitted that the amount requested by the applicant was excessive."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7e0563f3-bea9-407f-9651-99e142c0e819", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government also noted that in the civil proceedings against the State the domestic courts had found for the applicant, establishing that the police officers of the Sovetskiy district police had inflicted injuries on him, and partially allowing his claim for compensation. The Government argued that the authorities had therefore fully restored the applicant\u2019s rights. In view of the acknowledgment of a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights and the compensation awarded to him, he could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ae241b08-7c31-4b79-bef2-6d6c7bff9902", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["257.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They stated, in particular, that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly on account of the young age of some of the applicants, and that there was no evidence of the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 arrest by State agents. Lastly, they averred that domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, had provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "25ad6c9f-1f88-4c2c-ac8e-b11768b3b0a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government reiterated that in their opinion the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as he had not lodged a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division against either the judgment of 25 January 2007 or the judgment of 10 February 2009. As to the question of whether an appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division was an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1, the Government pointed out, relying on rulings given by the Division on, respectively, 9 June 2004 (see K. v. the Netherlands, (dec.), no. 33403/11, \u00a7\u00a7 30, 25 September 2012), and 2 August 2004, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division \u2013 like the Regional Court of The Hague \u2013 assessed fully whether expelling an alien to his or her country of origin would expose him or her to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The Division based its considerations on an alien\u2019s account in so far as it was accepted as true. If it concluded in a particular case that the competent Minister or Deputy Minister had failed to carry out an adequate appraisal of an alien\u2019s claims under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division \u2013 like the Regional Court of The Hague \u2013 could quash the decision regarding that alien. The applicant could and should therefore have raised his claims under Article 3 before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division in the context of both his asylum request and the decision to impose an exclusion order."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "94c2d5b1-d1b9-4321-987a-d34941784a36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government argued that the State authorities had taken all steps for a comprehensive investigation into the case. They repeatedly underlined that the applicant's behaviour \u2013 failure to appear before the investigator on seventeen occasions and failure to submit medical documents \u2013 had caused significant delays in the investigation and had affected its effectiveness. In their opinion, the investigation in the present case could not be considered contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "794213c2-c5f1-49ad-ad1b-313573b9b875", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government argued that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court of 17 March 2009, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violations alleged under Article 3 and Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention because the Constitutional Court had found a violation of those provisions. Furthermore, as regards the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (conditions of his detention), the national law had subsequently offered the applicant the possibility of seeking compensation in civil proceedings against the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2d2dabc5-e877-4c9c-91c6-02477a09cc58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant alleged that the treatment he had been subjected to during his detention in police custody had amounted to torture and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He stated that the police officers had stripped him naked, had forced him to kneel down and had rubbed an object around his anus. They had also attempted to rape him. He had then been laid on his back and his testicles squeezed, causing intense pain and shame. Furthermore, he had been kept blindfolded in a very hot place and then exposed to strong light. He had also been denied food, threatened with death, insulted and kicked."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0b175961-2cde-428a-8d7d-a5f3faa2f4d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that the prison authorities had failed to protect his personal security, his physical and moral integrity, despite the fact that they had been alerted about the aggressiveness of the bull, and that he had no effective right of compensation for the injuries sustained. The Court considers that these complaints should be analysed only under Article 3 as a complaint that the State failed to comply, firstly with its procedural obligation to investigate the applicant\u2019s allegations that no preventive measure had been taken despite the fact that the prison authorities had been alerted about the alleged aggressiveness of the bull, and secondly with its substantive obligation to protect the applicant from being injured\u2019. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "29a0d2aa-96ce-4a84-801f-814a889941af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government also maintained that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had not extended to the obligation of the State to provide an alleged victim of ill-treatment with free legal representation to support his allegations before the domestic authorities. Nevertheless, they stated that for the purpose of effective participation in the criminal proceedings the applicant did have access to legal representation. The right to legal assistance had been guaranteed by Article 59 of the Constitution of Ukraine and by the Social Services Act. They further noted that the new Free Legal Assistance Act had been adopted on 2 June 2011, and specifically addressed the issue. In practical terms, the applicant could apply for legal assistance to the Horodenka territorial social support centre for pensioners, handicapped people and single disabled people. He could also apply to the legal advice office at the Horodenka District Department of Justice, which opened in 2003 and which could advise the applicant on legal issues and assist him in the preparation of various procedural documents. The Government lastly submitted that the applicant could apply to the national ombudsman and other authorities who would address his requests within their competence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d4b21f8e-1d97-4e08-8e54-ce589339758f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not complained about the conditions of his detention to a prosecutor or court. The Government further commented on the conditions of the applicant's detention, but only in facility no. IZ-77/2. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had been detained in satisfactory sanitary conditions. The Government noted that the fact that the applicant had been detained in the overcrowded cells could not serve on its own as the basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the applicant's detention had been satisfactory. The Government pointed out that overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of the Council of Europe."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4dbe332f-67de-4ea2-8f52-937a0b5b7da8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant further complained that the circumstances of the case amounted to a breach of the prohibition of degrading treatment and had violated Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill\u2011founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eb94f802-e4d0-49fb-830f-7eba0280914c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants claimed that SIAC\u2019s power to grant bail did not effectively function during the period when they were detained: firstly, because the scope of the remedy was jurisdictionally unclear; secondly, because the procedure was subject to delay; thirdly, because the threshold for granting bail was too high. An applicant for bail was required to demonstrate an \u201coverwhelming likelihood\u201d that his continued detention would lead to a physical or mental deterioration, such as to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The jurisdiction was described as \u201cexceptional\u201d, requiring the \u201ccircumstances to be extreme\u201d. Even then, the only available remedy was to substitute house arrest for detention (see paragraph 79 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d4d33727-3b06-4b73-b95a-a280e49d31e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government stated that \u201cthe investigation of the criminal case had established that Rasul Tsakoyev had been subjected to ill-treatment and that he had died as a result of it\u201d. They further stated that the perpetrators of the ill-treatment had not been established and that the alleged involvement of State agents had not been confirmed. The Government also submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the applicants because their complaints had been duly examined by the domestic authorities and all possible steps had been taken to have the crime resolved."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c6412a41-f4e9-423a-b1be-22557e3cb8a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government contested that argument. Relying on the certificates prepared by the remand prison administration and the statements made by the remand prison officers in 2009, they asserted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with the standards required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were unable to submit original documents concerning the applicant\u2019s detention, explaining that they had been destroyed on account of the expiration of the statutory time\u2011limit for their storage."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5d16f763-24b8-4bfb-9d1b-dca507f6e135", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants further complained that they had not received adequate medical care while in detention. However, the Court notes that none of the applicants adduced any evidence that they had been in need of any urgent medical care during their detention. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of all of the applicants, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5d2e98d0-2c25-4e55-ab62-438dc1b57194", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicants submitted that the situation they had experienced had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above (\u00a7 263). The state of extreme poverty and material and psychological want in which the authorities had placed them, in full knowledge of their vulnerability as asylum-seekers and as a family with young children including a severely disabled young daughter, had reached the threshold required by Article 3. The obligation to provide for the applicants\u2019 basic needs as asylum-seekers had also been one of the positive obligations of the Belgian State under European law and more particularly the Reception Directive, which provided that Dublin asylum-seekers had to continue being provided with reception facilities until they were actually transferred to the responsible State, as had been confirmed by the CJEU in Cimade and Gisti, cited above (\u00a7 58) (see paragraph 105 above), and the revised European Social Charter (see paragraphs 108-09 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a0ebdac9-07a5-4b86-8d96-ec46bc474309", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant complained that in view of his disability and his special needs, his protracted detention in the conditions of Szczytno and Olsztyn Remand Centres had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. More precisely, the applicant asserted that, despite his disability, the remand centre staff had not provided him with any special care. That had made his life in detention very difficult because he had not been able to carry out many of his daily or routine tasks, such as serving his meals, making his bed, cutting his toenails, washing, shaving and getting dressed, and cleaning himself after going to the bathroom. He had had to seek help from his inmates, which had put him in a position of dependency."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7a91e935-fa51-4b77-8e1f-49d079a7b5a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention at Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their submissions, the Government submitted photographs of some of the sleeping and communal areas, taken at an unspecified date, as well as copies of the logs recording the number of male detainees at the removal centre on various dates during the applicant\u2019s detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f55e06ee-36ef-458d-af0f-2f57a0b8b3ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that his detention from 22 May 2000 to 6 September 2002 in appalling conditions had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further complained that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy to obtain an improvement in the conditions of his detention. The Articles relied on read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "07f93ecf-f2a1-4520-aa71-50bf86888a86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not require a judicial remedy and that the possibility to challenge a decision to discontinue an investigation before the general public prosecutor under Article 172 \u00a7 1 of the CCP had fulfilled the requirements stemming from the Convention. Even though the general public prosecutor had been the superior of each public prosecutor in the respective court district, he or she had been provided with his or her own staff and therefore had been sufficiently independent from subordinate public prosecutors."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2c7f0f7f-a9df-4360-baea-dc235f1e74e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and that the State authorities had failed to effectively investigate his allegations of ill-treatment. In his view, the above had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and to a breach of the State\u2019s obligation to provide effective remedies in this respect. Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "944b1f20-6af0-4808-b1cf-96c5047ebc70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any suffering he may have experienced did not exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the remand centre were appropriate, as was clear from documents submitted to the Court (see paragraph 47 above). In case of an emergency, he could be transported to a nearby hospital."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cce50911-820f-4e35-9548-7c1a0ffb483e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The applicants argued that their relatives\u2019 naked bodies had been displayed at the military base without showing any respect for their privacy or memory and in front of a large number of military personnel who had nothing to do with the investigation. As a result of the bodies of their relatives being displayed in such an undignified fashion the applicants argued that they had felt degraded. They submitted that the authorities could have behaved more sensitively and could at least have blocked the bodies from view with a screen; it was the failure to give thought to taking such simple measures that had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "de08d75d-a276-40da-8231-95463228b151", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["166.  The applicant\u2019s representatives submitted under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Russian authorities were implicated in the applicant\u2019s disappearance, which in their opinion had resulted in his abduction and illegal transfer to Uzbekistan. They contended that the domestic authorities had failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the applicant\u2019s disappearance. Lastly, they submitted that the investigation into the disappearance and possible abduction had been ineffective. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "abd02254-fe17-4b5c-9121-d1996e44ef79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. On the merits, the Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with dry rations on the days he was transported to the court-house and that he had been afforded adequate opportunity to sleep between court hearings, which ruled out the alleged violation of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8d098782-88e0-4511-ba63-568fd153864e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant contended that the violence to which he had been subjected by prison guard S.N. amounted to ill-treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that he had been examined by a doctor only a few days after the incident. He further contested the number of days indicated by the forensic report as necessary for his recovery, claiming that he had needed between eighty and ninety days of medical treatment. He emphasised that the ill-treatment was inflicted by a state agent acting in his official capacity and therefore engaged the State\u2019s responsibility."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "54351b72-eaab-470d-aaf9-df55665d5f0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government did not dispute that the applicant had been kept in prison together with adults. Referring to the medical report of 25 April 2001 (see paragraph 43 above), they maintained that the applicant had not suffered any mental problems which would have exempted him from being criminally liable for his actions. They also argued that the ill-treatment allegedly suffered by the applicant had not attained the minimum level of severity falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5129f90a-d759-42f8-b5c7-1f19575f2aee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant claimed that after his arrest police officers had ill\u2011treated him in order to make him confess to the alleged crimes and pay them money. His complaints to the prosecutor and the courts in that connection had been left without proper examination. Article <mask> of the Convention, referred to by the applicant on that account, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9dd1e7ff-e2d2-4acc-be3b-f28d00a6f8ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained that the domestic court decisions allowing his extradition to Uzbekistan had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention as extradition would have given rise to a real risk of ill\u2011treatment. When notifying the application to the respondent Government, the Court decided, of its own initiative, to put a question to the parties as to whether the applicant had had an effective domestic remedy whereby he could raise his allegation under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "82ff2148-6d36-4396-a8f5-904f13aab2d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any non\u00adpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9afec2b5-20b0-4d2c-ab76-3a8e6b95bc74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that his detention in the conditions of \u0141owicz Prison, in which he had been held from 18 November 2004 until 24 July 2008, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant complained about the prison\u2019s overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical care and the practice of mixing healthy prisoners with those infected with HIV and HCV. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3a7bdda0-2628-409a-9718-fe3a4325c5f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["223.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and torture while in detention, referring to the methods of ill-treatment inflicted on him by the police officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. He also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into his relevant allegations. The applicant referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4dfcc71f-b711-4166-bc31-050714021fe9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Lema Dikayev had been subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of State agents. They also alleged that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "60dc6bf6-5677-4e2c-bcf5-bc5555b61fe1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government disagreed and relied on evidence to the contrary (see paragraph 13 above). They argued that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied, in particular, on the case of Drugalev v. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance case (referred to in Boicenco, cited above, \u00a7 68)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d30dfe11-c10e-43af-b142-617f80a49bae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The Government, relying on \u00c7ak\u0131c\u0131 v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23657/94, \u00a7 98, ECHR 1999\u2011IV), argued that the applicant could not be considered a victim under Article <mask> of the Convention since neither she nor her husband had ever objected to the removal of tissue. They also argued that, since the applicant had never complained at the domestic level that she had been forced to bury her husband with his legs tied together, she could not claim to be a victim before the Court now. The applicant pointed out that \u00c7ak\u0131c\u0131 was a disappearance case, whereas she had herself seen her husband\u2019s remains before the funeral and his legs had been tied together. She had been shocked, but at the time she was unaware of the tissue removal. The Court considers that in the present case the question of whether or not the applicant can be considered a victim is closely linked to the merits of the case. It should therefore be joined to the merits."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7e25cb1c-4685-4031-a1bd-e63c5258ec3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant raises complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention. She alleges that she was unable to recover all the real estate she claimed, that she had no effective domestic remedy to restore her property rights, and that she is discriminated against in the enjoyment of her property rights. She also alleges, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that she was subjected to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which her numerous applications concerning the return of the property at issue were dealt with by the Latvian authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4a8650c6-fbff-4fc5-a16c-c8bc51516f9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["216.  The applicants further complained that the circumstances created by the judicial authorities, the CTU and the children services amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly as a result of the period of isolation in San Marino. Indeed, as a result, the second applicant suffered psychological distress. Moreover, the first applicant had been pressured by these entities into withdrawing her complaints against Mr X., which were eventually archived. They cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6da5df88-f576-4104-9cff-ecb8e63df27b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s fears were groundless in view of the prohibition in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 on the expulsion of aliens to a country where their health or life would be in jeopardy. The order to expel him had been intended to protect the national security of Bulgaria. However, its enforcement was subject to the provisions of section 44a, which coincided with the principles underlying Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The practice in such cases was for the competent authorities, which worked in close cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and non\u2011governmental organisations, to verify the issue upon expulsion of their own motion. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept an updated list of safe third countries that could receive individuals in the applicant\u2019s position. The authorities were thus complying with the absolute prohibition of Article <mask> of the Convention, and, unlike the situation obtaining in Saadi v. Italy ([GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008\u2011...), were not seeking to balance national security considerations against the risk of ill\u2011treatment faced by the applicant. The bar in section 44a applied to all aliens, including those subject to expulsion orders on national security grounds."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d35ca1fb-d291-48a3-b090-54374d1b608d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["136.  The Government did not dispute that the applicants\u2019 injuries had been sufficiently serious as to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in the Government\u2019s view, the responsibility of the State could not be engaged in the current case since the domestic investigation had concluded that the use of force had been justified and that the State agents had acted in self-defence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "790d3a42-3ded-456a-85c5-b61d2254adb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that the police had had ill-treated them in November 2000 and had failed to properly investigate their allegations of ill-treatment; that the first applicant was not given sufficient medical assistance on 4 November 2000 and that no investigation was carried out into the second applicant\u2019s complaint of 20 December 2000; that they were held in inhuman and degrading conditions; that the authorities had allowed the applicants\u2019 ill-treatment by other detainees in 2003 and had failed to properly investigate their complaints concerning that ill-treatment. Article 3 provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "34fbb7ec-8525-4f48-a3bf-6c9fa8a3716d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government confirmed that on 15 June 2001 the applicant was abducted and ill-treated and that he had sustained the injuries he claimed, contesting, however, any involvement of state officials in the infliction of injuries. The Government found it impossible to conclude that the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as a result of any acts or omissions on the part of the state bodies or officials. They relied on the domestic decisions, which found no grounds for the prosecution of investigator D., or the convoy officers, or the relatives of G., at whom the applicant pointed as perpetrators. The Government considered that the authorities could not be held responsible for the assault of the \u201cunidentified individuals\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c43fdc4d-79dc-4662-9cbe-5d0478ba1db4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants complained that expulsion of the children to their home country would be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, because they would be separated from their immediate family and sent to their home country, where they have no one to care for them. They would probably be sent to an orphanage and would depend on social services in Kosovo. Their expulsion would therefore put them at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "87810c17-ee55-4268-bfdd-79b79cc1732d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant had not brought her grievance concerning her alleged beating to the attention of the domestic authorities and thus had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. The Government further argued that the applicants' mental suffering could not be imputable to the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b3477cf5-fa54-4a00-8e7c-460974688e5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that from 19 to 23 June 2003 he was ill-treated by the police officers who visited him in hospital. He further complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the period of his stay in the hospital from 19 to 23 June 2003 was not included in the overall length of his sentence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a379f732-1b93-4af7-832b-e76ff4568106", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained that the absence of adequate medical care while in detention, in particular in Ploie\u015fti Prison and Dej Prison Hospital, and the length of the proceedings concerning his request of 22 October 2007 for the temporary suspension of the execution of his prison sentence due to his serious medical condition amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6451d657-1b72-4a8d-a56c-1f43991ab752", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the domestic criminal and civil proceedings had afforded the applicant proper redress. They submitted that the domestic courts had determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the claim as submitted by the applicant, with regard to the duration and severity of the ill-treatment and the gravity of the injury he had sustained. The Government stressed that the injury had been qualified as insignificant, and the amount of compensation could therefore be regarded as reasonable."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "777f8977-6a89-41f4-ac1e-f6525a48c2d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either the applicants or Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd\u2011Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, they submitted that those applicants who had witnessed their relatives\u2019 apprehension had themselves acted aggressively towards the servicemen at the checkpoint."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b5f3ba21-b926-4262-b5d8-6715e48e1870", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that he and his son had been beaten by servicemen and that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. He alleged furthermore that his son had been subjected to ill-treatment after his apprehension as well. The applicant also claimed that as a result of his son\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, he had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "be4e645e-98e4-4728-a0a4-766dac2caa83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicants further asked the Court not to limit its examination to the establishment of the Government's failure to assess properly the risk of ill-treatment before taking the extradition decision. They argued that they had submitted sufficient information for the Court to rule that their extradition to Uzbekistan would be incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. As additional proof of an increased risk of ill-treatment, they had produced a list of their relatives and business partners who had been convicted to long terms of imprisonment in connection with the Andijan events. They also maintained that the Uzbek authorities knew about their application for asylum and their application before the Court, which had further intensified the risk of torture."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9be3589c-629a-48ce-9703-a8e130fe1553", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their sons had most likely been tortured during and after their apprehension. They also claimed that as a result of their sons\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3b00e26a-0cd5-44f6-8b01-5174833107ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant took the view that he could still claim to be the \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While it was true that the Joint Court of Justice had reduced his sentence in view of the extreme conditions of his detention, the reduction had been intended to compensate only for the isolation in which he was then being kept. It could not and did not compensate for the physical and mental harm resulting from ill-treatment and neglect of his physical complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "eaf56a5d-7d1a-4095-86a8-751e73c0a801", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The Government\u2019s case was that the issue of risk would be examined upon the enforcement of the expulsion order against the applicant and that the authorities would not remove him from Bulgaria without ensuring that this would not fall foul of the prohibition set out in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court has already found that there are no guarantees that before proceeding with the expulsion the authorities would subject the applicant\u2019s claims under Article <mask> of the Convention to rigorous scrutiny (see paragraphs 105 and 106 above). More importantly, the Government did not point to any procedure whereby the applicant would be able to challenge their assessment of those claims. From the provisions of the Aliens Act 1998 and the regulations for its application it does not appear that it is possible to bring a separate legal challenge against the enforcement of the expulsion order, let alone that there exists an avenue of redress that meets the two requirements set out in paragraph 120 above. The Court would emphasise in that connection that the existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, and that it falls to the respondent State to establish that (see, among other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, \u00a7 107, ECHR 2010\u2011...)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9fa70da9-e05c-4fb9-bf5b-73a8a8c0b201", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention from 23 December 2002 to 10 December 2008 did not comply with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of personal space in the cells of facility IZ-47/1 in respect of the time during which the applicant was held there (see Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, \u00a7\u00a7 43-51, 29 March 2007; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, \u00a7\u00a7 38-48, 26 June 2008; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, \u00a7\u00a7 53-59, 8 April 2010; Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, \u00a7\u00a7 35-41, 20 January 2011; Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, \u00a7\u00a7 47-53, 3 March 2011; and Popandopulo v. Russia, no. 4512/09, \u00a7\u00a7 84-89, 10 May 2011)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e00de823-3d40-44cb-92ce-be950191c9ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant had less than 3 sq. m of personal space during four non\u2011consecutive periods, which respectively lasted for one, two, thirty\u2011four and forty\u2011two days (see paragraph 30 above). The Court considers that the periods of one and two days can be considered of short duration (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7 130). In the light of its earlier findings concerning the material conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention, the freedom of movement outside the cell and out\u2011of\u2011cell activities available to him (see paragraph 38 above), the Court concludes that the lack of personal space during those two periods did not amount to degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cdd4dd00-5323-41b5-a258-5adad2427fc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government considered that the security installations in question neither constituted degrading treatment nor caused significant discomfort. They submitted, in particular, that all detainees who were in pre-trial detention were routinely placed either in metal cages or in the glass cabins which were progressively replacing the metal cages in courtrooms. They considered that, unlike the metal cages, the glass cabins did not have an appearance that could by itself raise issues under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further submitted that after the initial complaints about the cramped conditions in hearing room no. 338, the trial was moved to hearing room no. 635, where the defendants had more space because there were two cabins."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "905795b9-f74c-4928-aebb-d83202a47af1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government did not comment on all of the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Instead, they commented only on a few issues he raised. In particular, they submitted that as the applicant had mainly complained about the failure of the authorities to provide him with proper medical treatment and nutrition, they would address only those complaints. They denied the applicant's allegations and contended that he had not been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his stay in the SIZO SBU and SIZO no. 13. They further contended that the conditions in which the applicant had been detained were in compliance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention and that there had therefore been no violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8c840945-4d33-4587-8c9f-f05462b2850b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government, in their additional observations in reply to those of the applicant (see paragraph 9 above), submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had left Cyprus illegally and had gone to Iraq. He therefore did not face a risk of deportation from Cyprus to Syria. Accordingly, they invited the Court to declare the applicant\u2019s complaint under this provision inadmissible on this ground. In the alternative, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They noted in this respect that the applicant had not filed a recourse against the second decision of the Reviewing Authority dated 26 March 2011 nor had he lodged an appeal against the first instance judgment of the Supreme Court of 31 January 2012. Last but not least, they argued that the applicant following his departure, could have had filed a new administrative appeal or submitted new information before the authorities concerning his asylum appeal or lodged a fresh claim for asylum under the Refugee Law which had, in the meantime been amended (see A.H. and J.K., cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 98-99)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7c903a1f-4ce7-4a25-9a6e-5a97a847a4bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violation because, by virtue of the domestic court\u2019s judgment of 27 June 2013 he had been awarded compensation of PLN 1,000 plus interest. Additionally, the domestic court relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and thus acknowledged a breach of the Convention. Moreover, it took into account the fact that the breach of the statutory minimum standard of 3 m\u00b2 had not been significant. The Government relied, inter alia, on the inadmissibility decisions in the cases of B.G. v. Poland ((dec.), no. 61403/10 of 27 August 20013), and Dubjakov\u00e1 v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 67299/01 of 19 October 2004) and argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, as the compensation of PLN 1,000 was sufficient to compensate for his detention in overcrowded cells for three days."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3823f338-79b4-4e20-b6fa-41887e5bc74c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, that he had been tortured in the OCU's temporary detention facility, and that the conditions of his further detention at the Investigative Isolator No. 1 also amounted to ill-treatment. He also complained that his allegations of ill-treatment had not been investigated effectively, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by the same Article. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c01dc970-f308-4a43-94e5-bc7445f2c1f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in that he remained in solitary confinement between 6 January 2006 and 31 January 2008. He submitted that the cell had been fitted with a narrow bed which was too short for him, that in winter the temperature in the cell fell below zero, and that he had not been allowed to use the library, attend mass or participate in other activities. The applicant also argued that he had been kept in isolation and had been prevented or restricted from receiving newspapers and books."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "44fcecd4-5c01-49f9-b001-999293fb029c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59. The Government challenged the country information relied on by the applicant. They indicated that the situation in Sri Lanka had developed to such an extent since the publication of the April 2009 Guidelines, that the UNHCR had published a note on their applicability (see paragraph 21 above). The Government argued that, insofar as UNHCR recommended that Tamil asylum-seekers from the north should be granted asylum, that recommendation was based on information about the risk to Tamils \u201cin the region\u201d and there was no indication that the Note had in any way considered the risk in Colombo generally. Moreover, they submitted that, following NA., little weight should be attached to the UNHCR\u2019s assessment as its comments were not focused on the question of whether there was a risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Consequently, it provided no support for the applicant\u2019s assertion that there was a real risk he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if he were returned to Colombo. Instead, the Government relied on the then most recent Country of Origin Information report, published by the United Kingdom Border Agency on 13 October 2009, which contained the most up-to-date publicly available information."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9522dd72-1a84-49f1-89b3-9b40928bcb30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the impunity of officer A.C. as a result of the failure to prosecute him under applicable criminal-law provisions. They also complained, under the same Article, that the investigation of their forced undressing in front of V.D. had not been prompt and about the impunity of V.D. and M.T. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f0c733c7-25bb-46d6-8a51-df8219970ed5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government contested those arguments and stated that in the course of proceedings under the Dublin Regulation the Austrian authorities were required to examine whether an applicant would face a real risk under Article <mask> of the Convention upon a transfer. Should the authority find that there was a danger that the applicant might be exposed to human rights violations in the event of his or her transfer, it was required to make use of the sovereignty clause. The Government referred to the fact that the Austrian authorities had repeatedly made use of the sovereignty clause in practice in respect of vulnerable people."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9d597e2d-fe6b-41f0-9323-be3c8f2d8fd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government, however, asserted that the applicant had waived his procedural rights, relying on his written statements of 19 March 2004 (see paragraphs 15\u201116 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that a waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention \u2013 in so far as it is permissible \u2013 must not run counter to any important public interest, must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to the waiver\u2019s importance (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, \u00a7 86, ECHR 2006-II). In the circumstances of the present case it finds it impossible to agree with the Government\u2019s waiver claim as the written statements of 19 March 2004 were clearly made after the statement of surrender and confession had been drawn up on 18 March 2004. Most importantly, the applicant cannot be said to have validly waived his privilege against self-incrimination in view of the Court\u2019s finding in paragraph 69 above that he had sustained the ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cd45869b-9d7a-4239-a7d6-7352ddea2655", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The Government argued that the applicant's complaint was manifestly ill-founded, being linked to the manifestly ill-founded complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, it had been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action with the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad and he had explored that avenue. The fact that the applicant was unsuccessful did not strip that avenue of its effectiveness."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c6ad5d53-2042-4ce2-9217-7629abb22b45", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the detention centre for aliens had been satisfactory and had complied with both the domestic regulations and Article <mask> of the Convention. He had had sufficient personal space, an individual sleeping place and unrestricted access to lavatory facilities. All sanitary and hygiene standards had been met. The applicant had been provided with hot meals three times per day, had been able to walk in the yard and to use the library. He had not been handcuffed or placed in a punishment cell as the centre for aliens did not have such cells."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "278f1f53-93b8-4e62-8235-010cff264285", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicants complained that their relatives had been ill-treated by State agents, and that no investigation had been carried out into the matter. They also complained that during a fortnight when their relatives remained missing they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relatives' disappearance. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ad7e427b-5ea8-46fc-aed9-c5b978bbf0b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the prison authorities had caused him to be infected with tuberculosis by placing him in a cell with detainees who had contracted this disease. He further claimed that the authorities had not ensured adequate treatment of his hepatitis and tuberculosis and had not provided him with an adequate diet."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f54df5e6-684c-471a-8c71-7c9dd295aa02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention during the investigation and trial and about the conditions of his transport to and from court. He also complained that on 26 December 2004 he had been beaten by police officers during his arrest and in police custody. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9bd61ba7-84d0-45b1-baef-54ae86b287f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government maintained that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection they emphasised that, unlike in \u0130lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000\u2011VII, the Serbian authorities had heard not only the accused officers but also the applicant, a medical expert and several eye witnesses. The Government further referred to a 2009 report of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to Serbia according to which ill-treatment by the police had decreased since 2004 (document no. CommDH(2009)8 of 11 March 2009, \u00a7 66)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ac1a838f-5ea4-4f50-a8ba-1449b28d64fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody in 1995 and that, during his detention in the Donetsk SIZO from November 1995 to December 1996 he had suffered from gravely inadequate conditions of detention. Lastly, the applicant alleged that his second trial after his acquittal in 1996 had been contrary to his rights under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5571a6dd-f1e0-43ab-b0e4-b1205077213e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that it was highly probable that after the abduction Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev had been subjected to ill-treatment. The applicants also alleged that the third applicant was subjected to ill-treatment during the abduction. Further, the applicants complained that as a result of their relatives\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "125bd5c9-fe6b-425a-852b-a5840085cc6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argued that the conditions of transport had not gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with the applicant\u2019s detention, and thus had not amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. They emphasised that all the conditions and aspects of transport had to be assessed cumulatively, without there being an exclusive focus on floor space. The applicant had been placed alone in a single occupancy compartment with a floor area of 0.51 square metres. The compartment was at least 60 cm wide, 85 cm long and 149 cm high, and had a strong plastic seat on a metal frame attached to the floor. As for leg space, although narrow, it met the requirements of Directive 2001/85/EC (see paragraph 27 above). During the day, the compartments received natural daylight through the two roof hatches and windscreen; if it was dark, ceiling lights were switched on. The van had three separate adjustable air heating systems and zones, including one for transported prisoners. No seat belts or handles had been designed for the compartments. The Government noted that in Voicu v. Romania (no. 22015/10, 10 June 2014), the Court had found that the absence of seat belts alone could not lead to a violation of Article 3. Considering those conditions and the fact that the applicant was young and healthy and had not spent more than twenty minutes in the van, during which time it had not left the prison premises, the treatment had not reached the level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d0a26d20-9d36-45ca-a119-e1537f1e1b03", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They also stated that the first applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries and that, under Russian law, an investigation into infliction of such injuries was opened upon a victim\u2019s request. Since the first applicant had failed to lodge such a request, the investigation into infliction of minor bodily injuries on him had been commenced in case no. 26075. The first applicant had been granted victim status in that case and meticulously questioned about the circumstances of the infliction of injuries on him. He had undergone an expert medical examination. The investigation in this respect had not been completed."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5125ae4c-56fd-48ce-a223-8cb38f733951", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their sons had most likely been tortured after their arrest and that the first applicant had been beaten, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that as a result of their sons\u2019 disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e01eeaf7-960c-41e1-bbd6-fd1ecc2713e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government noted that the Court had already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms in Svinarenko and Slyadnev (cited above) and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In view of the Court\u2019s position on the matter, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present three applications."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0973cb45-01ba-4c66-84bd-fd9e1830e814", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant maintained his complaint. He reiterated that he had been detained in severely overcrowded cells where he was afforded no more than 0.83-1.4 sq. m of personal space. He further referred to the case of Belevitskiy (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, 1 March 2007) where the Court had found a violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding of the cells in the same remand prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5255300e-2dd8-4746-a3f8-fc6fc18c0bc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicants further argued that that there was no jurisprudence to show that they could have claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, such a claim, in any event, could not have improved their conditions. As regards the claim to the Administrative Court, the applicants maintained that this remedy would have been ineffective as the claim would not have been resolved in due time. In support of this argument they referred to a decision no. U 1319/2003 of 11 May 2004 issued in proceedings concerning a transfer of a sentenced prisoner because of problems relating to his mental health and conflicts with other inmates. The Administrative Court had remitted the case for re-examination one year after the prisoner\u2019s request had been rejected by the director-general of the Administration for the Execution of Penal Sentences."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "100b3f3a-9294-4f75-b59a-e5a2eda28cc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant contended that her son had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3, in view of the known circumstances of his arrest, and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate this complaint. Referring to the Court's established case-law, the applicant claimed that she was a victim of treatment falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the anguish and emotional distress she had suffered as a result of the disappearance of her son and the response of the authorities to her complaints. She relied on Article 3, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "22e7ecf3-c9ae-44c2-8b35-87a403c07f11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s contention that Article <mask> of the Convention did not cover the issues of provision of legal representation for him to enable him to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged ill-treatment. He submitted that the procedural guarantees under Article 3 of the Convention would not be effective if the alleged victim of ill-treatment, usually a lay person, had not been able to estimate whether his right to procedural protection from ill-treatment had been adequately ensured by the authorities."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "27bd2f33-5ae0-4e20-adf6-1515af48fbfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government contended that Article 2 did not come into play in the present case since the victim was still alive. Admittedly, the police officers who were involved in the chase had made use of their weapons; however, they had not intended to kill him, but only to force him to stop his car and arrest him. Referring to earlier judgments of the Court, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaints fell to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention instead."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "065eadcc-64f9-42a7-932e-909969cfd862", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The Government submitted that there was no indication that the applicants had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that in the absence of evidence of the involvement of State authorities in the disappearance of Mayrudin Khantiyev, there was no causal link between the applicants' alleged suffering and the actions of representatives of the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "80f57af5-ace0-4da4-9367-4aae8ff7ad09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention since he had been detained in inhuman conditions and had not been provided with the medical assistance that his condition required. He also complained that his detention by unconstitutional authorities had been unlawful, contrary to Article 5, and that he had not had a fair trial since the \u201cMRT\u201d courts were not independent and impartial, thus amounting to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cb35172d-ffc6-48e4-9e09-73546f2b24df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["247.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They stated in particular that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly on account of the fact that certain applicants were minors and there was no evidence of the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 arrests by State agents. Lastly, the Government averred that the domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2a226a7f-3413-461b-b976-ba4d5dcb93fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained that because of his Uzbek ethnic origin, he was \u2013 and would remain, if removed to Kyrgyzstan \u2013 at a real risk of ill\u2011treatment. He argued that he belonged to an ethnic group whose members were systematically tortured by the Kyrgyz authorities and convicted in connection with the June 2010 mass disorder. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3005dd16-fa1d-4df7-9f54-3fae633321db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["199.  The applicant complained that the medical assistance available to him in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow had been inadequate. In particular, he alleged that after his arrest he did not receive regular medical supervision, including examination by specialists and specialised tests, as required following the resection of the tumour of the urinary bladder that he had undergone in 1994. He also alleged that he was not receiving the treatment appropriate to his condition and was only occasionally given painkillers. The applicant further complained about allegedly appalling material conditions of detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a7bc0dfe-89c2-4a94-a466-06cfb7ab2064", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police, and that the State had failed to investigate his allegations of police brutality. In this context, he complained that the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been protracted, unlike the proceedings against him, which had been completed rapidly. That signified bias on the part of the judges. Furthermore, in the criminal proceedings against the police officers, the public prosecutor had relied solely on the evidence produced by the DCPS. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, \u00a7 127, 26 November 2009), the Court finds it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9ce35b5c-5790-4b8c-bb2d-27cd0fae2d4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant died on 8 April 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant\u2019s sister, Ms Artemyeva, wished to pursue the application after his death. The Government did not comment. The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives, such as brothers or sisters, to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article <mask> of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, \u00a7 39, ECHR 1999\u2011VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, \u00a7 29, 8 April 2014; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, \u00a7\u00a7 58-68, 13 November 2012; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, \u00a7\u00a7 61-62, 22 July 2008; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, \u00a7 45, 19 May 2004)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b29c561c-06fb-4c2d-a109-e8838d8dbcbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the leader of a collective protest. He had never been charged with or convicted of any such act. He admitted to having refused, on one occasion, to eat his breakfast while at the Opole Lubelskie Prison."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b64c3854-9586-453e-93fa-4f63ea2a9d73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality, which had caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he had been the victim of a procedural violation of the above Article since the prosecuting authorities had failed to carry out an effective or, indeed, any official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible for the treatment. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8d4992e3-626e-4575-9023-d1cc4faeca83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained that holding him in detention on remand had constituted a danger to his life and health given his sleep disorder and the need to use a respirator. He alleged that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention. The applicant was very anxious about the possibility of a power cut in prison or his co-detainee unplugging his respirator which could be fatal. He reported to the authorities the fact that his respirator had been damaged by the prison guards but to no avail. He averred that his detention on remand had resulted in a serious deterioration of his mental and physical health. The applicant did not invoke any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "94601d81-1392-48f4-9dc3-b7d529717bff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention and of a lack of adequate medical treatment in Coliba\u015fi Prison. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, unhygienic sanitary facilities, lice, extreme cold during winter, lack of running water and lack of activities. Moreover, he complained that at the time he was imprisoned he had been clinically healthy but that during detention he had been diagnosed with various conditions and with a Category 2 disability. Furthermore, he stated that he had not been treated adequately and his repeated requests for medicines had been refused, with lack of funds given as the reason. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "866a9861-7ab8-4040-bd12-cabadebb582d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide any reliable evidence to show that in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan he would run the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Uzbekistan had sought the applicant\u2019s extradition in order to pursue criminal proceedings against him arising out of ordinary criminal charges. The applicant had not alleged that he belonged to any banned religious movement or any other vulnerable group which, according to reliable international sources, systematically endured the practice of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. Moreover, in his explanations given to a Russian prosecutor on 29 June and 20 July 2010 and 2 June 2011 (see paragraphs 23 and 33 above) the applicant had stated that he had left Uzbekistan for Russia on business and had denied any persecution on political grounds there. He had never sought political asylum in Russia, or applied for Russian citizenship. The Government went on to note that the guarantees provided by the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan were sufficient to protect the applicant from the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "97dc9cbc-ddba-41cf-b9ac-4273fa58bd8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police and that despite medical evidence of his bodily injuries the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an independent and effective investigation into his ill\u2011treatment. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, decided to examine the problems raised by the applicant under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is the relevant provision and which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2595cfa2-e81a-468c-94d5-6a29dbb2d0d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant argued that his complaint had not been premature. In 2008-09 he had actively sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers, but the domestic authorities had repeatedly refused his requests after carrying out several pre-investigation inquiries. Judicial review of the investigating authorities\u2019 refusals was inaccessible following the revocation of those decisions by the supervising authorities (see paragraph 15 above). The pre\u2011investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with its short time-limits and limited powers of an investigator could not be considered an effective remedy for the establishment of the facts and circumstances of his ill-treatment. The only potentially effective remedy against the violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention would have been the prompt institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers and the timely carrying out of a full-scale criminal investigation. However, it was only after the application had been communicated to the Russian Government that the domestic authorities had decided to open the criminal case in March 2011. The delay in the opening of the criminal case had resulted in the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate the incident of ill-treatment while the matter was still fresh. In particular, the identification of the police officers three years after the incident of ill-treatment had been extremely difficult. Further, not all the police officers who had been on duty at the Tsentralniy OVD on 7 March 2008 had been presented to the applicant for identification. Although a doctor had been appointed by the investigator, no forensic medical examination had been conducted in the course of the preliminary investigation, which would have allowed the applicant to put additional questions to the medical expert \u2013 a right he had not been able to exercise when the forensic medical examination had been conducted in the course of the pre-investigation inquiry (see paragraph 18 above). Regardless of the above, in July 2011 the preliminary investigation of the case had been suspended indefinitely due to the impossibility of identifying those responsible for the ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "fb97c19a-f66b-4ef1-b753-d125d7fe71e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government further denied that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in the present case and that the police officers had subjected the applicant to inhuman and degrading treatment. They referred to the results of the forensic expert examination of 15 October 2001, according to which the injuries complained of could not have been inflicted on 10 May 2001. With respect to the cause of the applicant's injuries the Government argued that the applicant had fallen down several times whilst escaping the crime scene."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "77c80068-b7a1-4c7a-8c63-765eabb30a34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust an effective remedy that had been open for them to complain about the alleged violations of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular as regards the alleged lack of provisions, bedding, lighting and ventilation. They considered that a complaint to the prosecutor\u2019s office would have allowed the competent authority to resolve their situation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9d523727-82b0-4606-abb4-b9a77dc212cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that he had been tortured by a tax police officer, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the investigation undertaken by the domestic authorities into these events had been insufficient. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies in respect of the above violations."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f12e2ed0-cd98-46a2-8d6b-6f145011dcb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the lack of adequate medical assistance in correctional colony IK\u2011272/3. He alleged that the medical service was inadequate generally and, in particular, that there had been a failure to arrange for surgery on his prostate adenoma; he also complained of the ban on keeping medicines in the cell, which meant that he would have had to rely on the colony\u2019s health care personnel in the event of a heart attack, a stroke or a deterioration in one of his other conditions."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7260e6d6-472f-48fe-9dd3-f5ff133a5120", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated on 20 June 2003 and that the investigation into his complaint had not been effective. The Court considers that the applicant's complaint should be examined under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention only. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e00e7344-6f26-4fb4-b378-f2103ac458f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of a competent domestic authority and considered that his complaint should be rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that it had been open to the applicant to bring his grievances to the attention of the prosecutor. They cited the following examples from the domestic practice in support of their position. In response to a Mr N.'s complaint about the conditions of his detention the Novosibirsk prosecutor's office conducted an inquiry which confirmed N.'s allegations that the food rations had been insufficient and the water supply had been irregular. As a result, the prison administration renovated the detention facility and purchased medical supplies. In the Vladimir Region, a special section for detention of inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis was established following an NGO's complaint on behalf of a Mr B. In the Khabarovsk Region the administration of the prison where Mssrs Sh. and Z. were detained renovated the shower and laundry rooms, upgraded the ventilation system in the disciplinary block and set up an area for medical consultations. Alternatively, in the Government's opinion, the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government cited three cases in this connection. The Yoshkar-Ola Town Court in the Mariy El Republic granted a Mr S.'s action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from a violation of his rights set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand prison. A Mr D. had been awarded 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unsatisfactory conditions of his pre-trial detention. On 23 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryol found that a Mr R.'s pre-trial detention had been unlawful that he had not received food for five days of his detention. The court awarded Mr R. RUB 30,000."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5d17d46f-39f1-435e-8b62-8870c4c95249", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant submitted that, while not disputing that he had been arrested and detained in the manner alleged by him, the Government did not explain in a plausible way the origin of the injuries noted on him the next day. It had to be borne in mind in this connection that his complaint comprised six relatively separate ways in which he had been ill-treated: the unjustified use of force to pin him to the ground for about half an hour upon his arrest; the wide publicity given to that, with no efforts to preserve his anonymity; the \u201cstress position\u201d in which he had been kept for about two hours in the corridor of the police station; his stay for several hours in an overcrowded and stuffy cell with no access to food, drink or medical care; the blows and kicks administered in the course of his arrest; and the blows and kicks administered in the corridor of the police station. Even though each of these acts, taken individually, fell afoul of Article <mask> of the Convention, there was no use to examine them in isolation, as the Government did not seek to justify any of them by reference to his conduct. It was true that the police operation in the course of which he was arrested had been intended to protect participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade, and that in such circumstances the police could be given some latitude to tackle aggressive groups without assessing the dangerousness of each of their individual members in advance. However, this did not mean that they were free to flout the absolute prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3bdd2b3a-679c-4a17-9b6e-d4cd3d95ba0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the SIZO were adequate and did not reach the threshold required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their statements, the Government submitted a document, certified by the SIZO Governor, which contained a description of the cells in which the applicant had been detained. In particular, the document says that in every cell there was a 120x40 centimetre window, with natural and artificial lighting and ventilation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f6a29c3c-494d-47b8-8e89-f18c052c48bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. All of the decisions imposing and extending the regime lacked justification and did not refer to any individual circumstances attributable to him. The regime was imposed arbitrarily and extended automatically. Moreover, his good behaviour in the remand centre had not been taken into account by the penitentiary commission."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c61568a2-9d49-49ea-81e6-7c471a02e5cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government pointed out that the fact that the applicant had occasionally been detained in overcrowded cells could not serve as the basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the detention conditions (availability of an individual sleeping place, bedding, compliance with sanitary norms, etc.) had been satisfactory. The Government further noted that the problem of overcrowding exists in the detention facilities of many member States of the Council of Europe. The Government submitted that the applicant had actively used available domestic remedies, in particular by lodging a number of tort actions against the administration of the detention facility."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d1f48b76-eb49-4e14-88e0-63c85edca4d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant further complained that his defamation by fellow villagers amounted to his inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about inadequate assessment of the facts by the courts. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he next complained about the respondent\u2019s obtaining his medical certificate and its adducing to the case file. Lastly, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the dismissal of his cassation appeal in the first set of proceedings on the ground of missing the time-limit had constituted his deprivation of a domestic remedy and denial of the access to court."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "474b6d98-6889-4c17-ae52-b0e37869b364", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["193.  The applicant's prison cell is indisputably furnished to a standard that is beyond reproach. From the photographs in its possession and the findings of the delegates of the CPT, who inspected the applicant's prison during their visit to Turkey from 2 to 14 September 2001, the Court notes that the cell the applicant occupies alone is large enough to accommodate a prisoner and furnished with a bed, table, armchair and bookshelves. It is also air-conditioned, has washing and toilet facilities and a window overlooking an inner courtyard. The applicant appears to be under medical supervision that is both strict and regular. The Court considers that these conditions do not give rise to any issue under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7b5147c3-4f2f-4422-8bb9-06a5b1482359", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (see \u0141atak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had already been released on 26 September 2008. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2056a749-13fb-4edd-bef0-4ed7c9b4b5a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government contested that statement. They pointed out that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, damage to personal integrity did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy, especially where the harm had been inflicted as a result of negligence. Hence, a lack of criminal-law remedies in itself could not constitute a breach of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "52040cc8-2d25-401c-8cfc-ac6e616e27d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully classified as a \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d and that he had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner for a period of 692 days. He referred, in particular, to routine humiliating strip-searches to which he was subjected three times a day and such restrictions as wearing shackles on his hands and feet at all times whenever he was outside his cell, frequent searches of his cell, excessive isolation from his family and the constant monitoring of his cell, including sanitary facilities, via CCTV cameras. He also submitted that the authorities attempted to isolate him to the maximum and that during the application of the regime he was constantly held in a solitary cell."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b1b74e82-0b51-4d64-81a2-ba9c8358db27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance he had received in detention, the authorities\u2019 refusal to release him on health grounds or transfer him to a civil hospital with a higher standard of care and the allegedly inhuman conditions of his transport on 21 December 2007. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "712cd6b3-8b37-4fb4-97a3-c25ac0bb357a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["261.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Mr Shchiborshch had been subjected to ill-treatment which led to his death. They referred to forensic reports, which stated that in the course of the police operation he had sustained seventy injuries, including a craniocerebral multitrauma, stab and slash wounds to the neck and several fractured ribs. They also claimed that the investigation in this respect had not been effective. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "65d2d3a7-94d3-47e0-928c-e5e751c5131f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government submitted that the domestic investigating authorities had conducted a thorough inquiry into the applicant\u2019s allegations and had taken a decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings in the absence of proof \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the applicant had sustained his injuries at the hands of the police. The domestic court reviewed the conclusions reached by the investigating authorities and found them lawful. In such circumstances, the Government concluded that there had been no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, under either its substantive or its procedural heads."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e9b8ffbe-f5bf-44cc-b2d4-ce65045d867f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by the police following his arrest on 3 July 2009. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he also complained that there had not been any adequate domestic investigation into the matter. The applicant further complained under Article 3 that the physical conditions of his detention in the SIZO had been appalling, that he had unjustifiably been placed in a disciplinary cell on several occasions and that other coercive measures had been used on him. He also complained, with reference to Article 2 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c1d77fff-3613-4fe3-807b-3cec5176cba7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment were ill-founded and stressed that the applicant had not undergone a medical check-up until some twenty-two days after his release, on 29 April 2009 at the Memoria centre. In any event, only medical reports issued by authorised forensic doctors could be taken into consideration, and therefore that report had no probative value. The Government expressed doubt as to conclusions of the Memoria centre as to the cause of the injuries found on the applicant\u2019s body, and submitted that they could have been caused by acts of violence during the manifestations of 7 April 2009 or by co-detainees. In any event, according to the Government, the injuries found on the applicant\u2019s body had not been not sufficiently serious as to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the effectiveness of the investigation, the Government submitted that the prosecutors had done everything which it had been necessary to do in order to investigate the applicant\u2019s allegations. Therefore, the investigation had been effective within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a611a294-3bbd-4534-80ec-1e0f6dc4943c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government admitted that the applicant had indeed sustained minor physical injuries. However, the Government maintained that there were no indications that the applicant had ever been assaulted by the police officers. According to them, the injuries in question had been sustained by the applicant during his fight with the taxi drivers. The Government pointed out that although during the first medical examination of the applicant, which took place on 8 July 2002 at 1.25 a.m., it had been revealed that the applicant had had only some scratches on his forehead and a bruise to his eye, this examination had been limited to verifying whether the applicant had been intoxicated. Therefore, the doctor did not check whether the applicant had other injuries but noted only the most visible ones. The Government further submitted that it had only been when the applicant was hospitalised that he had been diagnosed with concussion because due to the applicant\u2019s being under the influence of alcohol it had been impossible to diagnose it earlier. Moreover, once the applicant had complained that he was not feeling well an ambulance had immediately been called for him by the police officers. The Government further indicated that the applicant had changed his allegations several times as to who had beaten him up. On different occasions he had told doctors that he had been beaten by unknown persons, by the taxi drivers and by the police officers on his arrest but he had never stated that he had been beaten up in the police station. Furthermore, the Government maintained that the investigation in the applicant\u2019s case had been adequate and effective. In particular, all important witnesses of the events at issue had been questioned (police officers, taxi drivers and passengers and so on). Although the outcome of the investigation had not been favourable for the applicant, this did not automatically mean that the investigation had been ineffective. Therefore, the Government contended that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "6e81e4c6-34be-4790-a4d5-057b764f287e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant\u2019s second argument concerned the risk of his being subjected to the death penalty as a form of \u201cpunishment\u201d in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, it is common ground between the parties that the charges against the applicant under Article 139 \u00a7 1 of the Belarusian Criminal Code, as stated in the extradition request and as examined in the extradition order, do not carry the death penalty as a possible punishment (see paragraphs 61-62 above; see also, by contrast, Koktysh, cited above, \u00a7 61, in which case the applicant was charged under Article 139 \u00a7 2 of the Belarusian Criminal Code)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8a6ff688-ee0e-4b49-af2a-63f1c855126a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading. He further argued that, despite the fact that the domestic courts had acknowledged that the conditions of his detention in the ward had not met the requirements of Russian law, he had not lost his \u201cvictim\u201d status, as his detention for an aggregate period of a month in appalling conditions could hardly be considered to have been adequately compensated with RUB 500. He also pointed out that the Government had not acknowledged that his rights had been violated under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c5bc4fe3-a897-4c79-9a2b-9ad0d6acd4e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been compatible with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied upon excerpts from the remand prison population register and certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison in August 2010. The Government also considered that the applicant had an effective remedy in respect of his grievances under Article 3 of the Convention. He had lodged a civil action seeking damages resulting from his detention in the remand prison. His claims were duly considered and granted in part by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction which fact showed the accessibility and efficiency of the remedy."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a975c15-7d7e-4d84-89dd-6a34098c9138", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant's lawyer submitted that as result of the police officers' actions the applicant had sustained a number of injuries which were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The police had acted in a manner not appropriate to a person suffering from mental illness and had used excessive force against him, especially as regards the shot directed at the applicant's leg. According to the lawyer, the police should have used a restraining net to immobilise the applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "413c6994-1dab-4f48-b9a8-2767a85bbc4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs, Sokyriany Colony and in transit therefrom to Torez Colony, including physical, sanitary and healthcare arrangements had been incompatible with human dignity and that the prison and convoy authorities had treated the detainees in inhuman and degrading manner. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3b8f46f6-3f8f-4c5f-8fd4-dd063d7e78a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government did not dispute the principle that the Court was competent to give a set of facts a different legal characterisation by, for example, examining an alleged violation of Article 8 under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, this did not mean that the Court was entitled to discern, for example, from the documents provided by an applicant, facts that he or she had never complained of, and still less to do so against his or her wishes."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ffef3034-f399-49de-9498-44a529a0bc7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (see \u0141atak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had been moved to a cell in which he had been secured at least the minimum standard space of 3 m2 per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should have brought a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0285d824-b1aa-4ebe-a09e-88d3be349e8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicant\u2019s son must have caused considerable emotional distress to her, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities\u2019 actions and the applicant\u2019s mental and emotional suffering, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investigation confirming the involvement of State agents in the aforementioned offence. According to them, the investigation had obtained no evidence that the applicant had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "17d3e0fc-0fd6-44c6-b440-e89ce7ac42ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government submitted that the criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries on the first applicant during the night of 26-27 May 2005. Throughout the proceedings all possible investigative measures were carried out to establish the circumstances of the alleged beatings. However, since it was impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators, the proceedings were discontinued. The Government concluded therefore that there had been no violation of either the substantive or the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c213815a-27cf-4e9a-a06a-3dd90cf52d4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension and that the State had failed to investigate properly the events. She also claimed that as a result of her son's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate the events, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ffa5cf7c-4b64-43e2-8a69-52b604cdb9c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been detained in the temporary detention centre with persons who were hostile to law enforcement officers and that he had been beaten up by police officers or interrogators. He complained that he had had to study the case file over three days without rest or food, in the presence of the investigator and convoy officers. He alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings and his pre-trial detention had been in breach of Article 3. The applicant also complained under Article 5 of the Convention about his detention until in April 2002. Lastly, he complained mainly under Article 6 of the Convention of a number of alleged irregularities, which, in his view, had made his trial unfair."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "02687c6a-55f8-4a09-804f-dfbe5e1e8a70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government pointed out that in the applicants' case the alleged ill-treatment, resulting in minor injuries, had taken place in the course of the lawful arrest of the applicants' relatives. The applicants themselves had been actively involved in the conflict and had been obstructing the police officers in the performance of their lawful duties. Furthermore, the Government had serious doubts that the minor injuries sustained by the applicants reached a level of severity sufficient to bring them within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Whilst admitting that any recourse to physical force against the applicants, if it had not been made strictly necessary by the applicants' own conduct, could be seen as a possible breach of Article 3 requirements, the Government also submitted that the force used by the police officers was strictly necessary and not excessive, according to the applicants' actions. Lastly, as regards the effectiveness of the investigation and the judicial proceedings, the Government argued that the investigation into the incident had been prompt, independent and thorough and that twenty-two witnesses had testified. Given that two sets of proceedings concerning precisely the same incident had been conducted and the investigators in both cases had shared the material, there was no reason to hold that any of the evidence had not been secured and the establishment of the truth thereby precluded."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cfcb8095-38b7-4974-8806-b3fb62b9fa74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, and poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cell, inadequate health care and psychological assistance, and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8fd56bf4-ca9a-4f02-aa9b-021dadc8ec97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government have not disputed that the injuries detailed in the medical reports of the three applicants had been caused while they were in the hands of agents of the State. In the absence of any explanation by the Government, who bear the burden of providing a plausible explanation for those injuries (see, in this connection, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, \u00a7 100, ECHR 2000-VII), the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the three applicants."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "cdc0b8b9-bf3e-4468-b764-b34fe7fb3d75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The Government contested the first applicant\u2019s arguments. They noted that, in the first place, the extradition request of 29 December 2010 had contained assurances that in Tajikistan the first applicant would not be subjected to inhuman treatment or punishment or persecuted on political or religious grounds and that he would only be prosecuted for the offences in respect of which the extradition request was granted. The Russian courts had examined the first applicant at the hearing and had studied the relevant materials; the first applicant\u2019s lawyer had also been given an opportunity to present his position in the case. Furthermore, the first applicant had been living in Russia illegally for a long period of time. He had never applied for either a resident permit or a work permit, had not been in gainful employment, had not registered as a taxpayer and had only applied for temporary asylum on 15 December 2011. According to the Government, when deciding on the applicant\u2019s extradition to Tajikistan all his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment had been duly examined by the Russian authorities and courts and found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, his extradition would not be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a048496-280a-4319-b3e7-d1b110a012a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["196.  The Government submitted that the State had indeed honoured the positive obligation flowing from Article <mask> of the Convention to conduct an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. They affirmed that the authorities had adopted all the measures required by the Court\u2019s case-law (see G\u00e4fgen, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 115-116, and the references therein), to identify those responsible for the impugned ill-treatment and to impose on them penalties proportionate to the offences committed and to provide compensation to the victim."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "33d624bb-7e1c-4667-846a-d6fd5cc83243", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been held in custody despite the fact that he was suffering from a number of ailments. He further alleged that he had been deprived of adequate medical treatment while held in custody and that the conditions of detention had been unsatisfactory. He complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and his detention had been unlawful. He also alleged under the same Article that his detention had been excessive in length."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a332ce3e-88b8-481a-9c8d-cc843fac3cb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant disagreed with the assertion that the Russian authorities had made a thorough assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in his case, pointing out that the authorities\u2019 conclusions in that respect had been based on the scant information obtained from a handful of official sources. He asserted that both the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and the Moscow City Court had adopted an excessively formalistic approach towards the assessment of the evidence in his case. He referred to the general situation in Tajikistan, as reported by numerous sources, and highlighted the testimonies of the witnesses in support of his argument that he would undoubtedly be tortured if he were extradited to that country. He added that the statements of the witnesses allegedly renouncing their previous statements had been recorded by a law-enforcement officer in the absence of a lawyer. In addition, the prison records which the Government presented in respect of the detainees did not refute the witness statements, but only recorded the lack of marks of torture on the bodies of the individuals concerned in 2010, whereas the pre\u2011trial investigation had been carried out in 2007 and 2008. The applicant argued that his situation had been further endangered by the Russian authorities\u2019 decision to divulge information to their counterparts in Tajikistan concerning his application for refugee status and asylum, as well as the statements of the witnesses with regard to the use of torture by Tajik investigative bodies (see paragraph 35 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0f902f81-3618-40a7-8fae-61e58ff21668", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained of the impunity his torturers had allegedly enjoyed following a trial he claimed itself violated the essence of the right enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. In connection with the same complaint, the applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, while explaining that the main aim of the remedies he sought at the national level had not been to obtain damages but to establish the criminal and administrative responsibilities for what had happened. The Court considers that the complaint, as presented by the applicant, concerns the positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to protect people\u2019s physical and psychological integrity through the law (see, mutatis mutandis, \u00d6nery\u0131ld\u0131z v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, \u00a7 95, ECHR 2004-XII). Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e2179e2e-aba2-4f22-b712-a9e679137703", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been afforded the necessary procedural guarantees within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. An investigation had been conducted into the actions of the police officers, who had subsequently been brought to trial. At the end of that trial, one of the police officers had been convicted and the proceedings against the remaining two had been suspended. In the Government\u2019s opinion, Law no. 4616 could not be regarded as an amnesty law and the suspension of the criminal proceedings against the two police officers did not mean that they were acquitted."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "88fc36be-ea07-4377-ac2c-47a2a471b8e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that the anguish and distress suffered by her on account of the attitude of the authorities towards their duty to investigate the circumstances of her husband\u2019s death, including their systematic failures to update her of the progress in the investigation and to respond to her inquiries and demands amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "34f3284d-4595-4d9c-91d3-7e4583e51d6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government next referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, according to which the applicant had a duty to submit evidence capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she had been subjected to ill-treatment that had attained the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this regard, the Government submitted that the applicant had not submitted any credible statements or evidence concerning her situation in I\u013c\u0123uciema Prison and that in any case her complaints were purely hypothetical and abstract."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f75867ed-583c-4edb-9aea-f317c8a41cc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government submitted that the factual circumstances of the case did not disclose that the applicant had been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. There had been no evidence to substantiate or create any suspicion that the police officers had used violence against him, or that his injuries had been caused by them. The applicant\u2019s statements did not constitute a \u201ccredible assertion\u201d, as they were contradictory. The investigation had proved the fact that the applicant had been a protagonist in the physical dispute which had resulted in the use of beer bottles and other hard objects. Except for the applicant\u2019s inconsistent statements, there had been no other statements saying that the police officers had used objects like these. There was no basis for saying that the applicant\u2019s injuries had not been caused as a result of his physical dispute with the other people. Furthermore, the witnesses had not stated that they had had a physical dispute with the police. The standard of proof \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d had not been met in the present case. The violence used by the police officers, if any, used with the aim of protecting others involved in the fight, could not be qualified as torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "51939660-ee06-44eb-8d8e-4a00c7f4f9af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicant submitted under Article <mask> of the Convention that Cemal U\u00e7ar had been subjected to coercion while in police custody. He further maintained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that his son had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The applicant finally contended under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention that there was no remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "23d66a89-cfa6-4d3d-a461-2a067fce6945", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their suffering on account of the death of their son, further exacerbated by the alleged lack of volition on the authorities\u2019 part to establish the truth, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, they further complained that the detention of their son had been unlawful and had lacked adequate judicial review."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "49da9f78-da38-47c0-9f1c-808d3036f039", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, during his transfer between prisons and from prison to hospital, he had been subjected to strip-searches, including anal inspections, which had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further alleged that, because he had resisted such measures, he had been punished by solitary confinement, which had led to the deterioration of both his physical and psychological problems. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d48efc61-916c-45c3-be93-4eabccf8919a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, having failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance, despite his suffering from HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. He further argued that the authorities\u2019 persistent refusals to release him on medical grounds had exposed him to additional, continuous suffering amounting to torture. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f73633ae-88ad-4cfe-96d4-4ebe4a23ace2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that they had serious grounds to believe that Mr Ali Khadayev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment when in detention and complained that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "67498b13-68ec-471d-83db-4be90cc8b2d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Visadi Shokkarov had been ill-treated while in police custody from 6 January to 2 February 2003, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that the death of Visadi Shokkarov and the disappearance of Visita Shokkarov and the authorities\u2019 failure to properly investigate these incidents had caused them profound moral suffering. Article 3 reads:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4604f5e0-e43c-4390-a701-004e955adc73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicants complained that the poor material conditions of their stay in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further complained that their confinement to the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. These Convention provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7242674a-6ae2-4e1e-83e1-29ba35297d0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that on 8, 22 and 28 June 2004 he had been subjected to violence by officers from the ORB police unit. He had then been transferred to correctional colony IK\u201114 and during his detention there from July to November 2004 had been subjected to further violence by the police and prisoners acting on their instructions with the connivance of the prison administration. He argued that the violence had been used to make him confess to crimes, and had amounted to torture. Furthermore, no effective investigation had been carried out into his complaints. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2c22d56d-b466-4fc1-aae3-70b0bd955621", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government argued that there were several effective domestic remedies that had not been used by the applicant in the present case. In the first place, they alleged that the applicant had not requested a domestic court, under Article 24 and 33(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, to order the relevant authorities to take additional measures for the protection of his health in prison. Secondly, according to the Government the applicant should have sued the relevant State authority and requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code. Since neither of these judicial remedies were resorted to by the applicant, the Government were of the opinion that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "99a0b0d4-f70c-4bfe-97d8-323be15ca51d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["179.  The applicant\u2019s second complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerned the harsh conditions of his detention. In particular, he complained about the lack of natural light and ventilation in the cell, which was very small, the fact that the authorities had provided him with light, inadequate clothes and the fact that the furniture was permanently fixed to the floor. He also submitted that during certain periods he had been kept in overcrowded cells."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "dd2f511b-4b9c-4f67-84a9-990f16bdffbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage in the remand prison for the purposes of his participating, by means of a video link, in the court\u2019s examination of his appeals against the detention orders on 6 April and 28 June 2011 had violated his human dignity. The complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5af68379-0d24-4cd6-99f5-19f03afe24b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government argued that there had been an effective investigation in response to the first applicant\u2019s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment on 30 June 2004. They distinguished the present case from Labita v. Italy on the facts, stating that the actions of the C\u0113sis District Police Department had never been the subject of explicit media attention. Moreover, the applicants\u2019 allegations had given rise to certain doubts as to their credibility. In this regard the Government referred to Av\u015far v. Turkey (no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001\u2011VII (extracts)), noting that the obligation under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention was one of means, not result (ibid., \u00a7 394): an effective investigation could well end with a finding that no violation had taken place."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3ef56546-e047-40cc-a11a-f9a52b1d9d89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The applicant complained, with reference to Article <mask> of the Convention, about the searches of his SIZO cell on 27 March and 3 April 2007, as having allegedly resulted in the seizure of his personal belongings, namely his copy of the Code of Criminal Procedure with comments and his notepad with some telephone numbers and other important information, as well as that some of his food had been spoiled."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "a25ba310-c883-4dd2-aeb7-71f5db81a335", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant submitted that the police officers had subjected him to humiliating and degrading treatment during his arrest and detention. He complained that they had exposed him to the public in handcuffs and then taken him to his workplace and his home, still in handcuffs. He contended that the police officers' conduct during his time in their custody had been designed to humiliate and debase him in front of his colleagues, neighbours and family. He alleged that this humiliation had affected him to such an extent that he had lost all capacity to cope with it psychologically, had lost his job as a result and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment ever since. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "9a3a11ed-35db-479d-84a7-24893c3d29f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (see \u0141atak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had already been released on 20 November 2009. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2fb8596b-b523-4228-acdb-a0202237f850", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the authorities\u2019 failure to ensure that he enjoyed eight hours\u2019 sleep on court hearing days. The Court has already examined a similar issue in the case of Bagel v. Russia (no. 37810/03, \u00a7 70, 15 November 2007), concluding that the six hours\u2019 sleep afforded to the applicant in that case on the days of his participation in court hearings did not reach the threshold proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion. The applicant had no less than six hours of sleep per night. Moreover, the authorities took steps to ensure that he had enough sleep during at least three nights per week (when he did not take part in court hearings). The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that Wednesdays were chosen as days to allow the applicant to recover from participating in court proceedings and any possible shortage of sleep suffered during the week. Lastly, the situation only continued for a short period of time during the trial. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ae0b9fbd-811d-48b7-adef-c8898e710330", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that he had been detained in appalling conditions from 17 August 1999 to 30 May 2002 in remand prisons nos. IZ-48/2 and 48/3 in Moscow. He further complained that he had not received adequate and proper medical treatment for tuberculosis while in detention in the hospital of remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow and at medical correctional colony no. LIU-10 in the Omsk Region. He further alleged that during the transfers to and from medical correctional colony no. LIU-10 in the Omsk Region he had not been treated at all. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "12cdfe9e-d27a-47a8-8ad9-12f25b4992f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand centre no. IZ-71/1 in Tula had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of detention. The relevant Articles provide:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "d47797a3-2f1c-431f-8b13-d442e0da7d1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. They maintained that the applicant had failed to adduce any concrete evidence in support of his allegations. They contended that the allegations were deceitful and were part of a scenario used by the terrorist organisation to dishonour the fight against terrorism. They concluded that there was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c33e1b70-a839-4902-8f49-4edf5634aa95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant then referred to a linguistic specialist report, which suggested that the text of the confession of 29 December 2007 had been written by the applicant with the assistance of another person. For the Court, this sole piece of evidence is not sufficient to find that the applicant was subjected to psychological influence or that this had been serious enough to reach the threshold of Article <mask> of the Convention (compare Zamferesko v. Ukraine, no. 30075/06, \u00a7 48, 15 November 2012). In the present case this aspect of the complaint comes rather to the issue of availability of a lawyer in that period of time who, among other things, could effectively prevent the alleged psychological influence on the part of police officers. However, the question of access to a lawyer is examined below under Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "29eb4f1e-a78c-499a-9a74-1ad6c10cdb55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the applicants\u2019 allegations about the existence of a risk of their being subjected to ill-treatment were hypothetical. They were not relevant to the issue of the legality of their stay in Russia and could not be considered in the course of expulsion proceedings. Besides, the applicants had not even referred to the existence of such a risk when challenging their expulsion. The applicants\u2019 allegations were thoroughly reviewed by the Russian migration authorities, which found them unfounded. The Government also noted that Uzbekistan had ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and was obliged to act in compliance with it. Accordingly, no issue would arise under Article <mask> of the Convention if the applicants were to be deported to Uzbekistan."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "ed574dff-6bf3-4ade-b3e9-67627245ba49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, he further alleged that he had been denied an effective remedy in respect of his ill-treatment complaint due to shortcomings in the proceedings, in particular their excessive length and the lack of a hearing before the Court of Cassation, which amounted to an unfair trial."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4a61d30b-2186-4e26-a5e3-32ac079cccd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Luiza Mutayeva had been abducted by State agents, the applicant's mental suffering could not be imputable to the State."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "4a51573e-6644-4bf5-8daf-74fa5a87b1c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted that the Court had previously found violations of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of applicants being confined in metal cages in courtrooms. However, the present case was different. The applicant had not been physically present in the courtroom during the hearing. He had remained in the remand prison and participated in the hearing by means of a video link. The metal cage had separated the applicant from the video equipment and the technical staff at the remand prison who had operated it. The applicant had not alleged that he had been exposed to the public and thus subjected to humiliation. In any event, the degree of such humiliation would be much lower if a person was not physically present in the courtroom, and would hardly go beyond \u201cthe inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment\u201d."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b274b466-9923-4102-b1c2-2ee353c96b7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that the material conditions of detention in Jilava Prison amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, squalor, rats, bedbugs, lice and scabies infestations, lack of ventilation, lack of heating in the winter and extremely high temperatures in the summer. He also complained that the food was poor, the drinking water was infested with bacteria and that he did not have access to sporting, cultural and educational activities. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7da3ee2c-3139-4ebc-bfad-4ce0b70d8cbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained of the conditions of his detention in Luki\u0161k\u0117s Remand Prison from 7 June 2011 until 25 May 2012. The domestic courts found that for 268 days, ten evenings and three mornings the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). The Court finds that this is the relevant period to consider because although he had spent time also in other facilities, the applicant had less than 3 sq. m of personal space at his disposal for the majority of this period, and this created a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 136\u201137). As for the days he had between 3 and 4 sq. m at his disposal, which, according to the information at the Court\u2019s disposal, amounted to twenty\u2011five and a half days and in respect of which no strong presumption of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention arises, the Court must have regard to other relevant factors (ibid., \u00a7 139). Those are the possibility of sufficient freedom of movement and out\u2011of\u2011cell activities and the general conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2bb37416-87a6-4c4d-b0ab-8e811826523f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government also maintained that, as far as the conditions of detention in the Ladyzhynska Colony were concerned, the applicant\u2019s submissions were vague and general and not such as to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the Colony authorities within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government also submitted excerpts from the applicant\u2019s medical record, which indicated that his state of health had been monitored regularly (see paragraph 19 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "71efb5f0-27e8-442c-8cb2-c295e7877f7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies regarding some of his complaints concerning the alleged procedural violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, in his complaint against the police authority\u2019s decision on the termination of the investigation, he had failed to mention that the proceedings had failed to satisfy the requirement of promptness and independence and had not been public because he was not allowed to be present during the questioning of witnesses and put questions to them (see paragraph 35 above)."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b92bc6a8-78b4-4a85-8391-8717d9d5a678", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant alleged that he continued to suffer very serious negative consequences as a result of the lack of any effective, independent and impartial investigation. The identification of the police officers responsible and the acknowledgement of their responsibility were very important to the applicant even though, owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period, they could no longer be punished. These consequences could be remedied only by a decision to reopen the criminal proceedings in case no. 50207598. Although the applicant had already served nine years\u2019 imprisonment for robbery, it was of paramount importance to him to receive recognition that his conviction had been based on criminal proceedings in which he had been ill-treated by police officers contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention at the investigation stage."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "634d88a8-b910-42e5-b2cf-701799d64aea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicants maintained that they faced a real and personal risk of being persecuted and ill-treated, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, if forced to return to Uzbekistan. They stressed that they had invoked their need for protection since their arrival in Sweden and throughout the national proceedings as well as before the Court. The risks against them emanated from the first applicant\u2019s participation in the events in Andijan in 2005, where he had been arrested and tortured by the Uzbek authorities. He was now suspected of crimes in relation to this. Moreover, the applicants had left Uzbekistan illegally and they had been in Sweden as asylum seekers since December 2005 and the Uzbek authorities were aware of this since the Migration Board had contacted the Uzbek Embassy in Riga. Furthermore, and although for a limited time, the first applicant had been involved politically in Birdamlik in Sweden and the Uzbek authorities knew about this since they had approached the first applicant\u2019s parents in Uzbekistan about his activities. The authorities had probably been informed by an Uzbek spy in Sweden who had met the first applicant."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c7ee0999-b658-4420-8f97-503450600e87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government reiterated that in their opinion the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, given that he had not lodged an appeal against the decision of the Federal Asylum Office in the first set of proceedings. The Government referred to the Asylum Act 2005 and the legal remedies established therein against a decision rendered by the Federal Asylum Office at first instance. Acknowledging that an appeal lodged against such a decision had no automatic suspensive effect, but that it could be awarded such effect, they explained that even though a deportation or transfer order might be legally enforceable, the authorities were barred from executing it until the seven-day period in which the Asylum Court could award suspensive effect to an appeal lodged with it had passed. Furthermore, current Austrian law reflected the principles and provisions laid out in the Dublin Regulation itself, in particular in its Article 19 \u00a7 2. Finally as regards legal remedies, the Asylum Court had to take a decision on an appeal for which suspensive effect had been granted within two weeks. The Government concluded that the remedies provided in Austrian law successfully balanced the various interests involved and had provided the applicant with an effective avenue of appeal, one which had allowed for the award of suspensive effect if there had been a real risk of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention upon his transfer, combined with a guarantee of a speedy appeal decision."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "b0cef9f9-5202-4081-b897-89b686a14d88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government contended that the medical assistance provided to the applicant while in detention had been adequate. The applicant had not been subjected to medical tests for hepatitis C upon his arrest and placement in custody because he had demonstrated no clinical evidence of the illness and the prison regulations then in force had not provided for mandatory hepatitis C tests. The Government submitted that they could not produce a copy of the applicant\u2019s medical record for the period between 10 June 1996 and 28 May 1998 because it had been destroyed. On 29 November 2004 the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C. The absence of acute hepatitis had proven that the infection with the virus had occurred before the placement in the penitentiary facility. Once the illness had been revealed, the applicant had received essenciale, cerucal, riboksin and vitamins. The applicant had not suffered from acute hepatitis C while in LIU-10 and had not required inpatient treatment. In the absence of clinical evidence of acute hepatitis C the applicant had been provided with palliative care and subjected to monitoring of blood biochemical characteristics and dynamic therapeutic control. The applicant had been repeatedly placed in LIU-10 on account of tuberculosis where he had been prescribed with anti-tuberculosis treatment. However, on several occasions he had refused to take the prescribed medicines. According to the Government, the existing system of providing detainees with medical assistance is compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and the applicant\u2019s complaint was entirely unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "f2dede9e-74af-4d1e-b4c1-5c6444d3a7af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the lock-up of the Bucharest Police Inspectorate. The Court notes that the applicant was transferred from that lock-up to Rahova Prison at the latest on 16 January 2004, but only lodged the complaint with the Court on 13 October 2004. It follows that this complaint was introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "05f1053b-6878-494b-98bc-c6d51d175a7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicants submitted that they had been arrested and detained unlawfully, contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They further complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention that they had not been brought before a judge in order for the lawfulness of their arrest to be decided upon and therefore could not appeal against a non-existent decision to detain them. The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been held in inhuman conditions of detention, ill\u2011treated and refused medical assistance. They lastly complained of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention since they had not had a remedy before the Moldovan or Russian courts."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "c3def1d4-010f-4f7c-a637-412abd49a82a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["176.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the video surveillance and strip searches in the detention facility; the conditions of detention in the remand centre and in the transit prison; the beatings inflicted on her by a warden and some other issues in relation to the detention regime. She also complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention in relation to certain detention-related and post-conviction proceedings. Lastly, she raised a number of grievances with reference to Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "8a4aaebd-30c7-4edc-ab5c-9f444181f94f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by officers A.R. and A.P., as well as a third officer who remained unidentified. As a result of the lengthy investigation and court proceedings, and by incorrectly applying a shorter limitation than that provided for by law, the authorities allowed A.P. to escape criminal responsibility. The applicant had therefore not obtained sufficient satisfaction and could continue to claim that he was a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the prosecuting and judicial authorities had taken all possible steps to delay the proceedings and to shield the police officers from responsibility. The applicant allegedly received threats from anonymous persons to withdraw his complaint. On 26 September 2001 he was allegedly arrested following an order of officer Adajii, who had been called as a defence witness by A.R. and A.P."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "aee5707e-5905-4aca-978c-36526da84f39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["179.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 complaints were unsubstantiated. However, such general reference, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the authorities, is in the present case insufficient to discharge them from the obligation requiring them to disprove an arguable allegation of discrimination. Having assessed all the relevant elements and drawing inferences from the Government\u2019s failure to put forward any arguments showing that the incident was ethnically neutral, the Court finds that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "0bb9adba-36ce-4c36-9d0c-33aeb6195457", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention in all the prison facilities in which he had been detained since 2004, the fact that during his detention he had become ill with toxic hepatitis, obstructive bronchopneumonia, anaemia, breathing difficulties, sinusitis, otitis and a deviated septum, and the lack of adequate medical treatment for his illnesses. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "7df78bb6-839b-45f1-b5ea-fc475d4a6d69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant further complained of the fact that at the time of his arrest he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also invoked Article 5 \u00a7 4, submitting that there had been no review of the lawfulness of his detention and that during the investigation the principle of equality of arms had not been respected. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of a violation of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. Lastly, the applicant invoked Article 8 of the Convention, maintaining that his right to respect for private and family life had been violated because during his detention he was denied contact with his fianc\u00e9e for 6 months."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5279c942-bf74-4184-af2d-6fded8f023b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant pointed first to the State\u2019s special responsibilities towards persons deprived of their liberty, in particular as regards their right to have access to medical care. In this connection he stressed that a person was usually free to choose a specialist to treat his condition and a method of recommended treatment. Furthermore, a person could always refuse to undergo an operation, even if it was life-saving. As concerns those who were detained, however, their choices in this respect were very limited. They could not opt for a particular specialist to treat them, nor did their lack of consent relieve the custodial authorities of the duty to provide the necessary medical assistance, by force if required. This followed from the State\u2019s duty to protect those under its jurisdiction, in particular those in a vulnerable position in custody. Having regard to that duty, the applicant stressed that compulsory medical treatment did not violate Article <mask> of the Convention, provided that it was necessary from a medical point of view and carried out in conformity with standards accepted by medical science. Even an obstructive attitude on the part of the person concerned did not constitute an obstacle to providing necessary and urgent treatment."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "444f93fb-1623-4152-99e6-105f485d0e7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant submitted that his conditions of detention on \u0130mral\u0131 Island were inhuman and exceeded the severity threshold deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention. He also alleged a violation of Articles 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, on the grounds of the social isolation imposed on him during his detention in \u0130mral\u0131 Prison. The Court considers these complaints primarily under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "524a678f-2c0c-4b38-b836-46638f0bc7c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by the police whilst being apprehended on 22 January 2004 and that there had not been an adequate domestic investigation into the matter. The applicant further complained that the physical conditions of his detention in Odesa SIZO had been appalling. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "bc2bffc7-f933-4e15-a41e-003cccca1257", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["232.  The Government submitted that the mere fact that Mr Harakchiev had been sentenced to whole life imprisonment did not amount to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention because he could seek presidential clemency at any time. There was already a precedent in which a person serving a whole life sentence had had his sentence commuted by the Vice-President. A ruling that that was not sufficient would not do justice to the work of the Clemency Commission attached to the Vice-President and would engender legal turmoil not only in Bulgaria but also in other member States. Whole life imprisonment, introduced in 1998 as a result of the abolition of the death penalty, was a very important component of the punitive system of Bulgarian criminal law. It was a penalty that was imposed very rarely and reserved for the most serious offences. There were at present fifty-seven persons in Bulgaria serving a whole life sentence and 106 persons serving a life sentence."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "2934712e-3def-46a6-83b7-7fb6270d319b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that the overcrowded conditions of detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non\u2011smokers in Aiud, Gherla, Rahova, Jilava, Slobozia, Dej and Miercurea\u2011Ciuc Prisons and the overcrowded and poor transport conditions every time he was transferred between those facilities, had been inappropriate. He further complained that he had been subjected to ill\u2011treatment by police officers, and that the medical care during his pre-trial detention had been inadequate. This amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "e612ccd5-d409-437d-8e64-84b1d3c72971", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicants complained about the conditions in which the bodies of their deceased relatives had been stored during the identification process. Except for the fourth and the sixth applicant who did not take part in the identification, they were also dissatisfied with the circumstances of their personal participation in the identification process. According to the applicants, this treatment by the authorities caused them such mental suffering that this amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "3", "id": "3f412e69-43b6-4101-b10b-3adc8bbd267a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted a statement made by V. and N., the inmates detained and transported together with him. In the applicant\u2019s view, the domestic authorities had failed to ensure that his detention during the period in question had been compatible with the requirements set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. His pre-trial detention and the appalling conditions in which he had been transported had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by the said Article and had resulted in serious damage to his health."], "obj_label": "3", "id": "5b500beb-a2c8-48e0-842c-3f842a749b4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The Government requested the Court to declare the complaints raised under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicant had not raised them in compliance with the procedural requirements of domestic law before the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that in accordance with its established case-law, the Constitutional Court was bound not by the reasoning of a constitutional appeal but only by the final plea in the appeal (they referred to the domestic judgments in I. \u00daS 89/09 of 29 November 1994 and Pl. \u00daS 16/93 of 24 May 1994). In addition, the Constitutional Court could only decide on an interference which the appellant had explicitly specified in the final plea in his constitutional appeal (see \u00daS 3336/09 of 18 February 2010). They maintained that it appeared from the final plea in both the applicant\u2019s constitutional appeals that he had properly raised only his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government emphasised that the Constitutional Court had constantly allowed legally incapacitated persons to resort to it independently and had not dismissed their constitutional appeals on the grounds that they had not been entitled to lodge them (they referred to \u00daS 412/04 of 7 December 2003; II. \u00daS 303/05 of 13 September 2007; II. \u00daS 2630/07 of 13 December 2007; and II. \u00daS 1191/08 of 14 April 2009)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c85ddec3-cb73-4dc5-a21d-94f2a92a72d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government stated that there was no violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. Initially, the applicant was placed in detention because there was a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a crime. The preventive measure was selected according to the national legislation. The Sokal Court\u2019s decisions were lawful and substantiated. The period of the applicant\u2019s detention of about one year and two months and the duration of the criminal proceedings against him were not excessive. Moreover, the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s detention was reviewed on reasonable intervals."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "72b2ba94-a8e7-4f96-bb19-58bb5325a819", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The Government asserted that Visadi Shokkarov had been detained on 20 January 2003, that on 22 January 2003 his detention on remand had been authorised by the Nadterechniy District Court, and that he had had unrestricted access to his lawyer. In sum, they submitted that Visadi Shokkarov\u2019s detention had fully complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the allegedly unlawful detention of Visita Shokkarov, the Government submitted that no evidence had been obtained by the investigators to confirm that he had been deprived of his liberty. Visita Shokkarov was not listed among the persons kept in detention centres and none of the regional law-enforcement agencies had information about his detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a620d6e0-2553-40f9-8e91-e37a82ed4cb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["314.  The applicants in Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11), Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11), Shavanova and Others (no. 44296/11) and Sugatiyeva and Others (no. 13874/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 3. The applicants in Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11) and Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11) also complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant Articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7b210648-bba0-42d3-aad6-570512d4db76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that they had not been promptly informed of the reason for their arrests. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, they complained that their period of detention in police custody had been excessively long and that they had not had the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "383b834e-4e5a-426b-bf8f-be6d9411ddc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that, at the time of the events, the period of detention of the applicants was in compliance with the requirements of the domestic law. Referring to their derogation of 5 May 1992, the Government argued that it was absolutely essential that they derogate from the procedural guarantees governing the detention of persons belonging to terrorist armed groups and that, on the facts, it was impossible to provide court supervision in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention owing to the difficulties inherent in investigating and suppressing terrorist criminal activities. The Government pointed out that the detention periods laid down under Turkish law had been amended in compliance with the case-law of the Court."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "16fadac0-e013-4b1e-978e-d689c1ae155a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government agreed that house arrest constituted deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nevertheless, they considered that lesser reasons were required in order to justify house arrest because this measure was milder than detention in custody. That was moreover so in the instant case where the applicant had himself requested placement under house arrest."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ac4f4c5b-b345-45be-9bef-e0172ca2dde9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant claimed that his detention between 7 July 2010 and 15 November 2012 on the basis of a judgment delivered by a \u201ccourt\u201d of an entity which had not been recognised by the respondent Government violated his right to liberty guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged that the failure of the domestic courts to follow the procedure for the recognition of a foreign decision in criminal matters rendered his detention unlawful."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7786a98e-ed0a-43a2-aa8b-35c29bcbdcac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant disagreed. He submitted that the President of the Krak\u00f3w Court of Appeal had recognised that errors had been committed by the judge who had issued the detention order. However, that statement had been made informally in a letter addressed to a local MP. The applicant argued that the implicit admission of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention by the President of the Krak\u00f3w Court of Appeal and the fact that he could seek damages on account of his wrongful detention had not deprived him of his \u201cvictim status\u201d."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "039c7ada-22fc-4bdc-8fe1-1bddb91fa8cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant alleged that he had not been informed about his rights. Since the burden of proof was on the respondent State, which had the obligation to keep a record, the applicant\u2019s version is more tenable than that of the Government. Hence, the omission of the national authorities to inform the applicant of his right to have a lawyer of his choosing meant that the fairness test was failed from the outset. By analogy, the absence of a detention record is considered to entail a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article <mask> of the Convention, securing the right to liberty and security. It discloses a most grave violation of that provision and is incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, \u00a7 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, \u00a7 87, ECHR 2006-III; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, \u00a7 45, 19 January 2012; and Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, \u00a7 125, Reports 1998-III). The lack of a proper record of an individual\u2019s arrest and detention is thus sufficient for the Court to find that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, \u00a7 157, ECHR 2002\u2011IV, and Menesheva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 87-89). If this formality of keeping an official record is indispensable for guaranteeing a non-absolute right, as it is for the right under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, one may wonder why such a formality should not be all the more indispensable for guaranteeing an absolute right, namely the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "3a0e0f3b-5132-4076-b4a7-1826fbe2ad39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government argued that the applicant had several remedies at his disposal, including Article 108 of the Code, which provided for a procedure for challenging a measure of restraint, and Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which laid down the procedure for challenging decisions taken in the course of criminal proceedings. Finally, a suspect or accused could lodge applications or complaints with a court or another public authority under section 17(1)(7) of the Custody Act."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d2f2a660-43b5-4c70-bf13-bb40a81c3374", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful, unjustified and arbitrary, that several decisions concerning his detention had been taken while he had had no legal representation despite its being mandatory and that the procedure in respect of his requests for release had fallen short of the applicable standards. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "36c41d2f-e521-4daf-a321-368feedfa459", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant argued that the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been adequate and proportionate to the severity of the breaches of his rights. In support of this contention the applicant cited cases in which the Court had found breaches of Article 5 of the Convention and the awards made had been considerably higher than that of the Supreme Court of Justice in his case. In his view, as a result of the insufficient amount of compensation awarded by the Supreme Court of Justice, he still had the victim status within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f3be3e13-3ea1-496f-9052-9f1c688d79c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that his arrest and detention had not been based on reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had committed a criminal offence. In his observations lodged with the Court on 15 June 2011, the applicant also complained that his arrest on 10 November 2007 had been unlawful, because he had been unlawfully detained by the investigator. The relevant part of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e194049f-b97d-4fa1-8429-7a93e4866ab6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention and house arrest had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "0fb905be-321f-457e-a51f-0fc8a8bb32c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention as he had not complained about either the alleged unlawfulness or the length of his detention pending extradition to a prosecutor's office or a court. They also submitted that the applicant had not appealed against the decisions of 30 November and 28 December 2007."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "79f9e1eb-7c2e-4eed-a6d7-3b35d2adc87b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained that his detention on remand, which ended on 26 August 1996 (paragraph 14 above), was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person). However, the application was introduced on 22 December 2001, more than six months after the applicant\u2019s release on bail. In view of his allegation of an absence of domestic remedies for this complaint, he has failed to comply with the six month time-limit of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see, J\u0117\u010dius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, \u00a7 44, ECHR 2000-IX)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "950e3b07-d0ea-4a41-9753-ff0ee2c77785", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained about the length of his detention in police custody, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of this detention and the absence of a remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "191deaa3-3662-4514-986d-a0457e5536c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant maintained his complaint. He considered the ex post facto authorisation of his pre-trial detention from 27 October 2007 to 10 January 2008 tainted with arbitrariness and contrary to the safeguards provided by Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he argued that the reasons underlying the extension of his pre-trial detention from 28 April to 6 May 2008, namely \u201cprompt consideration\u201d of his appeal, had not been prescribed by domestic law."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "4f7e05db-450a-4dad-84c2-708412181449", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["225.  The applicant argued that the respondent State was responsible for the violation of his rights under this Article, by its own agents and/or foreign agents operating in its territory and under its jurisdiction. His detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia without charge or judicial oversight had violated his Article 5 rights. His prolonged disappearance during his subsequent detention in Afghanistan constituted a violation of Article 5, for which the Macedonian Government was responsible. In addition, the Government had violated Article <mask> of the Convention by failing to conduct an effective investigation into his credible allegations that he had disappeared for an extended period as a result of a joint operation by Macedonian and US agents."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "596d88dc-6560-479a-ac59-1b42b1ef8950", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained in passing that he had been ill-treated in 1995 by the domestic authorities. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant further challenged the lawfulness of the decisions to remand him in custody taken in 1995 and 2000 and the lawfulness of his detention on remand in 1995-1999. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (b, c, d) and Article 7 of the Convention that his convictions on 25 December 2001 and 27 April 2004 had been unlawful and the proceedings against him had been flawed. The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his and his late parents\u2019 property had been embezzled from him and that the domestic authorities had failed to return to him certain items of his property seized as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 34 of the Convention that on 15 April 2008 the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv had unlawfully rejected his lawyer\u2019s request for a copy of the case file."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "be3f9536-7076-4c19-9dba-f5796d5dd613", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant disagreed with the Government. He argued that his complaints fell under Article <mask> of the Convention and, as such, were submitted in conformity with the requirements of the Convention because they related to his period of \u201cdetention on remand\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, which ended on 10 April 2000 with the judgment of the Plovdiv District Court."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "0ad81314-52db-4f20-a60f-fc27869de0f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government maintained that the grounds of the applicant's pre\u2011trial detention were clearly defined and the law itself was foreseeable in its application, so that it met the standard of \u201clawfulness\u201d set by the Convention. They contended that the applicant had been detained on the ground of suspicion of committing a serious crime and also with the intention of ensuring his participation in the proceedings. Furthermore, the periods of the applicant's detention covered by the court decisions protected him from arbitrariness \u2212 which protection is implicit in the meaning of \u201clawfulness\u201d, as regards detention, as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b568a1e3-6613-4a1a-b302-0ed7755d63fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government contended that, following his acquittal, the applicant had lost his victim status in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, in their view, it remained open to the applicant to bring a civil claim for compensation for the damage allegedly resulting from unlawful and unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention as provided for in Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Russian Civil Code. As regards the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Government conceded that from 25 November to 31 December 2002 his detention had not been authorised by a court order. They further submitted that the applicant had been remanded in custody pending investigation and trial owing to the gravity of the charges against him. In addition, it had been made known to the judicial authorities that, if released, the applicant could have absconded. Lastly, they argued that, as the applicant had been accused of having molested a boy of less than fourteen years of age with a learning disability, his pre-trial detention had also been necessary to ensure his own safety and security of person."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e6e9ebf7-9f56-4ff3-9ee5-e2eee8886128", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained that his detention after 11 March 2009 had been unlawful in that it had exceeded the maximum statutory time-limit and that he had been detained in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes he had been charged with. He further alleged that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons; that on and after 21 February 2008 the courts had failed to address the applicant\u2019s arguments about unlawfulness of his detention; that on 28 May 2008 his counsel had not been afforded an opportunity to inspect in full the case-file; that the review of his detention had not been speedy; and that he had no enforceable right to compensation for his detention. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "10855dc9-b596-4bb5-9a0b-7dc4103ca317", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant argued that Article <mask> of the Convention protected individuals against arbitrary detention by the State. In the present case, the applicant had been detained without a warrant past the 72-hour period of detention on remand permitted under national law. A warrant had only been issued at 4 p.m. Therefore, the applicant's detention between 12.15 p.m. and 4 p.m. had been unlawful and arbitrary. Indeed, according to Moldovan Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant should have been released immediately upon the expiry of the 72-hour period. Moreover, the heavy caseload of the investigating judge on the day was not a relevant and sufficient excuse for the applicant's arbitrary detention between 12.15 p.m. and 4 p.m."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "83ac1149-a8c0-491b-8aed-88d8bda1f14b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to give reasons to justify his detention, and that there had not been relevant and sufficient reasons for the extension of the detention period. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "93e2db2d-5912-44b3-b611-1157e63bf91b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, deprived them of the right of access to court because they had not examined their claim on the merits. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the taking of their respective husband and father by uniformed persons in August 1991."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e9e3cc80-e9ae-4ed3-83a2-ea5de518115c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. As to the placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital in December 2002, the Government indicated that he had been taken there at the request of the district psychiatrist. Upon his arrival at the hospital the applicant had been immediately examined by a doctor on duty. In the ensuing forty-eight hours he had been examined by a panel of three psychiatrists. Following that examination the hospital had sent a hospitalisation request to the court. Consequently, his confinement had been requested and authorised in accordance with the domestic procedural rules established in the Psychiatric Care Act of 1992."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "731f7096-9fe0-4d27-abf9-8e297dca4c3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["224.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been detained unlawfully and kept incommunicado, without any arrest warrant having been issued, and that he had never been brought before a judge. He claimed that the respondent State bore direct responsibility for his entire period of captivity between 31 December 2003 and his return to Albania on 28 May 2004. Lastly, he complained that the absence of a prompt and effective investigation by the Macedonian authorities into his credible allegations had been in breach of his Article 5 rights. Article 5 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "6b653fac-d658-4cef-a07d-a007e2c59484", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention his involuntary placement in a psychiatric facility had been unlawful owing to the failure of the national authorities to meet the substantive requirements for hospitalisation and that the application for judicial authorisation of his hospitalisation had been submitted in violation of the procedural time-limit of forty-eight hours. The relevant parts of the Article read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e6a6a9c3-352a-48dc-9713-3298c9a4bf21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["203.  The applicant complained of various defects in the proceedings concerning his detention, namely the detention orders of 25 October 2003, 22-23 December 2003, 20 May, 8 and 16 June 2004. He referred to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 in this respect. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under paragraph 4 of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "6d5e2f95-abea-45d6-a097-39083619d784", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["270.  The applicants in the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition to those complaints the applicants in Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12) and Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Articles in question read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "23866977-4fd6-49d9-b1c1-3acf54333567", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were arrested on the basis of an order issued by a prosecutor who according to the Romanian Constitution could not be considered a magistrate. They also claimed that their arrest was ordered by a bill of indictment, contrary to Romanian law. In this respect the Court notes that the bill of indictment ordering their arrest was issued on 25 May 2000, while their application was lodged with the Court on 5 April 2004."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "fea043c1-8e63-4849-ae84-c5faa852f710", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicants explained that under Italian law (Article 14 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, see paragraph 33 above), the only legal form of deprivation of liberty of an unlawful migrant awaiting return was placement in a CIE, subject to judicial supervision (validation of administrative detention decisions by a Justice of the Peace), as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "3c064cae-43e7-4554-91a3-44e12302cb26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted that after the expiry of the maximum eighteen-month period of detention the domestic courts had extended the applicant\u2019s detention in accordance with Article 109 \u00a7\u00a7 7 and 8 of the CCrP (cited in paragraphs 50 and 51 above), which provided for the possibility of extending a defendant\u2019s detention pending investigation beyond the maximum period on the ground of the need for him or her or to study the case file or when some of his co-defendants had not finished studying the case file. In particular, the extension of the applicant\u2019s detention until 17 February 2009 was necessary to allow her and her counsel to finalise familiarising themselves with the materials of the case. After that date the applicant\u2019s detention was further extended, because some of her co-defendants had not finished familiarising themselves with the materials of the case. Referring to the decisions of the Constitutional Court (cited in paragraphs 56 and 58 above), the Government submitted that the above provisions of the CCrP fully complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention since, aside from the need to study the case file, they made such an extension conditional on the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons for continued detention and the impossibility of applying another preventive measure."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f50ee3f4-4a25-4a34-8577-8dff439c3a23", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant stated that he had in addition pursued a criminal remedy and that the inadequacy of that remedy had only become obvious to him in late December 2011, when he had been repeatedly refused victim status in the ongoing criminal proceedings (see paragraph 22 above). The Court does not accept the applicant\u2019s argument. Leaving aside the question of whether, in the light of the unsuccessful habeas corpus proceedings, the applicant also needed to resort to a criminal remedy before applying to the Court, it notes that the applicant did not voice his grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention in a sufficiently explicit way in any of his complaints to the prosecution authorities (see paragraphs 19, 21 and 23 above). Although he referred to the fact of his arrest at the Kintsvisi Monastery, he did not allege that it had been unlawful or that it had amounted to an unrecorded detention. The applicant, in the Court\u2019s view, had no basis to expect the prosecution authorities to investigate the allegations of initial unlawful detention on their own initiative."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "71db1523-ea33-4e41-bbd4-bfd5048eae54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention required domestic courts to review the lawfulness of a person\u2019s deprivation of liberty at regular intervals. Under domestic law that obligation was embodied in Articles 121 and 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required the Court of Appeal to carry out reviews no later than every three months, once the duration of remand detention had exceeded six months. He argued that the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal had arbitrarily omitted to carry out such a review between 28 July 2014 and 15 April 2015. It had taken its decision more than five months after he had requested, on 7 November 2014, that the detention order against him be set aside."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7523fa22-1ff7-4110-aa53-41c87c39b59d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was not based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "3a96f7d5-5d7f-4269-a8a9-ca9d66ce1564", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant alleged that his detention in the Edirne and K\u0131rklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centres was unlawful and thus in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained, under the same provision, that he did not have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. The applicant finally complained about the fact that he had been held in solitary confinement for eight months in both the Edirne and K\u0131rklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centres. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention in this connection."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5cffb078-8241-49f6-bd3f-b68f6e679428", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Oksana Belenko\u2019s detention had been unlawful. The Court notes that the latest decision in connection with this complaint was taken on 20 May 2004, whereas the application was lodged on 20 May 2006, which is more than six months later. It follows that this complaint was introduced out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "80780391-ef5a-4c81-b3be-4bbdde33b851", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["295.  The applicant further contested the Government\u2019s allegation that he had been deprived of his liberty for disciplinary reasons. In reality he had been arrested as a suspect in a criminal case. This had been done unlawfully and in violation of the prescribed procedures, which led to his being deprived of legal assistance and other rights enjoyed by a suspect. His unlawful arrest had pursued the aim of extorting a confession and the disciplinary penalty had been used simply as a pretext to cover up the irregularities. He had never been taken to a disciplinary isolation cell, where disciplinary penalties were to be served, but instead was at the disposal of agents of the Prosecutor\u2019s office investigating a criminal case. He had been kept at various law enforcement agencies and questioned as a suspect. The relevant Isolation Notice contained no notes concerning his admission and release from the disciplinary isolation cell. Consequently, the Government\u2019s reference to Armenia\u2019s reservation in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention was groundless."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "39027823-44e9-485e-927c-34798a17e1bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy is whether the applicant could have raised that complaint in order to obtain direct and timely redress, and not merely an indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article <mask> of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, \u00a7\u00a7 67-69, 2 October 2008). Further, it is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicant did not have recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, \u00a7 65, 27 June 2006)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c53ae600-9a5a-4116-858b-e09c30466a6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, had deprived them of the right of access to court because they had not examined their claim on the merits. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the taking of their respective husband and father by uniformed persons in August 1991."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ce5c642f-5180-485b-9338-986577f5b567", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["187.  The applicant, who has been held in compulsory confinement in a social protection facility since January 2004, has submitted his complaints \u2013 concerning the fact that he did not receive psychological or psychiatric treatment in that facility as a result of a language problem \u2013 under both Article 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Grand Chamber, like the Chamber, has found a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of adequate treatment for the applicant\u2019s condition for the period between January 2004 and August 2017 (see paragraphs 135 and 159 above). With regard to Article 5, however, the Chamber held that there had been no violation, and found that the link between the reason for the compulsory confinement and the applicant\u2019s mental illness had never been severed (see paragraph 170 above)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7aa83c6b-4f2f-4664-9ce4-be14d6d730af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant inter alia claimed that the domestic legislation did not provide for judicial review or any other remedy for his complaint concerning the breach of his right to liberty as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. This complaint is to be separated from his claim that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty for the period he spent under police officers\u2019 control and at the T.N.A.D. prior to his placement in police custody. The Convention specifically empowers our Court not only to review whether, in a particular case, the conditions of Article 5 \u00a7 1 were met, but also and independently whether the person deprived of his or her liberty was entitled to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty before a national court in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e12d59a5-2126-4e65-a260-65a923cd7c57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The Government submitted that all three applicants had lost their victim status as a result of the fact that the domestic courts had acknowledged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and had compensated them in the civil proceedings initiated by them against the state. Moreover, the first and the second applicants were part of a group of persons considered to be victims of the events of April 2009 and were awarded by two Government decisions MDL 10,000 and MDL 7000, respectively. Those amounts should also be considered as making part of the compensation for the breach of their Convention rights."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b239e106-b5b3-40f3-84aa-5cb22c9cd1e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["349.  The applicant further submitted that the planning of the military operations in the \u00c7a\u011flayan area in April and May 1994 was inadequate and that the recording of detentions during such operations was deficient. The Court considers that it is not necessary, given its conclusions above, to consider the former complaint and has considered the latter complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention below. "], "obj_label": "5", "id": "8d5c1047-d896-4f8e-98b3-59e62d83fe6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that at the time of his arrest, there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. Under Article 6 of the Convention he complained of the lack of access to the Supreme Court on account of the latter\u2019s decision to reject his appeal on points of law as inadmissible. He further alleged that his personal search had been carried out in violation of Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e54466fe-d4ee-4b5a-9f05-b696cf139823", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained that that his detention with a view to deportation was irregular and unlimited in time. The Court will consider firstly whether there was effective judicial supervision over the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s detention, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, and secondly whether it was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention (see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, \u00a7 38, 17 July 2014, with further references). The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "53149535-5deb-40b4-8b02-94fa0b82f478", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["204.  The Government submitted that, since the applicant\u2019s detention had been ordered and extended in accordance with the domestic law, it had also been in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the courts had taken a lawful and justified decision to close the detention hearing to the public at the initial stages of the proceedings; during the trial the detention hearings were held openly."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "35f4f5ae-59d8-4c87-8432-5dd98af7d25d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants contended that after their arrest they were not brought promptly before a judge. The applicants further complained that the Moskovsky District Court did not examine their request for release for several months and that the decision of that court to discontinue the review proceedings concerning their request was not based on law but on the Resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court (see paragraphs 18 and 34 above). The applicants referred to Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 5 they also complained that they had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of the alleged breaches of Article 5. The relevant provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "36ac15b8-efd1-4bc8-a90d-01de45eb0c5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention pending the outcome of the trial and the domestic court\u2019s use of a stereotyped reasoning for refusing his requests for release. Relying upon Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, he argued that although he should have been placed in a medical institution with a view to receiving treatment for his addiction, he had been obliged to serve his sentence in prison. Lastly, the applicant maintained under Article 8 of the Convention that his reputation had been damaged and that he had been humiliated as a result of his unlawful arrest and handcuffing by police officers."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c26424c4-1bd4-4424-b3cb-8f732491354d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "919f54ca-e728-42a2-a049-4a0af007fd7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained about the overall length of his pre-trial detention and the lack of adequate judicial review of its lawfulness. He also alleged that his detention after 28 May 2003 had been unlawful, not having been covered by any order in that regard. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e9f414e3-a477-4714-97ae-b8be4319753f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["515.  The applicant complained that from 5 December 2002 to 22 September 2003 Poland had enabled the CIA to hold him on its territory in secret, unacknowledged detention, which had been imposed and implemented outside any legal procedures and designed to ensure the complete denial of any of the safeguards contained in Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, by enabling the CIA to transfer him from its territory to other secret CIA detention facilities elsewhere, it had exposed him to a real and serious of risk further undisclosed, incommunicado detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "153c0842-95a8-4e30-97d0-0653f34c0cfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention that their detention on remand was unreasonably long, and that their requests for release pending trial received no serious consideration by the court. Moreover, they contended that they were prevented from working whilst on remand, as a result of which they incurred financial loss. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ff9d955f-af87-40c9-8c18-d433eb35cced", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The applicants reiterated their argument that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been detained by the representatives of the federal forces and argued that their relatives' detention had not satisfied any of the conditions set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, had had no basis in national law, had not been in accordance with a procedure established by law or formally registered and had not been justified."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1ab631e7-5397-4be2-804e-1da121d7e557", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies and had missed the six-month term in respect of her complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to her failure to appeal against the judgment of 8 May 2012 and stated that the civil proceedings initiated by her had not constituted an appropriate remedy for those complaints. The Government drew attention, in that connection, to the decision of 3 September 2012."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a41da6b7-4441-4b4d-9446-87d1a5f4e71d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the system of immigration detention in the United Kingdom fell short of the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1(f) (in particular, on account of the absence of fixed time-limits and automatic judicial review) and that the length of his detention exceeded that reasonably required for its purpose. Article <mask> of the Convention provides, insofar as is relevant to the present complaint:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "02e90c4f-56bf-43fb-a205-10a6d873e0fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant further considered that he could still claim to be the victim of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He stressed that the Court\u2019s findings in its judgment in the M. v. Germany case had not been implemented in his case, neither before nor after the Federal Constitutional Court\u2019s leading judgment of 4 May 2011. His situation in preventive detention had remained unchanged."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d3f3e45c-114b-4d99-87df-d2cc1f43e4b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained that his detention between 29 April and 31 May 2005 had been unlawful. He further complained that on 31 May 2005 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court had extended his detention in his absence and that his ensuing detention on the basis of that detention order was unlawful. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, of which the relevant parts read:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "3b5d40f0-6a76-437d-b914-0b288e9d1c54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government conceded that there had been a violation of the applicants' rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of their unlawful detention. Moreover, that violation was established by the domestic courts, which in itself offered partial satisfaction to the applicants. In order to obtain full compensation they needed to claim it under Law no. 1545 (see paragraph 60 above). However, they had failed to do so and thus they had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. Moreover, the applicants could have relied directly on Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention in their submissions to the domestic courts, which could have awarded them compensation."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "2f5270d0-e726-44a6-8c1f-4968ae5818b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government found that the finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in itself, would constitute sufficient compensation for any non\u2011pecuniary damage. Otherwise, they found that a compensation should be very modest, as at least part of duration of the detention must be regarded justified and since the applicant contributed substantially to the length of the time spent in detention. Thus, a compensation should not exceed DKK 2,200 equivalent to EUR 296, which was the amount granted by the City Court in accordance with domestic guidelines. "], "obj_label": "5", "id": "4e68a30e-8f4e-4f53-8498-ddd8dde5dda4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The Government submitted that on 9 June 2002 Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been detained in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention with a view to checking their identity and verifying whether they were members of an illegal armed group. Their detention had been effected in accordance with Article 13 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act. They had been released the next day. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "977aa8a3-6029-4c2f-b98a-d05b299acb37", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her detention pending trial had been unjustified. She further alleged without invoking any Article of the Convention or Protocols thereto that she had been unlawfully dismissed from the Zaporizhzhya Customs Office in March 2002. Lastly, without referring to any Article of the Convention or Protocols thereto, the applicant alleged that she had been subjected to physical and moral pressure while in custody."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b8725c0b-b9b7-4640-9095-a74cd4bff7f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his detention and the arrangements for the periodic review of that measure, that he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention and that he had been unable to obtain compensation for his deprivation of liberty, which he considered contrary to the Convention. He relied on paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provide:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "af694344-40c5-4ab6-8e73-324e669a6a66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, the national courts had deprived them of the right of access to court. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the killing of their father in August 1995."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "0629f4a9-5029-4c66-be54-621dfffd195c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and had refused his request for release on bail without any explanation. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5b10fff0-750e-4c92-b113-5814e80a878c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in relation to his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained in this connection that he could have sought compensation under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) for his allegedly unlawful detention. They further stated that it had been open to him to object to the decision rejecting his asylum request."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "8fca8bef-3a95-42de-86c1-0bb5a6ee7645", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant alleged that Articles 2, 3, 7 and 13 had been violated in the course of the criminal proceedings. He further complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, that the criminal proceedings against him had not been terminated despite the ruling of 30 October 1998. He also invoked Article 3 of Protocol No.7 referring to the facts of the case."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "87f76fd2-d260-4128-bead-77b3ca367d68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the refusal of the Novgorod Regional Court to award him non\u2011pecuniary damages. The Court notes that the main thrust of the present application, as submitted by the applicant, rests under Article <mask> of the Convention which provision, it concluded, has been violated (see paragraph 24 above). Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that in the present case no issue arises under Article 6 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill\u2011founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7d28f810-ddca-43e4-8b18-6d1a794e53b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant claimed LVL 10,000 (approximately EUR 15,000) in compensation for the anxiety she had suffered for almost four years, particularly on account of the threat of deportation she had faced throughout that time. Her arrest and detention in February 2001 had further aggravated her psychological state: moreover, her detention had constituted a serious infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention. Producing a medical certificate in support of her argument, the applicant asserted that her state of health had deteriorated as a result of the psychological trauma she had undergone in detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a61b60c0-3cbe-45a2-a8f1-db2037408120", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant\u2019s complaint therefore falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention alone. Having regard to the way in which the applicant phrased his complaint and the Court\u2019s approach in comparable cases (see, for instance, D\u00f6rr v. Germany (dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013; and H.W. v. Germany, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 92-93), the Court will examine the present application under paragraph 1 of Article 5 alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "28f3af7e-9acd-4d85-a128-dc442c92b075", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["183.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that the criminal investigations conducted following her complaints had been ineffective. Moreover, she complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty while held at her grandparents\u2019 house by her family. Lastly, she complained under Articles 9 and 14, taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention, that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty and had not enjoyed an effective investigation in respect of that issue on account of her association with MISA."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "24985645-3280-415a-b9f2-0474093b872f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant rejected the Government's interpretation of Article 287 (4) CCP. He argued that that Article did not meet the requirements of \u201cquality of law\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention and that neither the prosecution nor the domestic courts had given any details capable of clarifying the application of that law. Finally, the applicant argued that decisions to re-open a criminal investigation could not be appealed."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "993fe839-7da7-493e-a6d3-4b514ecc0965", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the failure of the Supreme Court of Justice to deduct the time spent in detention pending trial from his prison term, as required by law. He claimed that he had not been informed of any subsequent decision in that regard until after reading the Government\u2019s observations."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d79cee21-4695-485a-9057-2f4655dc365c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. As to the placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital, the Government indicated that the procedure prescribed by law was duly followed by the authorities. The applicant\u2019s placement was authorised by the judge at the request of the prosecutor and based on the medical report. The applicant\u2019s interests were represented by the lawyer and his guardian was duly notified of the hearings. They also submitted that although Article 435 of the CCrP did not provide the exact type of the psychiatric institution the detained person can be transferred to, it was the court\u2019s task on a case by case basis to specify a concrete type of the psychiatric institution suitable for an accused relying on the facts and the expert reports provided before it."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f70c8053-1d93-4ea4-85b5-70dc34d9ebea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["140.  The applicants, who were released before the paragraph 3 safeguard came into play, had the opportunity to, and did, bring the question of the lawfulness of their detention before the courts under section 469 of the Administration of Justice Act (see paragraph 17 above). Furthermore, they could have been granted compensation had an award been justified from the point of view of Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant procedure was thus consistent with Article 5 \u00a7 5."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d0df9019-ce29-448d-a737-09ab8e6750eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. They pointed out that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s settled case-law (referring to Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, \u00a7 39, Series A no. 281\u2011A; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, \u00a7\u00a7 41-43, 20 April 2010; and S.M. v. Italy (dec.), no. 18675/09, \u00a7\u00a7 21-23, 8 October 2013), obligations resulting from preventive measures did not amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention, but merely to restrictions on liberty of movement. They submitted that the complaint was thus incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "cdce9d85-b659-436c-a0df-df1565d59fa4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant submitted that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences charged, and that any suspicion that might have been present initially had decreased with the passage of the almost a year he had spent in pre-trial detention. In conclusion, the applicant submitted that in his case there were no \u201cspecific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweigh[ed] the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention\u201d (Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e9300b74-317d-42c1-bf9c-ede78e681306", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["293.  The Government lastly argued that the disciplinary penalty in question had been imposed under Paragraphs 51 and 54 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces of Armenia approved by Government Decree no. 247 on 12 August 1996, as well as its Annex 5. When depositing its instrument of ratification, Armenia made a reservation under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of these domestic provisions. The reservation complied with the requirements of Article 57 of the Convention. In particular, it was not of a general character and it contained a statement of the law concerned. In such circumstances, Article 5 of the Convention was not applicable to the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty prior to his arrest on 24 April 2004."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e2dd9033-ba71-4837-a0b7-f9ec531d489b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant emphasised that both the Zyuzinskiy District Court and the Moscow City Court had failed to consider his arguments relating to Article <mask> of the Convention and that no time-limit for his detention had been stipulated in the expulsion order. With reference to the Court\u2019s previous findings (in particular, in the case of Azimov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 153\u201154), he maintained that Russian law did not provide for a periodic review of the lawfulness of detention following a decision on administrative expulsion."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7ea6b21d-653c-4617-90bf-8af4e70516aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. They submitted that the applicant had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and the domestic courts had duly examined the material submitted by the prosecuting authorities. They also noted that the transcripts of the court hearings addressed this issue. The Government further submitted that the domestic courts had dismissed the applicant\u2019s request to be put under house arrest instead of being kept in detention by having regard to the circumstances of the case."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "597ce737-d0a8-42c9-bdde-ca0fec3c0668", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant submitted that his detention between 1 and 4 May 2005 had been contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine, which only permits detention without a court order for up to seventy-two hours in view of the urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime from being committed, but which does not permit such detention in respect of an administrative offence. Therefore, his detention under Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences had been unconstitutional and thus contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the purpose of a person\u2019s detention under Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences is to wait for the results of an examination of the seized substance, which is not among the exceptions to the right to liberty and security listed in Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "562c1f16-2250-4fd7-a96d-b73ac48045e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They maintained in this connection that he could have sought compensation under Article 141 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) for his allegedly unlawful detention. In the alternative, he could have brought an administrative action for the annulment of the administrative act that he complained of, in accordance with Article 125 of the Constitution. The Government also argued that if the applicant had considered that there were no effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, he should have lodged his application with the Court much earlier than 22 April 2010. They argued that the applicant had thus failed to comply with the six-month rule fixed by Article 35 \u00a7 1."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "43e855c4-80e3-44db-9e68-28ef0741c40f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government also submitted that the applicant had failed to make use of the available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention about the non\u2011availability of judicial review of his house arrest. They argued that according to the Bulgarian Constitution international treaties, including the Convention, were part of domestic law and took priority over those provisions thereof which went against them. Increasingly often the Bulgarian courts relied on the Convention in deciding the cases before them. As an example the Government cited decision No. 1 of 1997 of the Assembly of the Criminal Divisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in which it had decided to refer a provision of the CCP to the Constitutional Court, considering that it was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant could have thus applied to a court, relying directly on the Convention. The court would have been obliged, by virtue of the Convention itself, to examine and rule on his application for release. Moreover, the applicant could have relied mutatis mutandis on Article 152a of the CCP, which provided for judicial review of pre\u2011trial detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "2a7fbf87-da7b-470f-96f3-53d97b1794e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government maintained that the applicant had been detained in accordance with the decision of the prosecutor. They stressed that the prosecutor, pursuant to the reservation made by Ukraine in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention, could be considered \u201c... another officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power...\u201d (see paragraphs 46-47 above). In this capacity, the prosecutor who had authorised the applicant's detention had acted promptly in reviewing it. They further stressed that the public prosecutor's warrant for the applicant's arrest was subject to strict judicial control, which could be, and in fact had been, initiated by the applicant. The judicial control provided for in the Ukrainian legislation required complaints against detention orders to be considered urgently, and the courts had the power to decide on the detainee's release. The Government concluded, therefore, that the Ukrainian criminal procedure in force at the time of the applicant's arrest fully complied with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. They therefore concluded that there had been no infringement of Article 5 in this respect."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "76a3272e-aa13-4c12-846a-7e9461250235", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant\u2019s detention from 20 March to 10 April 2009 had been lawful and justified. Up until 20 March 2009 the applicant had been detained on the basis of a court order of 16 December 2008. After that date the basis for the applicant\u2019s detention had been the judgment of 20 March 2009. As to the length of the pre-trial detention, the domestic courts had taken into account all the relevant circumstances when deciding to detain the applicant pending investigation and trial. The case against him had been complex. They further considered that by relying on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and other relevant circumstances the domestic courts had rightfully justified their decisions to detain the applicant during the criminal proceedings against him. Lastly, they pointed out that the domestic judicial authorities had dealt with the case without undue delays."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "90323efe-db25-4eda-8193-67441f8f698d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government observed that the liberties and detention judge of the Rouen tribunal de grande instance had ordered, on 29 August 2007, an extension of the detention for fifteen days, a decision that was upheld by the Rouen Court of Appeal on 30 August 2007. The ordinary courts had thus found that the applicants\u2019 detention for the period in question was not excessive within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e07e36ba-447a-4054-91fc-e1cbaee30ffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he was arrested by a prosecutor and was not brought promptly before a judge. In addition, he complains that his detention was not extended every thirty days as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he had no possibility of appealing against the interlocutory judgments extending his detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "326d68d7-81a3-474c-a467-3cb786b6f56d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that her involuntary hospitalisation in the Psychiatric Clinic of the North Estonia Medical Centre on 6 November 2006 had not been \u201clawful\u201d and \u201cin accordance with a procedure prescribed by law\u201d and that she had not received a fair hearing before the Harju County Court when it decided on 8 November 2006 to admit her to the closed institution. She relied on paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article <mask> of the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "caaa1839-ee24-4cae-a916-1b18954a9270", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant further complained about inhuman and degrading conditions in several pre-trial detention facilities he had been kept in prior to his conviction. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his pre-trial detention throughout the period between 2001 and 2002 had been unlawful. He finally complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) that a hearing in the course of criminal proceedings against him had been unfair."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "92e040de-0232-46c3-be5d-8ada337d83ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicants whose relatives were arrested and taken away by the members of the security forces complained that the detention of Cas\u0131m \u00c7elik, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf \u00c7elik, Mirha\u00e7 \u00c7elik, Naci \u015eeng\u00fcl, Sedd\u0131k \u015eeng\u00fcl, Re\u015fit Sevli, Kemal \u0130zci, Hayrullah \u00d6zt\u00fcrk, Salih \u015eeng\u00fcl, Hur\u015fit Ta\u015fk\u0131n, Abdullah \u0130nan and A\u015fur Se\u00e7kin had given rise to multiple violations of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "66b6988d-53a1-4408-bbb8-c26caf6fe4b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they submitted that he had been kept under surveillance in the Izmir Military Recruitment Office for the sole purpose of ensuring his transfer back to his army command and that he was not subjected to any proceedings or investigation until he was taken to his military unit. They further claimed that this administrative measure had been taken to prevent his escape, since he was a deserter, and that he had immediately been sent to his unit upon the completion of necessary procedures such as the provision of a vehicle, personnel, travel expenses and monetary matters concerning his transfer. Moreover, the Government claimed that the applicant had actually been in military service during that time. The Government admitted that the applicant had been held in custody between 7 and 11 March 2003 for the proper administration of military discipline. They submitted that he had been brought before a judge on the very day the Military Prosecutor filed an indictment."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "3c40a4ed-cbb2-4a8e-8886-62bad5f0c96f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicants argued that the compensation awarded to them in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been adequate and proportionate to the severity of the breaches of their rights. In support of this contention the applicants cited cases in which the Court had found breaches of Article 5 of the Convention and in which the awards had been considerably higher. In their view, as a result of the insufficient amount of compensation awarded by the Supreme Court of Justice, they still had victim status under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "bd5cff3f-901d-4e34-b090-14b3bca868a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government further pointed out that Germany had not breached its positive obligation to protect the applicant from an alleged deprivation of liberty by private persons. It was already questionable whether Article <mask> of the Convention incorporated such a positive obligation at all. In any event, German law provided multiple instruments for an individual to be protected against interferences with his liberty. Firstly, confinement in a psychiatric hospital had to be ordered by a judge. Secondly, the competent health authorities had far-reaching supervisory powers in monitoring the execution of these court orders. Thirdly, section 34 of the Act on measures of aid and protection in cases of mental disorders (see paragraphs 59-60 above), which came into force on 9 July 1979, introduced a Board of Visitors to monitor the detention of persons ordered under the Act in psychiatric hospitals. It thereby created a further innovative mechanism of protection. Fourthly, a person who deprived another person of his liberty incurred a prison sentence of up to ten years under Article 239 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 62 above). An individual who had been illegally deprived of his liberty also had the right to claim damages, including for non-pecuniary damage, under Articles 823 and 847 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 63 above). Furthermore, in accordance with section 30 of the Conduct of Trade Act (see paragraph 61 above), the running of a private clinic required a licence issued by the State. In the course of the examination of the application lodged by Dr Heines\u2019s clinic for the issuing and extension of such a licence, the competent State authorities had verified that the clinic\u2019s management was reliable and that it provided sufficient medical treatment for its patients."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f1d40953-cf77-4b0f-bb57-9b1fcb997887", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been beaten and forced to plead guilty. He further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention during the judicial proceedings. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention he alleged that he had been put into prison without being told of the charge against him."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f607387e-a9db-41c2-9c45-a5228f9289e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The Government\u2019s position was that the applicants had failed to exhaust available remedies as regards this complaint in two respects. First, they had failed to bring a private-law claim concerning their complaint about the provision of information regarding their arrest and detention. The Government pointed out that the Divisional Court had held that the complaints should have been brought by way of a private-law action because they raised fact-sensitive issues inappropriate for judicial review proceedings. In light of the Divisional Court judgment, the applicants could undoubtedly have brought a civil damages claim in respect of their arrest and initial detention. The Government emphasised that the applicants did not argue that their detention was lawful under domestic law irrespective of compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention, such that the only appropriate remedy would be a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act (see paragraph 121 above). In so far as the applicants contended that they were unable to pursue a private-law claim from Pakistan and would not have been able to obtain legal funding, the Government pointed out that the applicants had pursued the judicial review claim and the case before this Court without difficulty. It was also relevant, the Government argued, that the applicants were not excluded in principle from obtaining legal aid and, in any case, refusal to grant legal aid would not have rendered the bringing of a private-law claim impractical."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b58c6476-e697-43b4-877e-92d03db08bb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s closest living relative and heir, pursuant to the domestic law, was his father. Hence, Ms Z\u012bmele could not be considered the applicant\u2019s next of kin. Besides, Ms Z\u012bmele had provided no evidence of the fact that the applicant\u2019s father had no objections to her pursuing the application. Further, relying on the cases of Sanles and Sanles v. Spain ((dec.), no. 48335/99, 26 October 2000), and Bi\u00e7 and Others v. Turkey (no. 55955/00, 2 February 2006), the Government argued that rights under Article <mask> of the Convention were of an eminently personal and non\u2011transferable nature. They disputed the contention that Ms Z\u012bmele could have been affected by the applicant\u2019s detention in any way. Thus, the Government objected to her locus standi."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "da9fb16b-2846-4ad3-9c5d-518a0a26ec02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that there was no reasonable suspicion for his arrest and detention. By a letter dated 7 July 2000, the applicant complained that he had been held in police custody for twelve days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d56e3902-3edb-4697-8a1b-f91e77f28668", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no reasonable suspicion to justify his arrest, and under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in particular on account of his alleged entrapment by the police during a \u201ctest purchase\u201d of drugs from him. In his letter of 13 March 2006 the applicant raised further complaints concerning the trial under Article 6 of the Convention, claiming that he had been refused legal assistance after his arrest, that he had not been promptly informed of the charges against him, and that he had not been able to question a number of witnesses."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "6ca9b37d-a5d7-4771-9b29-b0967fb755f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government declared in that context that they had taken note of the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Glien (cited above). In the light of the Court\u2019s findings in that judgment, the Government accepted that until his transfer to Hamburg Prison in May 2013 the applicant, who had been detained in L\u00fcbeck Prison together with prisoners serving their sentence until then, had not been detained in a suitable institution for mental health patients. Therefore, his detention had not complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, in view of these conditions of detention, the applicant\u2019s preventive detention during that period had to be classified as a penalty and had therefore been in breach of Article 7 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ac388f39-7e19-4dec-aeee-8e3e94e4a546", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained that his arrest and detention in Ukraine were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention since his criminal prosecution in Belarus was unlawful. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s detention in Ukraine was not regulated by any law and he could not challenge it. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of effective remedies in this respect."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f53d7022-1ff3-40a6-98c3-aaed28ad7e99", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants complained that their detention was unlawful under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they claimed that by virtue of Article 108 \u00a7 1.1 of the CCrP, they should not have been placed in custody because the offences imputed to them had been committed within the sphere of their business activities. However, the national courts dismissed their argument under Article 108 1.1 of the CCrP without providing any reasons. The first applicant also complained about his excessively long and unreasonable pre-trial detention. The applicants invoked Article 5 of the Convention which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a27bc4e8-4b16-4591-96d1-e780a083ce94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["121.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not brought their complaints concerning their detention before the domestic courts. In particular, they claimed that the applicants could have brought an administrative recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution challenging the lawfulness of the decisions to detain and deport them, and/or a civil action for false imprisonment and assault, within the context of which they could have complained of a violation of their rights under Article 11 of the Constitution and Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraphs 111 and 112 above)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "bfa79ad4-30b1-4446-89c9-cbf90c3f4ad1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government considered that this complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as the proceedings had not entailed the determination of either a criminal charge or \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d. In the Government's view, the forfeiture of bail could only be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government drew an analogy with tax disputes, maintaining that the forfeiture of bail required a similar assessment of a failure to perform certain legal obligations. The Government also referred to the Court's case-law of the Court under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, arguing that Article 6 was not applicable to proceedings for the review of an application for release from detention. They cited the Commission's decision in Moudefo v. France (decision of 21 January 1987, no. 10868/84, Decisions and Reports 51, p. 62)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "868de14f-7c10-486b-a39e-0a627857eb47", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, had deprived them of the right of access to court because they had not examined their claim on the merits. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the taking of their respective husband and father by uniformed persons in August 1991. They further complained that by dismissing their claim for damages the national court had violated their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "045dd7db-f79c-4516-91f8-c33b5494db0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government conceded that the applicant had been tried and convicted by a tribunal \u201cnot established by law\u201d. Nevertheless, in their opinion, this fact alone was insufficient to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. The quashing of the applicant\u2019s conviction by way of supervisory review had been of a temporary nature. Subsequently, the applicant had again been tried by a tribunal \u201cestablished by law\u201d, found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. Even though the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s initial conviction had not been confirmed by the supervisory review court, it had been replaced by a new conviction. All the negative consequences, if any, resulting from the initial conviction had been removed, given that the term of imprisonment already served by the applicant had been set off against the new sentence. Accordingly, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had not challenged before the supervisory review court the lawfulness of his detention from 13 September 2001 to 15 June 2005. In his complaint of 23 July 2004 he had alleged only that his conviction had been delivered by a tribunal not established by law. It was not until his application to the Court of 9 November 2005 that he raised that challenge for the first time. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant had thus failed to comply with the six\u2011month rule."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1ebfac70-f6ca-421e-8fef-2101631c7c3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The Government further argued that the applicant had not been \u201carrested\u201d but merely \u201cconveyed\u201d before the investigator, or \u201csubjected to attachment\u201d, or enforced attendance (privod), since Russian law did not provide for the \u201carrest\u201d (arest) of witnesses. The Government concluded that this measure fell outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government denied that the applicant had been brought to Moscow by FSB officers."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "eca6b346-9bd0-4f39-a4a0-ec3024c67b61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government submitted that, having been acquitted, the applicant could exercise his \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d under Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant\u2019s acquittal automatically implied that the State had acknowledged a violation of the his rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the redress, the Government stated that the applicant should have filed a civil claim for compensation with the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "cc9af203-046c-4406-b44b-66269c32a804", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the supervisory review of the court decision of 25 April 2006 ordering the applicant\u2019s release on bail had been necessary as a result of the lower court\u2019s failure to take into account the risk of the applicant\u2019s absconding. Furthermore, the applicant and his lawyers had been duly notified of the date and time of the supervisory-review hearing. Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s remand in custody and his ensuing detention from 20 to 27 June 2006 had been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a013fb05-cdfd-4de4-84df-7c7ecc3a8f64", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty clearly did not fall under sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (d), (e) or (f) of paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor could it be said to fall under sub\u2014paragraph (b): there was no evidence of non\u2011compliance with a lawful order of a court and the applicant\u2019s detention could not have been to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law because, at the time his arrest, there was no unfulfilled obligation on the applicant (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, \u00a7 36, 25 September 2003)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "01677175-a24d-4ae2-a195-bf2231bca62a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that in the second set of criminal proceedings he did not have access to his case file. He submitted that this limited to a great extent his opportunity to challenge the decisions extending his pre\u2011trial detention. The applicant underlined that it placed him at a significant disadvantage vis\u2011\u00e0\u2011vis the prosecutor, who had unlimited access to his case file. The relevant part of Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5a7d2b35-bdb7-4489-a646-767213a21982", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to respect the prohibition of reformatio in peius, a principle established by Article 326 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, when deciding his appeal to his detriment. In his view, had he not appealed against the first judgment, he would have been released from prison by June 2004 pursuant to Law no. 4616. He also maintained that the additional term of imprisonment which had been imposed on him by the second judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty and thus violated Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "231886e8-3ab0-426d-a11f-2bc656b8e5c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of his detention in excess of the maximum forty\u2011eight-hour period permitted by the domestic law prior to being brought before a judge, because the domestic courts had already acknowledged the violation of his right. The Government further pointed out that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the police officers, including the investigators and the deputy head of the Police Office, who had violated his right to liberty. In support of their argument, they submitted a letter dated 8 September 2010 from the Minister of Internal Affairs containing information that the disciplinary responsibility of the police officers had been established in respect of the applicant\u2019s unlawful detention on 6 and 7 March 2010."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "dae7fa34-56a7-4fb0-a37b-22d8a7dc90a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant lastly complained that he had been wrongly arrested and detained on 7 and 8 April 2009 and claimed that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court notes that this complaint was lodged more than six months after the alleged breach took place. Therefore, it must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "09d86d3f-8714-4d38-aece-23365b08da49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 remand in custody had been lawful and compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Both detention orders had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CCrP and had contained concrete grounds for remanding them in custody. The domestic courts had taken into account that both applicants had been suspected of having committed serious crimes punishable by more than two years\u2019 imprisonment, had been unemployed and had had criminal records. As regards the first applicant, the Yelizovskiy District Court had noted in particular that he had been apprehended while driving a stolen car only three days after his release on parole following a conviction for a similar offence. As regards the second applicant, the Gus-Khrustalnyy Town Court had paid particular attention to the fact that he had been identified by the victim. The Government further indicated that the charges against both applicants had been brought within ten days of the detention orders being granted. Therefore, they had been remanded in custody in accordance with Articles 97, 99, 100 and 108 of the CCrP and Article 5 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5fb54d03-0740-448f-80d5-2a5d3ab50a9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["192.  The Government pleaded that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 and stated that it had been open to him to institute proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his arrest or detention. They claimed that he could have applied to the High Court to have a writ of habeas corpus issued. Alternatively, he could have challenged the lawfulness of his arrest during the course of the criminal proceedings against him by relying directly on Article <mask> of the Convention, which was part of the corpus of \u201cTRNC\u201d law. The Government further argued that when the first applicant had been brought before a judge on 21 December 2000, at which point he had been legally represented, he had asked to be released on bail, but had not directly challenged the lawfulness of his arrest or detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "2ddfa89c-4427-423c-8b90-47d267612a2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argue that to determine whether a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention requires more than simply establishing that a time-limit under domestic law has been exceeded, in particular where it concerns confinement orders in which there is always a general public interest at stake given the reasons on which such orders are based. Having regard to the statutory required recommendations submitted in the domestic proceedings at issue, according to which the applicant still presented a danger of re-offending, the Government are of the opinion that the applicant\u2019s detention cannot be regarded as arbitrary."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "6e611dec-481c-4da7-9aeb-ce4f3a76f923", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The applicants disputed the Government\u2019s submission that Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been killed at the moment when the federal servicemen had strafed their car. They argued that their relatives could have been wounded rather than dead when taken out of the car and put into the military helicopter, and that therefore they had been detained in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their argument that their relatives had still been alive after the incident of 27 October 2001 the applicants relied on the fact that the criminal proceedings into the incident had been instituted under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code, which concerned kidnapping, and that the death certificates issued by the Civil Registration Office of the Gudermes District in respect of Zalina Mezhidova and Amkhad Gekhayev indicated the dates of death as 1 and 27 November 2001 respectively."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "cd0cfabd-ef3a-468b-89b3-9ed57f9a4c4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained that his detention between 3 March and 27 April 2015 had not been lawful and/or based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence or on relevant and sufficient reasons, as required by Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ef0ab6b1-e1ef-43d0-a57c-ca2487379125", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["167.  The Government submitted that the first applicant's complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention was to be rejected as being incompatible ratione personae with the Convention provisions, in so far as it concerned the lack of compensation to him for the alleged violations of his rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted in this connection that the first applicant had claimed in substance to be a victim of a violation of paragraph 5 of Article 5 only in conjunction with its paragraph 1 (c), but not in respect of its other provisions."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7d5125ed-15c8-4311-b23b-17b977374c36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had failed to invoke Article <mask> of the Convention before the domestic authorities and to challenge the decision to extend his custody period. The Government further maintained that the applicant could have sought compensation under Law no. 466 on the Payment of Compensation to Persons Unlawfully Arrested or Detained."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "eadc8019-6bb6-4649-a39e-f712d157554c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government pointed out next that the applicant had not complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, and considered that it had been inappropriate for him to raise, with regard to his complaint under Article 8, an argument about unlawful detention (see paragraph 39 above). The Government also contended that in any event the detention had been lawful as the police had been authorised to detain persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5c606e02-81b5-4d0a-ad14-ac7840ea7fa0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his arrest on 14 April 2001 had been unlawful because he had not been informed about the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him until 27 days later, when he had been questioned; he had not been familiarised with the arrest order; his statutory rights had not been explained to him; and no report on the arrest had been drawn up. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful. Article 5, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "da132808-a6f1-44eb-bf96-011edbb8d531", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to invoke Article <mask> of the Convention before the domestic authorities or challenge the decision to extend their custody. The Court has already examined and rejected the Government\u2019s preliminary objection in similar cases (see, for example, \u00d6calan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, \u00a7\u00a7 66-71, ECHR 2005-...). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from this jurisprudence. It therefore finds that this part of the application is admissible."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "9ea7a4c8-3676-47f7-aca5-6ccf15ebff05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant further argued that his preventive detention in Hamburg Prison, just as that in L\u00fcbeck Prison, equally violated Article <mask> of the Convention. He conceded that the conditions of detention in Hamburg Prison had been acceptable as he had been placed in a separate institution for persons in preventive detention and received comprehensive therapy. He contested, however, that his preventive detention was justified under sub\u2011paragraph (e) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 as that of a person \u201cof unsound mind\u201d. Even assuming that he suffered from a personality disorder, as wrongly diagnosed by expert B., he did not suffer from a mental disorder for the purposes of the Therapy Detention Act. He was even less a person \u201cof unsound mind\u201d suffering from a mental illness for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "aa42cc62-b900-49e4-ad7c-7c16d718d951", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["136.  The applicant argued, firstly, that his detention with a view to extradition had been in breach of the requirement of lawfulness under Article <mask> of the Convention. Secondly, the applicant complained that the authorities had not displayed sufficient diligence in the conduct of the extradition proceedings. The Court will examine these complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1. The relevant parts of this provision read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "9f51db8a-fe65-4018-8a0e-b2a95d5521f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that there had not been sufficient reasoning for remanding him in custody, and that the proceedings by which he sought to challenge his detention had not been in conformity with the guarantees provided under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court shall examine these complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "13db9af6-94cb-4652-9c9c-62f2824b89ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The Government submitted that although the applicant and her sister had argued in their appeal against the first-instance decision of the R. County Court that the applicant\u2019s involuntary internment in the hospital had been unlawful within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, they had subsequently failed to bring those complaints before the Constitutional Court. The Government considered that a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court was a remedy to be exhausted. In that respect the Government submitted case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning complaints of deprivation of liberty in the context of criminal proceedings and asylum which had been examined in the light of Article 5 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that neither the applicant nor her sister had raised during the domestic proceedings the issue of the applicant\u2019s alleged inappropriate legal representation by the legal aid representative or any other shortcomings in the proceedings in respect of her internment in the hospital."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "8bc581b1-8a1f-49ec-b2f7-53731327f492", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The Government argued that, as in the applicants\u2019 allegations in Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011) and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013), the applicant\u2019s allegations in the present case were too wide and far-reaching. He did not complain of an isolated incident, but tried to demonstrate that the whole legal machinery of the respondent State had been misused ab initio, and that from beginning to end the authorities had been acting in bad faith and with blatant disregard for the Convention. In essence, the applicant tried to persuade the Court that everything in his case was contrary to the Convention, and that the criminal proceedings against him were therefore invalid. That allegation was a serious one, because it assailed the general presumption of good faith on the part of the public authorities and required particularly weighty evidence in support. None of the accusations against the applicant were political. He had not been an opposition leader or a public official. The acts which had been imputed to him were not related to his participation in political life, real or imaginary \u2013 he had been prosecuted for common criminal offences, such as tax evasion, fraud, and so on. The Government submitted that the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention had not been applied for any purpose other than one envisaged by that provision, and strictly for the proper investigation of serious criminal offences allegedly committed by the applicant."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7859b5e3-126a-4236-a179-c7fcb8525f89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicants reiterated their argument that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been detained by representatives of the federal forces and argued that his detention had not satisfied any of the conditions set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, had had no basis in national law and had not been in accordance with a procedure established by law or been formally registered."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "46d5729d-df31-4873-873b-c87d44f36f91", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted that, having been acquitted, the applicant could exercise his \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d under Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The acknowledgment of the applicant\u2019s \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d in the acquittal automatically implied that the State had acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the redress, the Government stated that the applicant should have filed a civil claim for compensation with the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ee809611-af90-4d22-8690-eaaa716b945d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants further maintained that their deprivation of liberty had not followed a procedure prescribed by law and had therefore not been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. More specifically, referring to the preparatory notes on the Police Act, the applicants submitted that section 5(3) of the Act did not authorise administrative detention for a period exceeding six hours, unless the period was exceeded in connection with police actions involving the detention of a large number of individuals, when the time spent on transfer to the police station and registration and identification of detainees rendered it impossible, in practice, to observe the six-hour rule. In the present case, however, the first applicant had been the only one detained from a large group, and the second and third applicants had been detained together with three or four others from a large group; thus, their situation had not involved the detention of a considerable number of persons. Lastly, the applicants maintained that it would have been possible, in practice, to release them within the six-hour limit, as verified by the testimony of Chief Inspector P.J. (see paragraph 24 above)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "24531d22-9afa-4cdf-94c4-e08c0e1d50a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that a number of his complaints concerning his detention had either not been examined speedily by a court or had not been examined at all. In particular, he referred to his complaints lodged on 25 April 2001, between 13 July and 21 November 2001 and on 28 February 2002 and to his appeal against the decision of 12 July 2002. Article 5 \u00a7 4 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "40818f01-021a-4881-801d-80eaeccf95ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant's complaints which fall under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article <mask> of the Convention, meanwhile, relate to certain alleged deficiencies of the relevant provisions of the CCP, in force at the relevant time, as construed by the competent authorities and as applied to the applicant, which gave rise to a continuing situation against which no effective remedies were available at the time."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e4f701b6-a1a4-4e7a-9f64-9cde65e09736", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained that the decision of 16 September 2002, by which he had been ordered to undergo compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital under guard, had been unlawful. He cited two grounds: firstly, that he had never suffered from a mental illness, and, secondly, that the decision had lost its force on account of legislative amendments. In this connection he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "278ee710-c239-499f-b1c7-0a9dca37f38a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained, under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c), that his detention pending trial had been unlawful, that the prosecutor\u2019s order had not comprised the reasons for his detention, that there had been no reasonable suspicion of him having committed an offence, and that the facts under investigation had not fallen within the scope of the criminal law. He also contended that his detention from 7 January to 15 February 2000 had not had a legal basis. Lastly, under Article 5 \u00a7 3 he complained that after his arrest he had not been brought promptly before a judge and that his detention had been too long. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "222b3407-e3bc-4a1d-bc95-06c82aa1ad34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the decision to remand him in custody had not been justified. The Court notes that the detention order was issued on 26 July 2003, whereas the applicant lodged his application on 17 January 2005, that is more than six months later. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "797e0af3-9dcf-4d23-badf-8fa94b77a7d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant complained that his detention during the investigation had contradicted Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not had sufficient time to examine the case file before the trial, the legal aid lawyer had failed to provide him with effective legal representation, and the Supreme Court had considered his cassation appeal in private. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 and Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention that the case file had been falsified by the investigator, and that the courts had failed to assess the evidence properly and to establish the facts correctly; the civil claim within the criminal case had been determined wrongly. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant contended that the domestic authorities had discriminated against him on the grounds of his nationality by failing to provide him with appropriate responses to his requests. Lastly, the applicant alleged that, contrary to Article 34 of the Convention, he had not been provided with copies of the materials of the case file that were necessary for him to exercise his right to apply to the Court."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "db144002-4026-4a29-bfdd-902f5db2fbac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["148.  The Government submitted that the investigation had obtained no evidence that the applicant had been deprived of liberty by State agents in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They claimed that the fact that there were no records of the applicant's \u201carrest\u201d and ensuing \u201cdetention\u201d, and that there had been no judicial authorisation for such measures, indicated that he had been abducted."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a0fddd64-5d07-4ace-88dc-e25bec047714", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "9f1f29af-4d16-415b-bbc1-752171ee5055", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 is that he was subjected to an arbitrary and excessive deprivation of liberty. In determining whether Article <mask> of the Convention is applicable, the Court must apply the criteria set out in the Guzzardi v. Italy judgment[33]. In order to determine whether someone has been \u201cdeprived of his liberty\u201d within the meaning of Article 5, the starting-point must be the applicant\u2019s specific situation and account must be taken of a whole range of factors such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is nevertheless one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance[34]. Furthermore, an assessment of the nature of the preventive measures provided for by the 1956 Act must consider them \u201ccumulatively and in combination\u201d[35]. Finally, the Court has also held that the requirement to take account of the \u201ctype\u201d and \u201cmanner of implementation\u201d of the measure in question enables it to have regard to the specific context and circumstances surrounding types of restriction other than the paradigm of confinement in a cell[36]."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ccc83d9c-f2d5-4fac-a98b-9dbb7404432b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted, in particular, that: (a) his detention between 15 November and 15 December 2014 had been unlawful as there had been no decision on detention for that period due to the failure of the domestic bodies to review his detention within the 30-day time-limit; in any event, detention could last six months at most without an indictment, but in his case it had lasted for more than two years without the indictment having entered into force; (b) the decisions extending his detention, which had lasted for more than two years, had been insufficiently reasoned. Notably, the courts had failed to really examine whether the reasons for his detention persisted but had rather copied the reasoning from one decision to another."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "8c9c62a9-25cd-4465-a43e-e4e3cc3e3a2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been provided with an interpreter when he was taken into police custody on 15 August 2006. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not had the assistance of an interpreter throughout the proceedings brought against him. The applicant maintained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that neither the criminal proceedings brought against him nor the administrative proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had been concluded within a reasonable time. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant contended that his remand in custody and his detention with a view to deportation constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private and family life. Finally, he submitted that the proceedings concerning the deportation order issued against him had been in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "2bd40ed1-0dab-4f46-b7ed-496f25b2950c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant added that the measure in issue did not have any legal basis either in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention, since there was no causal link between the detention and the criminal conviction, or in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention. In relation to sub-paragraph (a), he noted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not cover deprivation of liberty for purely preventive purposes, that is to say, to prevent potential dangers in future. In that connection, he explained that the initial judgment had not even envisaged an outpatient therapeutic measure to accompany the sentence. Regarding sub-paragraph (e), it was only applicable in the case of an actual mental disorder, the finding of an unfavourable prognosis being insufficient."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f9487759-0aa4-42d6-b32d-76410a92eb04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government submitted that the custodial measure had been imposed and extended in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article <mask> of the Convention. Extensions of the custodial measure were justified not only by the gravity of the charges but also by other \u201cessential and relevant factors\u201d, such as the information on the applicant's participation in an extremist organisation and the risks of his reoffending, fleeing from justice or exerting pressure on witnesses."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f2f7374c-a31c-4d08-a8f9-3c2d7b7edbdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as regards her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. She should have challenged the allegedly unlawful escorting and arrest in accordance with the procedure set out in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She could have also lodged a civil action for compensation under Article 1070 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code (for a summary of the applicable domestic provisions, see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 60-82, 10 April 2018). The Government further submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as regards her complaints under Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention about her conviction for making calls to participate in a public event, as she had not challenged her conviction by way of the \u201creview procedure\u201d under Article 30.12 of the CAO."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "fd82cef4-aa70-4fd3-b128-c109aa885b96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicants complained that their relative Mr Kamil Mutayev had been unlawfully detained by State agents in violation of guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed. Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "525d4334-d2c9-4059-b959-95200532fd35", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The Government submitted that Kazbek Vakhayev had been detained as a person of no fixed residence. After his identity was established, he had been released. The Government also pointed out that the applicants had never lodged any complaints concerning Kazbek Vakhayev's detention before the domestic courts. They concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of Kazbek Vakhayev's detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "611ddb72-8449-4d80-b573-90c8232b20d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that his detention pending expulsion proceedings had been unlawful and unduly prolonged. The applicant furthermore complained that he had not had access to effective judicial review of his detention. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) and Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "17be9ebc-cf1d-4253-9bda-a39bc1011c5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicants maintained that the fact that they had been placed in the transit zone following their respective arrests on 30 January 2003 and 3 February 2003 and then placed in Merksplas following the order of 14 February 2003 infringed Article <mask> of the Convention, since those measures had been applied in breach of the court decisions ordering their release, which had not been executed with the diligence, promptness and good faith which that provision required in guaranteeing strict judicial supervision of any deprivation of liberty."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "4e21f313-d8ae-446c-8bf8-7b4b08045794", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government submitted: \u201c... the acceptance of deprivation of liberty to which no other citizens are subject is the result of a voluntary decision on the part of those who embrace a career in the armed forces and consequently accept the discipline it imposes ... It is quite clear that such situations are not covered by Article <mask> of the Convention as they result from the choice made by the applicant, who is free to avoid such legal consequences whenever he wishes simply by abandoning his military career, unlike a person who commits and is convicted of a criminal offence ...\u201d The Government said in conclusion that the situation examined in the instant case did not come within the ambit of the cited Convention provision, even if the Spanish reservation was found not to be applicable to such cases."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5ee0125e-3e4b-4300-8be7-456d246fae1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The Government argued, first, that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the instant case. They submitted that the K\u0117dainiai Home was an institution for providing social services and not forced treatment under a regime corresponding to that of a psychiatric institution. Whilst admitting that certain medical services continued to be provided in the K\u0117dainiai Home, the institution at issue was not primarily used for the purposes of hospitalisation or medical treatment. Having regard to the fact that the K\u0117dainiai Home had to take care of adults suffering from mental health problems, it followed that the limited restrictions on the applicant had corresponded to the nature of the facility and had been no more than normal requirements (Nielsen v. Denmark, 28 November 1988, \u00a7 72, Series A no. 144)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "5eb3d1df-0efc-492c-b1c7-ed64a8a8fd46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government argued that the proceedings before the Osijek County Court concerning the applicant\u2019s detention had been conducted in compliance with all the procedural guarantees under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had had the opportunity to present all his arguments at the stage of proceedings before the investigating judge. The proceedings before the Osijek County Court had only been a continuation of these proceedings, since that court had decided the appeal lodged by the prosecution against a decision issued by the investigating judge."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b40c479f-e8ec-4e2c-8a92-0d35dbae9e1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. They had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and the domestic courts had duly examined the material submitted by the prosecution authorities. In that connection, the judges had relied on the investigator\u2019s decisions charging them, the prosecutor\u2019s requests to remand them in custody and the investigator\u2019s statements made at the court hearings concerning their detention pending trial."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "9aa12c94-9e03-4345-8521-3549399761c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained that in the proceedings brought for release under section 64 of the 1984 Act it was for the patient to satisfy the sheriff that he was no longer suffering from a mental disorder requiring his detention in hospital for medical treatment, arguing that under Article <mask> of the Convention it was for the State to justify the deprivation of liberty."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d2b91efe-dba4-4f6d-a252-7dec3bd1f3d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant further complained that during that period there were no clear legal rules concerning the conditions of his detention, the internal guidelines issued in 1990 and 1996 being unpublished instruction which could change any time and did not provide an adequate regulation of the prison regime. In his observations on the merits, submitted in 2002, the applicant argued that the above amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "69fab941-b31f-4ab7-8064-dd14814ab138", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that this complaint should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They argued in the first place that the applicants could have, pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenged the length of their detention in police custody. Secondly, they maintained that the applicants had not invoked Article <mask> of the Convention at any stage before the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "27090fca-3ea6-4f68-bc3e-9a5a0cc3bbca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant submitted that administrative detention, as a form of penalty, cannot be included among the grounds for detention permissible under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, because the application of this procedure was condemned by Resolution 1304 (2002) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Furthermore, even though the lawfulness of detention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention did not depend on the lawfulness of the conviction, nevertheless, had his case been examined in compliance with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention, he would not have been deprived of his liberty. As to Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, the applicant claimed, in addition to the reasons contained in his arguments concerning the issue of alleged non-exhaustion (see paragraphs 34-36 above), that he was not able to contest the decision of 7 April 2003 because a copy of this decision was given to him only at a later date, following his release from detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "6013daff-ddea-416f-a059-13ff717c019a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government first submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been detained on 1 August 2000 under the Decree on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy, placed in the detention facility of the Urus\u2011Martan VOVD and subsequently released. After the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application they stated that after the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against Yusup Satabayev on 27 July 2000, detention as the measure of restraint applied to him had been lifted. He had been released as soon as the relevant decision had reached remand prison IZ-20/2, that is, on 1 August 2000. However, on 4 August 2000 he had again been detained under the Decree on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy since he had had no identification documents. His detention in the detention ward of the Urus-Martan VOVD had lasted for ten days until 14 August 2000, when he was released. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had never lodged any complaints concerning Yusup Satabayev's detention before the domestic courts. They concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of Yusup Satabayev's detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c6ac8493-5c7d-45ed-8af2-ffc71298d624", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["293.  The Government also expressed the view that, apart from the applicant\u2019s reference to her intensive political activity, she had failed to provide any evidence in substantiation of her allegation that she had been deprived of her liberty for purposes other than those prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, the Government contended that the applicant\u2019s detention had been determined solely by her behaviour in the course of the consideration of her case by the court, that it had pursued a legitimate aim and that it had complied with the requirements laid down in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "070da05b-960b-4bd9-bbd4-0ed205af8efe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about his pre-trial detention. Moreover, relying on Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he complained that the order to return the seized goods to him had only been made at the end of lengthy proceedings \u2013 and in vain, since the Customs Authority had meanwhile sold them."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "dbbdfe73-4727-45fe-9420-0ebe97a224fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["145.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful in that it had not been extended after 16 November 2006 and the related court decisions mentioned no time-limits for it. He also stated that the applicable legal provisions lacked clarity and precision and thus did not satisfy the \u201cquality of the law\u201d requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention. He also submitted, under Article 5 \u00a7 4, that he had been deprived of the right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court, referring to the courts' refusal to examine his complaints about detention and requests for release."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "01f7160e-b8a9-48a2-a5b8-b259513d8f56", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy is whether the applicant could have raised that complaint in order to obtain direct and timely redress, and not merely an indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article <mask> of the Convention. The remedy can be either preventive or compensatory in nature (see, among other authorities, Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, \u00a7 94, 19 October 2006). Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the Government suggested that the applicant should have applied to a court with his complaint about unlawful arrest. They did not make reference to any legal norm providing for the possibility of bringing such a complaint before a court. Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that it was possible for the applicant to bring such a complaint. In this connection the Court considers it necessary to point out that section 246 of the Russian Administrative Code prescribed another avenue of appeal. It required the applicant to lodge such a complaint with a prosecutor or a high-ranking police officer (see paragraph 28 above). The Court reiterates that the applicant raised the issue of his unlawful arrest before the Koptevo district prosecutor (see paragraph 15 above), thus making use of an avenue prescribed by domestic law."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "304b2b72-afe1-4bec-9c8e-7550a7dbf2c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant argued that the alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention stemmed from the lack of a procedural possibility for judicial review of her house arrest. House arrest amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, and for this reason she should have had access to a habeas corpus procedure."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1ade3fac-1e35-458a-b59f-d0e3b45b33b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant made a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention relating to his pre-trial detention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant failed to appeal against the relevant domestic court decisions. The fact that his lawyer raised the issue of the alleged unlawfulness and excessive length of the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention in the statement of appeal is of no relevance. The appeal court dealt with the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant and had no competence to rule on issues concerning his pre-trial detention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "49e15602-cd19-4054-a013-9ab63612555a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant submitted that the lack of clear regulations in international agreements between Russia and Kazakhstan in respect of release from serving a sentence on the basis of a foreign state court\u2019s decision had adversely affected his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, according to the applicant, there had been no mechanism in Russia, and in particular no provision in the domestic law, to ensure the enforcement without delay of a foreign court decision ordering immediate release from custody."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "114d65e8-ae2a-4c41-95cf-cd07d43685de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The Government pointed out that, having been acquitted, the applicant could exercise his \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d under Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The \u201crehabilitation\u201d includes payment of compensation for the damage incurred on account of unlawful prosecution and unlawful application for a preventive measure, without there being a need to examine in detail whether or not such measure was applied in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. The acknowledgment of the applicant\u2019s \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d in the acquittal automatically implied that the State acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s right under Article 5 of the Convention. As the applicant has obtained compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage and has been entitled to bring a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage without any time-limit, the Government submitted that the application was inadmissible either because of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or because of the loss of the victim status by the applicant."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c1482edb-30bf-43e3-89df-614fd8b63d69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that Visadi Shokkarov\u2019s detention between 6 and 22 January 2003 had not been authorised by court order. They argued that the decision authorising Visadi Shokkarov\u2019s detention had been taken in the absence of the defence and that Visadi Shokkarov\u2019s lawyer had not been able to visit him in detention. Lastly, they relied on Article 5 as a whole, complaining that Visita Shokkarov\u2019s detention had been unlawful. Article <mask> of the Convention reads in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d6d5e53f-1740-4060-952e-eb4f2a2e5f48", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government raised a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They argued that according to the Bulgarian Constitution international treaties, including the Convention, were part of domestic law and took priority over the provisions of domestic law which went against them. More and more often the Bulgarian courts relied on the Convention in deciding the cases before them. As an example the Government cited decision No. 1 of 1997 of the Assembly of the Criminal Divisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in which it had decided to refer a provision of the CCP to the Constitutional Court, considering that it was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Given these facts, the applicant could have applied to a court, relying directly on the Convention. The court would have been obliged, by virtue of the Convention itself, to examine and rule on his application for release. Moreover, while the CCP was silent on the issue, there was no express prohibition of judicial review of house arrest."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "e0e320c4-7dd8-4460-9219-1345bcfdfbb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicants\u2019 \u201ctransit\u201d before reaching the Kitay-Gorod police station lasted for nearly six hours, in the absence of any record and without counting as administrative detention. Following the Government\u2019s reasoning, it could have continued for even longer without breaching the law. In view of the above, the Court finds that this period constituted unrecorded and unacknowledged detention, which, in the Court\u2019s constant view, is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article <mask> of the Convention and discloses a most grave violation of that provision (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, \u00a7 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva, cited above, \u00a7 87; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, \u00a7 73, 2 October 2008; and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, \u00a7\u00a7 71-72, 4 November 2010; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, \u00a7 125, Reports 1998\u2011III, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, \u00a7 157, ECHR 2002\u2011IV)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "fa0b60c9-e400-4701-a654-261edb967a18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pursuant to the court\u2019s decision had been justified by the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, the fact that he had been convicted in the past and that, if released, he might abscond in order to avoid trial or obstruct the investigation. They thus considered that the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "26ceec41-ba7c-4e12-a710-e0fe16454dd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that his detention under section 28 of the Traffic Regulations Administrative Enforcement Act constituted deprivation of liberty not ordered by a competent court. When he had been committed for detention after failing to pay the fine, there had been no re-examination of the original decision imposing the fine even though the original decision had been flawed through not having reached him and because the offence had been committed by someone else. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in its relevant part, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b0a75aeb-2ef9-449e-a46a-05aa24605060", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The Government further stated that the length of the applicant\u2019s detention pending preliminary investigation \u2013 nine months and twenty\u2011eight days \u2013 had been reasonable within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, taking into account the complexity of the case which involved four defendants accused of a considerable number of crimes, eighty persons questioned and thirty-three expert examinations. The investigation had been delayed as a result of the suspects\u2019 attempt to flee. Thus, after the proceedings had been initiated not only the applicant but also his co\u2011defendants had been missing from their places of residence."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a43ed113-c35a-4181-a1a1-f3241faba514", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicant complained, under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that his detention between 24 and 30 July 2013 had been unlawful. He further complained under that head that his detention pending administrative removal after 31 July 2013 had not been based on sufficiently foreseeable legal norms and that the expulsion decision had not set a time-limit for his detention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "fb3e3a8b-fc91-46a6-97ac-ca4ed2025724", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant claimed that his preventive detention throughout the period at issue had failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention because that detention had been ordered on the basis of an expert report of 4 June 2010 which thus dated back some two-and-a-half years. Moreover, that report had only concerned the question of whether relaxation of his conditions of detention could be granted. It had therefore covered an issue which was different from the question which the domestic courts had to address in the proceedings at issue, namely the question of the likelihood of his committing the most serious crimes of violence or sexual offences if released, as a result of a mental disorder. The expert report thus did not address the new, stricter criteria set out by the Federal Constitutional Court in its leading judgment of 4 May 2011 for the continuation of retrospectively-extended preventive detention, in particular the question of whether he suffered from a mental disorder, which he contested."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "80967494-da65-43a5-862b-4c44551e4d1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that the police officer who investigated his criminal case instituted in 1997 had beaten him and threatened to kill him. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the outcome of the proceedings in the criminal case had been unfavourable and that therefore the proceedings as a whole had been unfair, including alleged errors of fact and law committed by the domestic courts. He complained without invoking any Article of the Convention that he had no effective remedies in respect of this complaint.  He also complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 April 1997. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "addfaad1-b900-4a6b-a19a-ab0c2795342b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The Government submitted that the Chamber judgment had departed from the Court\u2019s case-law concerning Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular the Kafkaris and M. v. Germany judgments cited above. They argued that in the present case there was a perfect causal link between the penalties imposed for the numerous serious crimes the applicant had committed and the length of time she had spent in prison. The judgments by which she had been convicted had stated that she would have to spend thirty years in prison, as had the decision of 2000 to combine the sentences and fix a maximum term of imprisonment and the decision of 2001 setting the date of the applicant\u2019s release at 27 June 2017."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "397a3c34-2c22-4d99-9ec4-c4a4cd26a21a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["230.  The applicant\u2019s submissions in the above-mentioned appeals and constitutional complaints contained arguments connected with his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention, namely that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired on 19 June 2008 and that the lower courts had failed to conduct the proceedings with the requisite speediness. These arguments did not appear implausible or frivolous. By not taking these submissions into account the appeal court and the Constitutional Court failed to provide judicial review of the scope and nature required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "8930ec37-200d-4f10-a6de-d2cf19e4b906", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his continued confinement in the hospital, as confirmed in the 2003 review, had been unlawful since the courts had wrongly based their decisions on police reports instead of on the findings of the hospital, as the only reliable evidence concerning his mental health. Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "8ed9143c-c1a2-46d0-b3df-0e8f8460a13a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant first complained that her arrest in northern Iraq was unlawful. She further stated that she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest and the charges against her in German. Finally, the applicant maintained that she was held in detention for nineteen days without being brought before a judge, during which time she was threatened with death and had no access to a lawyer or to her family. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "3cab439f-6ec4-4606-ba92-df04bdb26883", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant argued that since the expiry of the last court order for his detention pending trial no other court decision had provided for his further detention. He considered that the legal provisions referred to by the Government were not foreseeable in their application, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied on Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000\u2011III)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "483bafbc-ff62-4817-96aa-3f70f2f4b5b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not appealed against his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention to a court. Therefore, he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. If, however, the Court were to dismiss that objection, his complaint would still be inadmissible, being manifestly ill-founded. The Government constructed their arguments along two general lines. Firstly, they submitted that the police officers had rightfully arrested the applicant because he had refused to disclose his identity. The officers had acted in response to phone message no. 12316, which contained information on wanted criminals who looked similar to the applicant and his brother. Relying on section 11 of the Police Act, the Government stressed that police officers were entitled to check persons\u2019 identity documents if there were sufficient grounds to suspect them of having committed a criminal or administrative offence. In their second line of argument, the Government stated that the applicant had been arrested because, by using offensive language in public, he had committed a minor disorderly act, that is to say, an administrative offence. Hence, by virtue of section 242 of the Administrative Code, he could be detained until his case was to be examined by a judge or a high-ranking police officer. The Government concluded that the applicant\u2019s rights as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention had therefore not been violated."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d31c0ccb-71df-4a9e-81d5-02352b7894ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that between 2004 and 2005 he had been detained without a warrant for his detention. The Court notes that the applicant made this allegation for the first time in application no. 32844/07, lodged on 14 July 2007. Consequently, the complaint was lodged more than six months after the alleged breach took place and must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "31ff8b89-814e-435f-b01d-dc4a4f826193", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s administrative detention between 1 and 4 May 2005 had been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been based on a provision of domestic law (Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences) and had resulted from the suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence. The applicant had been arrested again on 4 May 2005 under the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent his escape, which arrest had later been upheld by a court on 6 May 2005."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "84586bf4-5525-483e-86d7-a7104bff792c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s confinement in the psychiatric hospital had been ordered in compliance with the domestic law and the principles enshrined under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that notwithstanding the fact that in February 2003 the Constitutional Court had found the legal provision based on which the applicant had been convicted unconstitutional, this had not influenced the findings of the forensic experts in November 2001 concerning the applicant\u2019s state of mental health, his dangerousness to society, and that he should have a compulsory measure of a medical nature imposed on him. According to the Government, when ordering the compulsory confinement, the national courts had relied on the above findings and had duly evaluated the applicant\u2019s individual circumstances, thus fulfilling the necessary conditions set out in the case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c7a0e6f4-6c37-4085-a7dd-4f7ca54f3892", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a number of procedural defects in the proceedings concerning his detention on remand. In particular, the hearings before the Basmanniy District Court of 3 July, 26 December 2003 and 8 June 2004 had been held in private, his lawyers could not participate in the Basmanniy District Court\u2019s hearing of 3 July 2003, the Meschanskiy District Court had not summoned him to its hearing of 8 June 2004, and it had taken the Moscow City Court too long to examine his appeals against the extensions of his detention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "676538d2-a3a7-4889-bf6b-a0f545281e60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The applicant further complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that narcotic substances had been administered to him against his will between 13 March 2000 and 30 January 2002. He also complained, citing Article <mask> of the Convention, about his compulsory admission to the psychiatric hospital in R\u012bga during this period. He further alleged a breach of Article 7 of the Convention on account of the facts which have been examined above under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4. The applicant complained, and referred in this regard to Article 6 of the Convention, that the 17 May 2000 decision had been adopted in his absence and alleged that he had never received a copy of that decision. Lastly, the applicant alleged breaches of Articles 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, as well as breaches of various Articles of the Protocols to the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "673eb2f8-5621-4ef2-8824-b089fab7b166", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant also raised a number of other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, namely that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion, that his detention during the pre-trial proceedings lasted more than the maximum one-year period permitted under Article 138 \u00a7 5 of the CCP and that there was no court decision authorising his detention between 18 and 24 September 2004."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b13638bb-5ba0-476b-93dd-97c66d8bead9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention ought to be declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In that regard, the Government submitted that the final decision taken at the domestic level with regard to the applicant\u2019s complaints had been the one adopted by the Kurzeme Regional Court on 24 May 2002, which was not subject to further appeal. The Government further argued that regardless of whether or not the applicant had been sent a copy of the decision of 24 May 2002, it could be clearly seen from her complaint to the Prosecutor General of 28 May 2002 (see above, paragraph 16) that on that date she had been aware of the decision. In any case, the applicant had been released from the hospital on 31 May 2002, which was the latest possible start date for the six-month period."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7f600693-8510-4df3-83c8-de1bb0023e2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicant complained that her right to liberty had been breached in that as from 17 February 2005 she had been unlawfully confined to a mental hospital, though she had not been in need of involuntary care. She also complained that her detention in the hospital for the purpose of conducting a psychiatric assessment prior to that confinement had been unlawful. She cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads in its relevant parts:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "85557060-e5b7-48df-b6b9-0e868083702f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been de facto detained on the morning of 26 May 2011 in Kintsvisi, while his arrest had only been documented with an official record of the detention at 6.12 a.m. on 27 May 2011 in Tbilisi. Article <mask> of the Convention in its relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "02a73347-a72f-47df-b8a6-2c7f0e1f6e13", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention that their detention on remand was unreasonably long, and that their requests for release pending trial received no serious consideration by the court. Moreover, they contended that they were prevented from working whilst on remand, as a result of which they incurred financial loss. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "139e3c56-2f52-4bbe-a753-b1d0210bfbf9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. He had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and the Nasimi District Court had duly examined the material in the case file when it had ordered his detention. In that connection they referred to the transcripts of the hearing held before the Nasimi District Court on 17 May 2013. As regards the applicant\u2019s argument that the impugned video recording had not been available in the case file examined by the courts, the Government submitted that, as the submission by the investigator had referred to the size of the video recording which had been uploaded to YouTube, it followed that the video recording had been publicly accessible and that it had therefore not been necessary to add it to the case file at the relevant stage of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "893e0bf6-0825-4112-ad40-de0ca1148632", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his arrest and detention had been unlawful. The Court considers, noting that the application was lodged with the Court on 26 July 2002, that this complaint was introduced outside the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 10 December 2002) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "10ff9c7d-c69f-4903-97d5-1884aca327bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pursuant to the above-mentioned decision had been lawful within the meaning of the domestic law and had been justified by the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. They added that there had been \u201cadequate\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds for the applicant\u2019s continued detention and that its duration had not been excessive. They thus considered that his detention had been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c4ea515d-2006-4b09-bac0-7d8194f4c371", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that his son had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty since his detention had not been recorded and that there had been no prompt or effective investigation into his allegations. He maintained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that his son had been denied access to a lawyer and contact with members of his family while in police custody. In his post-admissibility observations, the applicant further submitted under Article 8 of the Convention that the authorities had withheld information from him which might have shed light on the circumstances of and reasons for his son\u2019s abduction."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ec1c3c8e-78fc-4f56-8bc7-67015755bda2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the fact that neither he nor his defence counsel had been informed of a panel session of the Zagreb County Court on 6 November 2009 at which his detention had been extended. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedy for his complaints concerning his detention and that he had not been heard in person by the Supreme Court, acting as the final court of appeal, when it had dismissed his appeal against conviction."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "ac8dc0e9-f487-4ec4-a3ef-13b4c1602e14", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 400,000 Swedish kronor (SEK), equivalent to 44,305 euros (EUR)[1], on account of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of his claim, he submitted that not only had he been deprived of his liberty for a total of one and a half years, he had also been forced to live in hiding for several years."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b3fa8f70-4518-4e95-aa71-775eb09917d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant argued that since the expiry of the last court order for his detention pending trial on 14 August 2004 no other court decision had provided for his further detention. He considered that the legal provisions referred to by the Government were not foreseeable in their application, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied on Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000\u2011III)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "eb147e7f-b8d0-4b49-a27f-afa63f3edc76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant emphasised the importance of the proceedings before the court of criminal inquiry, a stage during which it was decided whether there were sufficient grounds for issuing a bill of indictment and during which the defence became aware of the prosecution's evidence and arguments. It was also the stage when the lawfulness of the arrest was examined and applications for bail were considered. It was therefore the court of criminal inquiry which was mostly responsible for ensuring that the principles enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention were complied with."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b91f75f6-a1bb-463b-915d-36c34cfdba9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention required compliance with domestic law. The applicants had breached the law by wilfully abandoning the places of their service. Since they were subject to all the obligations prescribed by the Constitution, the investigating authority, based on a reasonable suspicion that they had committed acts prohibited by law, filed motions for detention. Furthermore, the investigating authority applied Section 21 \u00a7 2 of the Alternative Service Act which was in force at the material time. Accordingly, the investigating authority and the District Courts had issued lawful decisions and detained the applicants for having committed an act prohibited by law. Hence, the applicants\u2019 detention was lawful. They had been charged for their actions under Articles 361 and 362 of the CC. Following an examination of the applicants\u2019 cases on the merits and after additional investigation, the domestic authorities found out that the acts committed by the applicants lacked corpus delicti, the prosecutor terminated the proceedings and released the applicants. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, detention was in principle lawful if carried out pursuant to a court order. A court error under domestic law in making the order would not necessarily retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention. In conclusion, there was no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "fc1cb766-15c8-4475-bcbd-4dbc905823a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The Government referred to Constitutional Court decision no. IV. \u00daS 3439/11, which confirmed that Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention was considered as directly applicable (\u201cself-executing\u201d) and that it was necessary to proceed also in accordance with domestic law, namely sections 31a and 32(3) of the State Liability Act (see paragraph 82 above). The Court considers, however, that that decision is not relevant for the instant case as far as it confirms that the applicant would have been expected to pursue a remedy under the State Liability Act, which provides for compensation for damage resulting from an unlawful decision or irregular administrative proceedings. In the circumstances of this case, not only did the applicant attempt to bring proceedings which failed because he had been deprived of legal capacity, but it is evident from the case file that the Czech judicial authorities did not at any stage find the measure to have been unlawful or otherwise in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7bac6088-83fe-4046-9800-1881ecc74da5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "65e4dabc-67df-44ba-974a-eec11d0e91ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government, while accepting that the impugned measures \u201crestricted the applicant's liberty\u201d for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention, maintained that the various instances of detention were \u201cin accordance with a procedure prescribed by law\u201d, were \u201clawful\u201d and justified under sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1. In the event that the Court should find sub-paragraph (e) inapplicable, the Government relied on sub-paragraph (c)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1e79414c-4107-475e-962b-8a4c9b945559", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained that his detention in the Simferopol ITT had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention since that facility was not appropriate for a long-term detention of a person. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his criminal case had been unfair. He also complained that his rights under the Convention had been violated by the enforcement of the confiscation order adopted in his criminal case. Lastly, the applicant complained that he was not paid invalidity allowance for a certain period of time."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "85b23471-20a2-4fbb-a336-b95fcac0d164", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government maintained that the grounds of the applicant's pre\u2011trial detention were clearly defined and the law itself was foreseeable in its application, so that it met the standard of \u201clawfulness\u201d set by the Convention. They maintained that the applicant had been detained on the ground of suspicion of having committed a serious crime and with the aim of ensuring his continued participation in the legal process. Furthermore, the periods of the applicant's detention covered by the court decisions protected the applicant from \u201carbitrariness\u201d, which protection is intrinsic to the meaning of \u201clawfulness\u201d of detention under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c85649ee-169f-4e5d-8112-69e8b1a618b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 administrative imprisonment had been ordered by the Sunzhenskiy District Court in a decision of 24 September 2001, of which the applicants had been immediately informed. In their observations submitted prior to the Court\u2019s decision as to admissibility of 15 November 2007, the Government stated that the domestic investigation obtained no information about the applicants\u2019 detention between 24 September and 12 October 2001 and that, therefore, there was no evidence that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their observations submitted after that decision, they stated that on 24 September 2001 the applicants had been transferred to officers of the mobile detachment of the Ministry of the Interior, in breach of the applicable procedure. However, in the Government\u2019s view, the dismissal of the head of the criminal police of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD and the reprimand given to the officer of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD, who had been in charge of the detention facility on the relevant date, constituted both an acknowledgment of the violation and provided redress for the applicants."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "acae7e1c-0520-4f92-929d-5c23251d212b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to respect the six-month time-limit, laid down by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s initial conviction of 3 July 2002 turned his \u201cpre-trial detention\u201d, which had started on 17 November 2000, into a detention following a conviction. A six-month time-limit for lodging a complaint about this period of detention had thus started to run on that date and had expired on 3 January 2003. After the judgment of 3 July 2002 had been quashed on 6 December 2002, a new period of pre-trial detention had commenced, which lasted until the applicant was convicted on 1 April 2004 for the second time. The six-month period for lodging a Convention complaint about this period of detention had, therefore, expired on 1 October 2004. In the meantime, the Government noted that the first reference to Article <mask> of the Convention had been made by the applicant only in his application form of 10 November 2004. In their opinion, his complaints under this provision had, therefore, been lodged out of time. The Government also contended that in any event the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention, as his detention had not been in contravention of the provisions of Article 5."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "28ab628f-45bf-49a1-8dc0-01cc434f2a27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicant questioned the availability of judicial review in respect of his detention pending extradition. He submitted that the Russian legislation had no mechanisms for such review, as the courts had refused for over one year to consider his complaints, alleging that they had no jurisdiction to do so. He had finally been released with direct reference to Article <mask> of the Convention, but not to any provisions of domestic law."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "26823ba7-b989-492c-9975-4f1331fb1722", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant also lodged other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, having regarding to the above finding of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, the other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention are admissible and whether there have also been violations of that provision (see, for the approach, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014).."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f4f20b51-4b0f-4a18-881f-85b853359097", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicants stated that there had been no grounds for their relatives' arrest or detention, and in particular, no reason to believe that they had committed any criminal offence. At the time of their apprehension, the Musayev brothers had been at home with other family members, had identity papers, had no firearms, and had not attempted to assist A., the man who had run into their house, or to resist the federal servicemen. They voluntarily reported to the district office of the Interior for questioning. Furthermore, the officers who had taken the Musayev brothers away had not given any reason for their detention. The applicants thus argued that their relatives had been detained in breach of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1bf41994-39db-466a-a3bc-df1adc9623e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention because the domestic courts had declared his detention on remand unlawful and had awarded him compensation of RUB 100,000. They stated, in particular, that the courts had found unlawful the entire period of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand, which, in the Government\u2019s submission, was to be understood as also covering the time span between 20 and 22 March 2005 in respect of which the applicant had complained to the Court. The Government concluded that the domestic authorities had not only acknowledged the breach of the applicant\u2019s rights but had also afforded him appropriate redress."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b6a739b0-7316-4432-9edf-7980181143fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The Government further submitted that the domestic authorities had been obliged to hold the applicant in custody because the Strasbourg Court had applied Rule 39 and indicated to them to suspend his extradition. Referring to the Chahal case (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V), they stressed that paragraph 1 (f) of Article <mask> of the Convention provided for a level of protection different from paragraph 1 (a)-(e), requiring only that extradition proceedings be pending. Hence, it was immaterial for that provision whether there existed sufficient grounds for holding the person in custody. Accordingly, the applicant's detention from 5 August 2008 onwards had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of the above provision."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "c8363135-c8cd-4ae0-bb7a-8d23402ac596", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant took the view that his preventive detention had violated Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, it had not been justified under sub-paragraph (a) of that provision. He argued, firstly, that the developments which had occurred after he had lodged his application in 2004 had to be taken into account. Since 21 March 2006 he had been in detention for a period exceeding ten years. His preventive detention as of that date had, in any event, breached Article <mask> of the Convention for the reasons set out in the judgment in the case of M. v. Germany (cited above)."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "52b64efa-5847-465a-99a1-327f23b4c2f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government submitted that on 12 June 2004 the District Court had taken a decision to remand the applicant in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the commission of a particularly serious criminal offence and having concluded that the applicant might abscond or otherwise obstruct the proceedings. In coming to such a conclusion the District Court took into account that previously, on 23 October 2001, the applicant had been convicted of attempted bribery and sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment, suspended for three years. By the same judgment the applicant, a former officer of the criminal investigations department in police operational work, had also been deprived of the right to work in the police force for three years. The custodial measure in respect of the applicant was chosen and extended by the competent domestic authorities in compliance with the procedure established by domestic law and in accordance with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. On each occasion the court took into account circumstances which gave grounds to believe that, if released, the applicant might obstruct the course of justice by putting pressure on victims and witnesses. The Government particularly emphasised the fact that the grounds warranting the choice of custodial measure had remained unchanged throughout the proceedings. They concluded that the applicant\u2019s remand in custody had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and had been in line with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b5a931e9-d601-4a9a-a89e-03a102395dff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicants contended that Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by the abductors and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this connection. The applicants further contended that their relative had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there were no available domestic remedies against the violations alleged, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d505b20b-7c02-4905-aafd-a9e7b49434fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["269.  The applicants in all cases except for Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f4f7a1f8-cb16-4965-8395-fc0e137f134f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government submitted that the Court had never found the exercise of a power to stop and search to constitute a deprivation of liberty within Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, in a number of cases the Convention organs had refused to find that restrictions on liberty far more intrusive than those at issue in the present case fell within the ambit of Article 5 (the Government referred inter alia to Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281\u2011A; Trijonis v. Lithuania, no. 2333/02, 15 December 2005; Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII; Gartukayev v. Russia, no. 71933/01, 13 December 2005; and also Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 8007/77, Commission decision of 10 July 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, p. 85, \u00a7 235; X. v. Germany, no. 8334/78, Commission decision of 7 May 1981, DR 24, p. 131; Guenat v. Switzerland, no. 2472/94, Commission decision of 10 April 1995, DR 81-B, p. 13). The Government argued that when the power to stop and search was looked at against this background, the ordinary exercise by the police of such a power would plainly not in usual circumstances engage Article 5, and did not do so in the applicants' cases. There were a number of specific features which argued against the applicability of Article 5 in the particular circumstances of each applicant's case. First, the duration of the searches (20 minutes in respect of the first applicant and either five or 30 minutes in respect of the second) was clearly insufficient to amount to a deprivation of liberty in the absence of any aggravating factors. Secondly, the purpose for which the police exercised their powers was not to deprive the applicants of their liberty but to conduct a limited search for specified articles. Thirdly, the applicants were not arrested or subjected to force of any kind. Fourthly, there was no close confinement in a restricted place. Fifthly, the applicants were not placed in custody or required to attend a particular location: they were searched on the spot."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "502892df-7270-4577-8b15-a51aff237c2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be declared inadmissible, because he failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, namely to appeal against the decisions concerning the extension of his detention of 19 February, 20 March, 18 April, 14 July and 26 December 2003, 18 March, 29 September and 28 December 2004, and 30 March 2005. They further submitted that the decisions to remand the applicant in custody were lawful and well reasoned. The length of his detention was justified by the complexity of his criminal case, the necessity to perform an expert psychiatric examination, the non-appearance of his lawyer, the seriousness of the charges against him and his state of health."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "9d6a0eb1-b697-482a-83ad-d31089bbe35a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1a9776a2-fa6a-4e17-a9b9-bc79a96de259", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that her claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, deprived her of the right of access to court because they had not examined her claim on the merits. She also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the taking of her husband by uniformed persons in November 1991."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b1533f3a-0419-48a3-9960-9c6401f27deb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained in general under Article <mask> of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful. The applicant maintained that he had had to enter into a written undertaking not to abscond, which violated his right to freedom of movement. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. He further complained that his detention had led to a deterioration of his health and had placed his life at risk. He invoked Article 2 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him had affected his private and family life."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "69b8c839-df2a-4b1c-af88-40a60edfe102", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government submitted that the second applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the Constitutional Court had expressly recognised a violation of his right to liberty related to his continued pre-trial detention. According to the Government, it therefore remained open for the second applicant to seek damages for his allegedly unjustified detention, as provided for under the relevant domestic law. Similarly, the applicant could claim compensation for the overall period he had spent in detention given that he was eventually acquitted. The Government further provided documents showing that in fact subsequently the applicant had availed himself of that possibility and he had been accordingly awarded an adequate compensation of damages."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "db86e70c-d421-400b-9a4f-bb9fadb4e74e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government denied that the applicant had ever been \u201cdetained\u201d because he had not been \u201carrested in procedural terms\u201d and because no formal \u201cdetention measures\u201d had been taken. Rather, the applicant had not been permitted to cross the Russian border and had been offered the possibility of staying in the transit hall of the airport, where he could use the bar and telephone. Accordingly, the Government considered that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. In any event, they claimed that the applicant had been able to lodge an application for judicial review of his alleged detention with the Moscow Regional Court, which had satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b4a8a081-3a71-407f-8ce0-c95a20d46982", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "661c9dea-cc2d-46f9-9414-31ab7f6cdf5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government took the view that the Bremen Court of Appeal\u2019s assessment of the relevant facts and interpretation of the applicable provisions of national law had not been arbitrary and that the proceedings had therefore not been unfair. They referred in this connection to their submissions concerning Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the applicant and her counsel had had ample opportunities \u2013 which they had seized \u2013 to question the expert appointed by the court and to comment on his report both orally and in writing. The Court of Appeal, in giving reasons for its judgment, had carefully considered the positions of the parties and the three expert reports before it, two of which had been submitted by the applicant."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b8ab99d2-e84b-412b-a359-571e09437396", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant submitted that special police supervision fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention and pointed out that failure to observe the rules of conduct attaching to that measure was punishable by a custodial sentence (section 9 of the 1956 Act). The restrictions imposed on him during the period from 4 July 2008 to 4 February 2009 had deprived him of his personal liberty. In his submission, the present case was comparable to Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, Series A no. 39), in which the Court had found that in view of the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant \u2013 who had been subjected to similar measures to those imposed on the applicant in the present case \u2013 had been deprived of his liberty, and that there had been a violation of Article 5."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "dc12dc4a-616e-4b30-8643-1da01b94be39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant submitted that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 did not require the United Kingdom to hold him in internment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In Resolution 1546 the Security Council conferred on the United Kingdom a power, but not an obligation, to intern. As the International Court of Justice stated in the Namibia case, \u201cthe language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect\u201d (see paragraph 49 above). Where appropriate, the Security Council could require States to take specific action. It did so in the resolutions under consideration in the Kadi and Bosphorus cases (cited above), where States were required, \u201cwith no autonomous discretion\u201d, respectively to freeze the assets of designated persons or to impound aircraft operating from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In contrast, the language of Resolution 1546 and the letters annexed thereto made it clear that the Security Council was asked to provide, and did provide, an authorisation to the Multinational Force to take the measures that it considered necessary to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq. It did not require a State to take action incompatible with its human rights obligations, but instead left a discretion to the State as to whether, when and how to contribute to the maintenance of security. Respect for human rights was one of the paramount principles of the Charter of the United Nations and if the Security Council had intended to impose an obligation on British forces to act in breach of the United Kingdom\u2019s international human rights obligations, it would have used clear and unequivocal language. It followed that the rule of priority under Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations did not come into effect."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "d72f047d-dad1-40c0-837c-3bbd5adbbb65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The Government found the claim excessive and stated that no compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be awarded since neither the applicant\u2019s nor his successor\u2019s rights had been violated in the present case. They further submitted, however, that should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the applicant, (i) it would be irrelevant to the claim made by his mother; and (ii) the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "f7c4a0e9-a20c-4748-87ca-cc883381231e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument that house arrest had constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They suggested that the measure should be examined as a restriction of freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. In any event, they considered that the coercive measure had been justified in view of the prior breach of the applicant\u2019s residence order. They submitted that although the investigator\u2019s order to apply a written undertaking not to leave the city of Moscow, dated 17 December 2012, could be \u201cinterpreted in different ways\u201d, it did not absolve the applicant from obtaining prior authorisation from the investigator for travelling to Moscow Region. They maintained that the requirement of prior authorisation set out in Article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had remained valid irrespective of the investigator\u2019s decision of 17 December 2012. They submitted that the cancellation of that decision by the investigator himself on 13 January 2014 corroborated their argument. They also pointed out that the applicant had not gone to the investigator\u2019s office to study the criminal case file on 19 December 2013."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "1a64dd3b-f2c7-4341-8ccd-01abdd1af850", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention had been lawful within the meaning of the domestic law and had been justified by the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. They added that there had been \u201cadequate\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds for the applicant\u2019s continued detention. They thus considered that his detention had been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "87343951-4054-48de-96c0-8ed7984074c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained that the supervisory review of his release on bail conducted on 15 June 2006 and his ensuing remand in custody on 20 June 2006 had, as such, been unlawful, and that the procedure followed, in particular, the authorities\u2019 failure to ensure his presence at the hearing, had been incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant parts of Article 5 of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "092c6c5e-fa4d-4b68-ae71-d799064d7a43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government stated that there was no violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. Initially the applicant was placed in detention because there was a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d that he had committed a crime. The preventive measure was selected according to the procedure and on the grounds prescribed the domestic law. Before deciding on the prolongation of the applicant\u2019s detention the court examined the case-files and heard the arguments of the interested parties, the courts\u2019 decisions were lawful and substantiated."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "a17a2d6e-90d1-4e97-9ddd-eb42ef48e61f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant\u2019s submission was that his placement in the \u012ale Centre together with people with mental disorders did not fall within any of the grounds on which deprivation of liberty could be justified under Article <mask> of the Convention. The domestic authorities had based their decisions to place the applicant in the \u012ale Centre solely on the fact that his family were not prepared to take care of him and that he needed social assistance. The authorities had not examined whether the necessary assistance could be provided through alternative measures that were less restrictive of his personal liberty."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "b9aabeb1-383c-4187-a452-68e4548fb764", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government further submitted that there had been no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of any incorrect application of the national law. The applicant had not attempted to institute criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for her detention in Dr Heines\u2019s clinic. Her civil action for damages against the clinic had been dismissed by the Bremen Court of Appeal. However, even assuming that Article <mask> of the Convention had to be taken into consideration by that court in construing the provisions of German civil law applicable to the case, its interpretation could not be regarded as arbitrary. Regard had to be had to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States in this sphere."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "bd106aaf-c4a1-4ce6-98ae-29aeb19b6f43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that, contrary to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, her remand in custody had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence and that the courts had failed to give any relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision. The relevant part of Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "5", "id": "63fba0d9-95ac-4e06-b2c0-b6fc43db5ea5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government argued that a degree of friction between the capacity available in custodial clinics and the capacity required should be regarded as acceptable, having regard to the need to manage and balance public spending. Given the twofold purpose of a TBS order, namely to provide the person concerned with care and treatment for his mental disorder and to protect the public against the danger posed by this disorder, a period in which no treatment could be given could not be regarded as unlawful or incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "5", "id": "7b35eb31-1a33-4bdf-a1df-147dc933546c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government further submitted that appeal prohibitions could be set aside, in accordance with the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court (see above \u00a7 26), if a decision that was excluded from appeal concerned a person\u2019s civil rights or obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. Therefore, if the applicant\u2019s complaint was considered to be a civil right, she would have had the right to have her case examined on the merits by a court of law, notwithstanding the appeal prohibition in Section 39 of the 2000 Ordinance. Hence, the Government contended that the applicant should have submitted an appeal to the domestic courts. By not having done so, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "39eddd4a-eb42-4178-91de-a7d3cf8bf74c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government submitted that, as a result of a bailiff's error in the course of the enforcement proceedings conducted in 2001, the amount of RUR 30,084, instead of being transferred to the applicant, had been used to cover the bailiffs' fees. The mistake had been rectified on 9 March 2006, when the amount was transferred to the applicant by postal order. The Government acknowledged that the five-year delay in executing the judgment in the applicant's favour constituted a violation of her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2317f552-7ddf-4939-a89e-5596d9a1a84e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant submitted that once a warrant of prohibitory injunction was issued, it continued to have effect until the final outcome of the proceedings, unless it was revoked before that date. Thus, the injunction proceedings in which the warrant was granted affected the civil rights of the parties, albeit provisionally, for a certain period of time. Thus, considering the far-reaching effects resulting from such a warrant, Article <mask> of the Convention applied, especially in the Maltese context."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "296b07df-a286-433e-861a-d9a48f6a01ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that she had not had access to the Austrian courts in connection with her claim for payment of salary from September 1996 onwards arising out of her employment contract with the embassy of the United States of America in Vienna. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cc69cde8-9a2c-49e6-865b-dac426bf69f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant company submitted that the decisions in the present case did not concern obvious mistakes. The addition of costs which had not been included in the original decisions cannot be regarded as evident. The applicant company relied on the case of Beer v. Austria in which the Court had found that the failure to serve a cost appeal in summary appeal proceedings against a cost order constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (Beer v. Austria, no. 30428/96, \u00a7 20, 6 February 2001). Subsequently the Austrian legislature changed the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure introducing a new Article 521a \u00a7 4, according to which also in cost proceedings the opposing party had to be heard. Even though the instant proceedings differed in their subject matter from appeal proceedings against a cost order, the applicant company should have been given the opportunity to comment on the opposing parties' request for correction."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c8c67b54-43c9-4610-86ae-7af966c0dcc0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government argued that at this preliminary stage there was no objective need for more complex reasoning by the judge rapporteur, apart from a reference to the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Law. In support the Government relied of the cases of Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) ([GC], no. 12686/03, 20 March 2009), and Bufferne v. France ((dec.), no. 54367/00, ECHR 2002\u2011III (extracts)) in which the Court has not found such a practice incompatible with the requirement of sufficient reasoning under Article <mask> of the Convention. Given that the applicant submitted her appeal on points of law in an attempt to achieve a re-examination of evidence already assessed by the appellate court, and that the appeal on points of law did not cite any violation susceptible to the institution of cassation proceedings, the Government contended that the impugned decision contained sufficient reasoning."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "84a86d59-312a-4957-be1c-963f765a7e67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants referred first of all to the principle established in the Court\u2019s case-law concerning the application of Article <mask> of the Convention, to the effect that the accused must be given the opportunity to be confronted with witnesses against them and to examine them. They argued that this principle was particularly important when the testimony in question was the main evidence for the prosecution. The opportunity to be confronted with and to examine a witness could be provided when the statement was taken or at another stage of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ffa00d12-4755-4bbb-b9b8-03d8214fae4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant complained under Article 6 that he did not understand the charges against him during his deportation. The Court notes that there were no judicial proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s removal from the territory of Ukraine and that any such proceedings would fall outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, \u00a7 40, ECHR 2000\u2011X). Despite its findings that the applicant\u2019s expulsion has appearances of extradition in disguise (see paragraph 58 above), the Court considers that this does not preclude it from examining the question of whether the removal of the applicant from the territory of Ukraine, which was formally presented as expulsion, complied with the Convention requirements. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court decides to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "75baf2c6-6f0f-426b-ab59-43f46fb728af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment had been the subject of a thorough investigation which resulted in the identification and punishment of the perpetrators. The punishment received by the police officers was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes which they had committed. Moreover, Moldovan law distinguished between petty crimes, crimes of average gravity, as well as serious, very serious and exceptionally serious crimes. Since the crime committed by the police officers was considered an average level one, the punishment of two years\u2019 imprisonment passed on 22 April 2002 constituted an appropriate punishment. The quashing of that judgment had been the result of a desire by the domestic courts to observe the accused\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention to have a fully reasoned judgment."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "76369274-a242-4a9b-ba9b-70017d2efe53", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants complained that they had been unlawfully denied access to court and that the rejection of their claim for trespass had interfered with their property rights. They belatedly submitted comments, which, for that reason, were not admitted to the case file. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No 1, respectively, the latter of which provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4c0a6319-8729-4039-8d62-33d8a4f8a85a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government submitted that the applicant had enjoyed full access to a court. He had been able to challenge the order for his dismissal, and the Supreme Administrative Court had, within the limits of its competence, ruled on that order\u2019s lawfulness. The psychological assessment underpinning the order had not been the subject matter of the judicial review proceedings. It had not been an administrative decision and could not have itself been challenged by way of judicial review. The body which had made the assessment, the Psychology Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was a specialised body whose tasks included assessing, on the basis of a range of criteria laid down in Instruction no. I\u201137 of 5 March 2001, the mental fitness of the Ministry\u2019s staff. Because of that, its assessments could not be subjected to judicial scrutiny. Once the Institute had assessed a member of staff to be mentally unfit for work, the Minister had no discretion and was bound to dismiss that person. The Supreme Administrative Court had found that in the applicant\u2019s case the procedure governing the manner in which the assessment was to be carried out had been followed, that the Institute had assessed the applicant to be mentally unfit for work, and that as a result the Minister had, by means of a reasoned decision, dismissed the applicant from his post. The Government also drew attention to this Court\u2019s statement in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, \u00a7 62, ECHR 2007\u2011II) that its conclusion on the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to proceedings concerning the employment of civil servants was without prejudice to the question as to how the various guarantees of that Article should be applied in such proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "53ae1684-06cf-4d4b-92a2-7789c71f460b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government further argued that the applicant had not complained of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in the proceedings before the domestic courts. In particular, in his constitutional complaint the applicant had only complained of violations of his constitutional rights to equality before the courts and a fair hearing, which corresponded in substance to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a7efe75f-4b5a-4e97-851a-4273d70d747b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicants complained that the forest authority had launched a campaign against them and had fined some of them for having used their own land. Mr Aliosman Kehaya complained, in addition, that he had not been summoned to the 1998 proceedings concerning the fines against him. Mr Kestendjiev complained that he could not obtain reimbursement despite the fact that the fine imposed on him had been set aside. The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and also on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ce3c5604-227d-4c58-8c59-8a0dbd88777f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention because of the refusal of the domestic courts to suspend or adjourn the criminal proceedings initiated by C.T. against him for false accusation, perjury and slander until the end of the criminal proceedings he had initiated against C.T. for breach of duty, extortion and bribery. The provision in question reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dce32ad1-0ed8-49c9-a606-86adb400af43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that in the District Court\u2019s decision of 18 June 2009, by which his pre-trial detention had been extended, it had been taken as established that he had committed a criminal offence, which violated his right to be presumed innocent. The relevant part of Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "50b731e6-8656-417e-bb21-40890a1ac60d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the right of access to a court was not absolute and the requirement to pay fees in connection with civil claims could not be regarded as incompatible per se with Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that the fee required from the applicant in the present case had been neither excessive nor arbitrary."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "924855f1-aefc-4b34-a7c6-bc88bf38785d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in the assessment of the facts of the case and their legal qualification. He also challenged the assessment of evidence and testimony of the prosecution witness and the expert. Lastly, relying on Article 7 of the Convention, he complained that there had been no proof that he had committed any crime."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8bdf3c79-51c7-43f7-a278-a4d102a5be19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant company submitted that the quashing of the judgment of 18 July 2007 had violated its right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The letter of 13 July 2007 of the Department for the Execution of Judgments had not disclosed any \u201cnew and essential facts or circumstances which were unknown and could not have been known earlier\u201d in the sense of Article 449 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant company stressed that the information in the letter of 13 July 2007 could have been obtained by the applicant at any time between 2001 and 2007. The applicant company concluded that the request for review had in essence been an appeal in disguise and breached the principle of legal certainty."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e4cf03c8-165e-4c5c-9ac5-6edbd8593ed9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.   The applicant complained that the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention had been violated and submits that the Independent Administrative Panel had applied a reversal of the burden of proof. The applicant further complained about the Austrian authorities\u2019 failure to hear J. Z. in the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel as a witness. The applicant complained that no prosecuting authority participated in the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel and that therefore the member of the Independent Administrative Panel acted both as judge and prosecutor. He submits that, therefore, he did not have a fair hearing by a tribunal within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained about the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ce793afa-a569-4b02-b80e-99ae47d6cc1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant complained that she had not been able to initiate compensation proceedings against the State authorities in respect of the ill-treatment and death of her son in the army because of a jurisdictional conflict between the national civil and administrative courts. She therefore complained that she had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of her complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Although the applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court considers, having regard to the substance of this complaint that it would be more appropriate to examine it from the standpoint of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "20504467-eff1-45a9-9fb2-34cdb3416dc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied a fair trial with regard to their civil rights, as they had been refused a full legal review of the Government\u2019s decision to permit the construction of the railway, which was situated on or close to their properties. The latter decision had significantly affected the applicants\u2019 property as well as the environment in the area concerned. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7285765b-917f-4cf4-a059-2f0d6a42c0bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to the imposition of the custodial penalty on him. In particular, the applicant complained of a lack of impartiality on the part of judges in that the judges who had witnessed the impugned incident had later imposed the penalty for contempt of court. He also alleged inequality of arms and a lack of objectivity on the part of the court in that he had had no time and facilities to prepare his defence, he had not been allowed to present arguments by the court or even, to be present when the penalty had been ordered. The applicant also complained that the decision on the imposition of the penalty for contempt of court had not been reasoned."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1332a18a-511b-41ae-8bce-1fa238b24aab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant contested the argument that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. He argued that even though he had not explicitly referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, he had raised such a complaint in substance before the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. The domestic courts had been aware of the Court\u2019s first judgment and therefore the only interpretation of a refusal to grant his request for a suspension was that such a refusal would not be in line with the first judgment. He had thus given the domestic courts the opportunity to provide redress for the alleged violation."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aeb2b756-9bbf-42d5-ac54-05951858a8e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her right to a fair trial had been violated stating, inter alia, that she was unable to lodge an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 15 October 2007 since she could not afford the services of an advocate licensed to act before the Court of Cassation. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint essentially raises an issue of access to court and should therefore be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e4e06e9d-563c-496e-aff1-bf83e9db55c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court had changed its interpretation of the Salduz judgment in 2012 and 2013 (see relevant domestic law) and that different conclusions had been arrived at in such cases. He noted that these conflicting judgments ran counter to the principle of legal certainty. It was the Constitutional Court\u2019s role to create certainty; however, concerning this subject matter it had done just the opposite. The applicant relied on the case of Beian (cited above). He noted that in The Police vs Alvin Privitera of 11 April 2011, The Police vs Esron Pullicino of 12 April 2011 and The Police vs Mark Lombardi, also of 12 April 2011, the Constitutional Court had held that the claimants had suffered a breach of their right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as they had not been legally assisted. This interpretation had been reversed in the judgments in the cases of Joseph Bugeja vs The Attorney General, 14 January 2013, The Police vs Tyron Fenech, 22 February 2013 and The Police vs Amanda Agius, also of 22 February 2013, as well as in the applicant\u2019s case, decided on 26 April 2013. The interpretation had again been reversed by the first-instance court in The Republic of Malta vs Alfred Camilleri of 12 November 2012, albeit that, pending proceedings before this Court, the decision was once again overturned by the Constitutional Court in retrial proceedings. Moreover, the Government\u2019s argument that the Constitutional Court had created a linear interpretation dependent on the age of the victim was also disproved by the recent judgment in Taliana vs Commissioner of Police et al, (Civil Court (First Hall) constitutional jurisdiction, 30 April 2014 \u2013 now pending on appeal before the Constitutional Court), which had not found a violation despite the applicant being a minor."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1cea72c7-c2b1-44b4-9074-78ac63fc5ffb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government submitted that, although the applicant had not been given the opportunity to follow the interviews of the four victims by the police and had not been able to have questions put to them, the use in evidence of these four victims' statements was not contrary to his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the first place, the applicant had consistently disputed the victims' identification of him as the perpetrator, but not the facts of the case. Secondly, the public prosecutor had refused the applicant's request to take further evidence from the victims considering that this would be extremely distressing for the children. Moreover, the applicant had failed to indicate on what grounds he wished to query the identification procedure and the statements taken from the four boys during the initial investigation. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal did grant his request to take further evidence from the adult witnesses, Mrs E. and Mrs F., whose statements corroborated the children's statements, and from the police officers X., Y. and Z. The Government further pointed out that, after X., Y. and Z. had been heard before the Court of Appeal on 16 April 1998, the applicant's lawyer had indicated that the defence did not wish to take further evidence from them or any other witnesses and did not explicitly persist in its request to hear the four children."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ee992936-f066-4556-91fc-0f7cfbd41377", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government disagreed. They emphasised that the extent to which the duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. Although Article 6 \u00a7 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. Thus, in dismissing an appeal, an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for the lower court\u2019s decision. Moreover, while Article <mask> of the Convention guarantees a right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f7e6990f-4eac-466c-9e08-1bf245d7f16e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings initiated at his request were unfair and that therefore, there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to pursue criminal proceedings against third persons and that Article 6 does not apply to proceedings aimed at instituting criminal proceedings against third persons. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "376dec05-b7dd-4113-b20a-46c6ead8919b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Khabarovsk courts lacked impartiality and independence and that the proceedings on his claims had been unfair and excessively long. He further complained under Articles 9, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Protocol No. 12 that he had been persecuted for his beliefs and discriminated against. Finally, he complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that, lacking residence registration, he could not buy a plane ticket."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bb933046-f2f7-4922-adbb-872a83953b9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained that the non\u2011communication of the principal public prosecutor\u2019s written opinion to him infringed the right to a fair trial, resulting from the failure to respect the principle of equality of arms. He further alleged that the fairness of the proceedings had been undermined by the attendance of the prosecutor at the deliberations of the Court of Cassation and the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "08db2757-c08f-4f6b-a297-7ff8e3528ab8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. In particular, they complained that costs had been unfairly ordered against them, in view of the fact that they had not been responsible for the errors committed by the first-instance court. Furthermore, they complained that they had not been heard in relation to this matter and that the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment had not been reasoned in this respect."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6d9fc79b-c233-4da3-8f88-9df8ce34ef9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted that the applicant had expressly waived his right to a lawyer and the waiver had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The domestic courts had lawfully relied on the self-incriminating statements made by the applicant and the absence of the lawyer at that time had not affected the overall fairness of the proceedings. They argued that the applicant had voluntarily confessed to the murder and that his privilege against self-incrimination had not been affected."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5e4a910f-41db-499e-bf1a-f588c95911ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government maintained that the judgment of 23 October 2000 had been reviewed by the Supreme Court by way of the cassation appeal procedure provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure and that such review therefore complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further insisted that the quashing of the judgment of 23 October 2000 by the President of the Supreme Court had pursued the legitimate aim, in particular, of rectifying the errors made by the lower court when considering the applicant\u2019s case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8adbd2a0-8484-4deb-8919-98a83b6fcddb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government argued that the two decisions cited above were in contradiction with each other in that the complaint under Article 6 about the fact that the applicant had been convicted under the summary procedure had been rejected by means of a decision against which no appeal lay, that being surely incompatible with the Court's intention to look into \u201cthe question whether the provisions introduced by Legislative Decree no. 341 of 24 November 2000 infringed the principles of fair trial\u201d. Moreover, before the decision on admissibility no specific question relating to compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention had been put to the Government by the Court's Registry, so that the Government had been prevented from submitting detailed observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint in question."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "93784fe0-6c9d-44a7-a036-98dcfde9efd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the alleged failure to provide him with the relevant decisions concerning his son's case. The Court considers that this complaint raises essentially the same issue as that raised under Article 2 of the Convention, namely, whether the authorities complied with their procedural obligations under Article 2. It will therefore not examine this complaint separately."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ab6293b3-39f9-4674-9bbf-7cf092eca5b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention. He alleged that on all seven occasions the proceedings in which he was convicted of an administrative offence fell short of the fair hearing guarantees, in particular the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, independence and impartiality of the tribunal, and the presumption of innocence. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "80775f97-d640-4464-98a9-dd9863f90726", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government submitted that, in any event, the applicant\u2019s right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. The Court of Appeal had taken evidence in compliance with the requirements of that provision. Pursuant to Article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in particular, the same rules for the taking of evidence applied both to the prosecution and the defence. Under the German Code of Criminal Procedure, it was for the criminal courts themselves to investigate the truth of their own motion. Even though the investigation into offences committed abroad raised considerable procedural problems, the defendants were protected by the rules on criminal procedure and by having the benefit of the doubt."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8c3302b6-5112-4903-93f5-e1d661d1a0ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to provide him with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of his own choosing and to prepare his defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0d90553e-cb6c-4fec-8d70-b764a43f79f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government submitted that face-to-face meetings were prohibited in order to protect the identities and the safety of the police officers responsible for the investigation. That prohibition was offset by the verification of lawfulness carried out by the Indictments Division. The latter drew on the confidential file to check the identities and the reliability of the undercover agents, thus verifying whether the case had involved any incitement, and if so, deciding on the lawfulness of the evidence. At all stages in the proceedings before the investigating authority the defendants had had the opportunity of consulting the opened case file, which had necessarily contained all the relevant evidence. In addition, throughout the proceedings in the instant case the domestic courts had sought to ensure that the defence rights and the fairness of proceedings were being respected, in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "37fba39d-b4f3-4148-8e64-7a77c5c792a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the applicant was not precluded from lodging an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation but there was a certain procedure envisaged by the law at the material time which should have been respected by a person willing to apply to this court. They argued that procedural requirements for lodging appeals were not incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the domestic law envisaged a possibility to receive free legal assistance upon the initiative of an advocate. The Government finally submitted that the requirement that appeals on points of law could only be lodged by licensed advocates pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the quality of appeals lodged with the Court of Cassation and was later abolished due to difficulties revealed during the practical implementation of the relevant procedural rules."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0d2aaf72-ad75-40ed-9801-f7e885543da9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant argued that, whenever the court authorities transmit the summons solely to counsel, the latter will bear the burden and risk of delivery, which, in the applicant\u2019s view, would run counter to Article <mask> of the Convention. A request by counsel that the applicant be summoned in person would have been in vain, as the direct service of a writ to an accused, who was assisted by counsel, was not provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences. In any event, the applicant, having made two requests to attend the hearing, was entitled to be heard at least once. In particular, evidence could have been obtained whether or not he had received information on the prolongation of the provisional work permit of A., and, if he had got such information, what kind that was. Furthermore, the applicant had been excluded from examining witnesses."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "00506a1f-88f2-4691-889c-a8955d983a1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant observed that, at the relevant time, the Constitutional Court in several restitution cases quashed judgments which had been adopted without a public hearing pursuant to section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Invoking Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article <mask> of the Convention, the Constitutional Court found that cases involving controversial arguments could not be considered to be simple cases. Thus in decision No. II. \u00daS 269/95, the Constitutional Court expressly stated that \u201crestitution cases cannot be re-examined without a public hearing taking into account their complexity and the fact that former acts of deprivation of property rights had taken place a long time before\u201d. Similarly, on 29 November 1994 the Constitutional Court quashed a judgment of the Prague Municipal Court given without a public hearing in another restitution case (decision No. Pl. \u00daS 41/94) holding that \u201cthe simple cases mentioned in section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure are, according to the legislator, cases in which the necessary evidence has been obtained and the cases themselves are quite clear and only points of law are really at issue\u201d."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5666b5de-bae2-44f7-8da2-c417b6259686", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant submitted that prior to July 1999 in Bulgaria there had not existed any formal remedies against the unreasonable length of civil proceedings. He further submitted that the remedy created in July 1999 \u2013 the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d \u2013 was not an effective one. In particular, the applicant argued that for a remedy to be effective, it had to be able to lead to a finding that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable and to result in an award of compensation for delays which had already occurred. Measured by this yardstick, the procedures available under Bulgarian law did not constitute effective remedies for the purposes of Article 13. Prior to July 1999 the applicant could address the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Judicial Council. However, those were unregulated hierarchical appeals which could not lead to binding remedial action. As regards the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d, it did not lead to a finding that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached and could not result in compensation; therefore it was likewise not effective."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "762cbffb-106f-40d2-a18a-0b858a823917", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government further alleged that no evidence originating from X\u2019s case had been used in the proceedings against the applicants. In any event, the use of evidence from the disjoined proceedings would have been lawful under Article 154 \u00a7 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to Article 240 of the Code which requires a judgment to be based solely on evidence examined in a court hearing. They submitted that under these conditions, using evidence from the disjoined proceedings was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "29e5f79a-b57d-42c3-8d7c-bba595270f19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1ff4a1cd-c4cf-4279-b103-2b5594e0feb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, in the domestic proceedings which concluded in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 July 2002, they lacked access to a court having full jurisdiction because the domestic courts refused to review the valuation of the Properties and relied entirely on the method and calculations undertaken by the Privatisation Agency and the Ministry of Industry in determining their entitlement to shares under section 18 of the Privatisation Act. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e5f1d46b-7824-426d-8bcf-6d19c9fadfe9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s failure to object to postponements of the hearings prevented him from claiming a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy, 4 December 1995, \u00a7 32, Series A no. 337\u2011A). However, the Court considers that the circumstances of the present case are distinct from the special situation obtaining in Ciricosta. In that case the Court noted that a remedy for delays in proceedings had recently been introduced and that at the time of its judgment it was too early to verify its effectiveness (\u00a7 31). This was not so in the present case. Moreover, the total number and duration of postponements in Ciricosta were so extensive as to affect the duration of the proceedings seriously, while the Government submitted evidence of only several such postponements in the present case and these were not capable of affecting the overall length of the proceedings. The Court concludes that the applicant did not contribute in any significant manner to the length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4e101f90-b22b-403e-9e3b-b3bba08d5503", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government submitted that during the hearing of 12 October 1992 Mrs M. did not complain that she had not been given an opportunity to make submissions, nor did she lodge a request to make further submissions. Similarly, she did not challenge the judge at any stage of the proceedings and during the same proceedings she failed to raise before the relevant courts the issue under Article <mask> of the Convention that her right to an impartial tribunal was \u201clikely\u201d to be infringed. Mrs M. never requested that the Chief Justice withdraw from her case, a plea which would not have been decided by the Chief Justice alone, but by the three judges sitting in the case. According to the Government, Mrs M. could have made such a request under Article 734 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (see paragraph 28 above) which reflected the nemo iudex in causa propria rule in general. The Government made reference to various domestic decisions in which the courts had repeatedly attributed overriding importance to the fact that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done and that this had been an acknowledged legitimate ground for the withdrawal of or challenge to a judge. However, at the hearing before the Grand Chamber the Government admitted that there had been no domestic case-law proving that a challenge under Article 734 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure in such a case as the present one would have been successful."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f581429f-4bc2-43a3-8cf5-dc9980f8bd60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government also disputed the applicability of the civil limb of Article 6. They pointed out, primarily, that the Court could not create a substantive right which had no legal basis in the country concerned. Luxembourg domestic law did not recognise any \u201cright\u201d on the part of the applicant which could bring Article 6 \u00a7 1 into play. Under section 7 of the 1986 Law and Article 4 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 19 February 1989, prison leave was not a right but merely a privilege granted to prisoners. The legislature, in giving responsibility for matters relating to the execution of sentences imposed by the criminal courts to the Attorney General or his or her representative, had sought to remove the enforcement of judicial rulings from the control of the ordinary courts, whose task was confined to hearing and determining cases. Hence, the granting of prison leave would remain a matter exclusively for the Attorney General or his or her representative, ruling, in the case of persons whose sentence exceeded two years, in accordance with the majority decision of the Prison Board. Furthermore, prison leave, including the arrangements for its implementation, fell wholly within the State\u2019s powers of discretion in the sphere of justice and penal policy. Thus, a dispute (contestation) over \u201crights\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be said to exist. The Government added that prisoners, who had the benefit of the safeguards provided by the Convention throughout the criminal proceedings until their conviction by the courts, had to serve their sentence to its end, forfeiting their liberty in the process. Hence, the applicant had been subjected to generally permissible restrictions applied to prisoners convicted under ordinary criminal law, arising solely out of the custodial sentence imposed on him. In that respect, the present case differed from Enea v. Italy ([GC], no. 74912/01, ECHR 2009\u2011...), where the applicant had been placed under a more severe confinement regime entailing more substantial restrictions on his rights compared with other inmates imprisoned under the ordinary criminal law. As to whether the alleged right relied upon was a \u201ccivil\u201d right, the Government argued that any supposed right to prison leave did not by its nature have mainly or exclusively pecuniary implications. The applicant\u2019s action in the administrative courts had not had a pecuniary aim, as it had sought the setting-aside of the decisions of the Prison Board rather than the recognition of a possible right to prison leave for the applicant. The outcome of the administrative proceedings, moreover, had not been directly decisive for the granting of prison leave, as the administrative courts could not substitute their assessment for that of the Prison Board. Lastly, in so far as the applicant relied on his right to see his children and reintegrate into social and professional life, the Government submitted that, if there had indeed been any restriction in that regard, it had been brought about solely by the offence which the applicant had committed and which had led to his custodial sentence. The Prison Board had taken no measures to prevent the applicant from seeing his children or resuming work. As to his social and professional reintegration, the Government pointed out that the applicant had received vocational training throughout his detention, of which he could make use when he had completed his sentence. The Government concluded that the proceedings before the Prison Board did not fall within the scope of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4efa3b1d-4ff2-445f-a1da-686fae627613", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government contested the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the proceedings on the postponement of enforcement. According to the Court's case-law, a \u201ccivil right\u201d exists if there is a genuine and serious dispute which relates to the existence, the content or the conditions of a right and which is, at least on arguable grounds, recognised under domestic law. The outcome of the proceedings must have a direct impact on the right in question."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b25b540b-dd37-4542-b3a0-40f53fe27758", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since he had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d7001c51-6653-4a43-ae4f-4d6d0c65a6d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant organisation complained of a violation of a right to a fair hearing. In particular, the applicant organisation complained that the principle of equality of arms had not been respected as regards the extension of the limits of the counterclaim in the second set of proceedings. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "58cff3ac-f553-4d33-bf09-80877788e061", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that lack of diligence on the part of the competent Romanian authorities in assisting him in the enforcement procedure of a judgment in his favour had infringed his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and also his right to property as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Insofar as relevant, these provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "65a04ca1-cab0-4cde-a97a-249a45b0a0e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the law did not allow them to seek an increase in rent to reflect market values, thus it made them bear an excessive burden which could not be justified by any legitimate interest. Under Article <mask> of the Convention they complained that they did not have an effective remedy which could determine a rent increase, since the law provided for a cap on rent levels which had to be applied by the Rent Regulation Board."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2d377aae-943b-454e-8840-3e0db36f3f93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained that in the appeal hearing of 24 April 2003 he had not been represented by counsel. As regards the new appeal hearing of 1 October 2008, he alleged that the defence provided by State-appointed counsel had not been effective; that the video link had been of poor quality and he had been unable to hear and to follow the court session. Furthermore, he argued that the fee awarded to counsel by the appellate court had been excessive. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "725e5149-4fa8-433b-a293-75a7e47e05f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue because, at the time of the events, the Court's judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007\u2011IV), had not yet been given and under the Pellegrin test (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, \u00a7 ..., ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) Article 6 would not have been applicable to disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant such as the applicant."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5c6d78ff-2d80-4363-8861-cace12537aae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant replied, with reference to Article 131 (f) of the Constitution and the practice of the Constitutional Court, that in order to exhaust all domestic remedies, individuals had to file a complaint with the Constitutional Court if and when they alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Indeed, the applicant\u2019s claims before the Constitutional Court, namely the impartiality of the court, the breach of the principle of legal certainty and the failure to enforce a final judgment, fell within the Constitutional Court\u2019s competence as confirmed by its practice. Hence, the Constitutional Court had both the competence and an obligation to consider and decide the case, if necessary, by means of a judgment. Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s claims had been lodged in time as, irrespective of the fact that it was a de plano inadmissibility decision, the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision was dated 8 April 2002."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0414cf79-4e91-4de8-b627-60026bddb8b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 7 had not been brought before the constitutional jurisdictions, as the complaint before such courts had been raised solely under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that, while it was true that the applicant had tried to amend his application before the constitutional jurisdictions, he had done so too late, at a point when the case had been adjourned for judgment. Referring to Article 175 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, they noted that putting forward pleadings under Article 7 would have substantially affected the defence on the merits, which had been based on Article 6. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s allegation that they had opposed his request, and noted that no right of reply to the applicant\u2019s request had been granted to the respondent. Given the above, it had thus been for the applicant to lodge a fresh set of constitutional redress proceedings. Lastly, the Government noted that the Court\u2019s power to decide a complaint ex officio under a different Article from the one relied on by the applicant did not override the need to exhaust domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b71fd40b-21e2-488c-b1f6-1bfe617ecc04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The applicant contended that compulsory questioning by police officers engaged the right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the purpose of the investigation was to enable the police to determine whether the person being questioned appeared to be a \u201cterrorist\u201d. Although the definition of \u201cterrorist\u201d was extremely broad, in most cases such an inquiry would include an investigation into whether someone had personal involvement in criminal offences. Moreover, the Schedule 7 powers had the substantive characteristics of a police power to investigate criminal activity."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "41724af1-e0ab-49e6-8c1f-26e62336b6bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government further submitted that the judgment of 15 March 2004, by which the applicant had been awarded arrears in respect of food and disability allowances, and the judgment of 9 September 2004 had not been enforced because the Ministry of Finance had not allocated necessary funds to the local department of the federal treasury. The Government acknowledged that the non-enforcement of those judgments infringed the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Subsequently the Government submitted that the applicant had received monthly and annual allowances for the period up to 1 July 2006."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d28004c3-3520-463e-8def-d8e186fae8b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35. The Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s representative had submitted his appeal in person to the first instance court, and that the date stamp on the appeal showed that the appeal had been submitted on 23 March 2001. The courts had therefore rejected the appeal as having not been submitted within the time-limit, as provided under the then Act. They further stated that the Court of Appeal had made efforts to establish the truth as to the date of receipt of the appeal. Acting upon its instructions, the first-instance court had established that 23 March 2001 had been recorded in the register as date of introduction. That date had been indicated on the copy of the appeal which had been communicated to the defendants for consideration. In addition, the applicant had had the right to challenge that decision before the Court of Appeal. They therefore concluded that the State could not be held responsible for errors made by the applicant\u2019s lawyer, namely having failed to submit the appeal in good time. Finally, they stated that the applicant had been afforded the guarantees embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "56bceeef-3da2-4d51-ac62-0cb8e7e5f4b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained that the courts had refused his request for an alternative expert examination concerning the quality of the poppy-tar and that they had based their decisions on the expert reports produced by the same Ministry as had brought the criminal charges against him. He further complained that he had been incited by a police agent acting as an agent provocateur to commit the offence of which he was later convicted. He also alleged that the courts had refused to accept that he had decided to call off the sale of poppy-tar. He alleged procedural unfairness, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2b06aa77-3096-4243-9817-401018990cab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government argued that according to Article 217 \u00a7 1 of the new Civil Code, the absolute nullity of an act can be invoked by any person without any limitation in time. According to them, the absolute nullity of the sale and lease was an essential premise for the admission of the Prosecutor General\u2019s action and the upholding of those actions after the expiry of the general time-limit did not breach the principles of fairness guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government also submitted that the fourth applicant was summoned at its official address and the court was not obliged to send a summons to another address."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ab497b0d-42b4-4e70-8d60-d8f2c90e5b35", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer and the judgment award had concerned wage arrears for his military service. They further argued that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was also inapplicable because the applicant had not had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of the invoked Convention provision as he had had no right to receive \u201cpayments in the amount desirable\u201d. He neither had an \u201cexisting possession\u201d nor a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d. As to the merits of the complaint, the Government noted that the judgment of 22 February 2002 had been quashed because the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison had incorrectly interpreted and applied material law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "46ad8ae4-43ad-4ade-bd46-16b3400e7544", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the Supreme Court\u2019s refusal of 12 November 2001 to examine his cassation appeal (see paragraph 28 above). He submitted that the May 2000 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided for the possibility to leave a cassation appeal without examination, had come into force after his cassation appeal against the judgment of 9 November 2000 had been lodged with the Supreme Court. As a result, he had been unfairly deprived of his right to have access to that court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2cb836ea-603a-4a66-8030-6c30deb2225b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that the judgments of 30 June 2003, 24 March 2004 and the judgment of 8 June 2004, by which the applicant had been awarded RUB 9,494.52, had been enforced in full. They further submitted that the judgments of 1 April and 8 June 2004 had not been enforced. They acknowledged that the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cb6824bf-e93d-4e37-a08e-577ec68da92b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government argued that, in the assessment of the relationship between the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and the obligation to withhold information pertaining to ongoing police operations from the parties to court proceedings, a difference should be made between the withholding of facts not affecting nor relating to the case and the withholding of facts affecting or relating to the case. The right of everyone \u201cto examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) cannot be considered to extend to the examination of witnesses in respect of facts which do not affect or relate to the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a71bed6b-d26c-47d3-a826-cb8caa5f342c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government maintained that based on an overall assessment and in the light of the specific circumstances of the cases, the criminal charges against the applicants were determined within a reasonable time as prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They agreed that the cases were uncomplicated as concerned the facts, but found that they were to some extent complex due to problems in law as well as procure. In this respect the Government referred inter alia to the involvement of EU-law issues, notably the question whether the relevant provision of the 1989 Act should have been notified to the European Commission and the question whether the cases should have been referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Moreover, the Government found that the applicants to a very considerable extent had been a contributory cause to the length of the proceedings. Finally, the Government maintained that it could not give rise to criticism that the city courts decided to adjourn the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the \u201ctest-cases\u201d as these decisions were reasonably motivated. All in all the Government found it inappropriate that the applicants on the one hand requested adjournments of the proceedings; extensions of time-limits for submission of pleadings; were unable to appear before court hearings before certain dates; raised questions of principles, including a request for a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice; requested an expert witness; and a special counsel assigned, and on the other hand claimed that the length of the proceedings were excessive."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "579ade3b-0103-49a4-bb3f-7ae56605f45c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgment of 3 December 2003 had been given in her absence. She further alleged that the examinations of experts had been carried out in breach of the national law, that the domestic courts had refused to assist her in collecting the evidence and that the amount of compensation awarded was insufficient."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7c664bab-6813-4e2c-9eec-b9d20556c1bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant submitted that a complaint to a court about the unlawfulness of her detention would have been ineffective because the Prosecutor General's Office had a two-fold duty of making a case for holding her in custody and ensuring respect for her rights. She further complained that she had not been taken to the hearing before the Golovinskiy District Court. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with these grievances. The Court considers, however, that they fall to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention which is a lex specialis in such a situation. Article 5 \u00a7 4 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "88cd0eec-cbb8-4ce9-8083-c2520e845c2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the compensation proceedings against the law-enforcement authorities were unfair. Relying on Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants alleged that the harvest of sunflower seeds belonging to Mr V. Pozhyvotko had been unlawfully appropriated by his business colleagues."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "de360698-4580-4eb0-a1b1-c060986b707c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that his guilt had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that the presiding judge had exerted undue influence on the jury and that witness Sh. had not been questioned in court. The applicant relied on in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "057bfae7-f5f9-4ba5-9ef8-3a53e599759c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claim for pecuniary damages concerning her proprietary interests had no causal link to the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In relation to the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Government argued that a finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the instant case. Alternatively, they argued that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be determined bearing in mind the awards made in similar cases, such as Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009), U\u017eukauskas v. Lithuania (no. 16965/04, 6 July 2010) and Pocius v. Lithuania (no. 35601/04, 6 July 2010)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0e40d98d-86b0-4fb7-8a2b-d13f17ef941f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not raised the complaints of a violation of his right to be assisted by a lawyer and of the Odessa Court\u2019s non-compliance with the requirement of a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d before the Supreme Court and had therefore not exhausted domestic remedies in that respect. According to the Government, the remainder of the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention were unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7e0a81a5-cbee-4d72-8b47-a585094d04e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 20 November 1973 had not been enforced and that the Moldovan authorities were responsible for the non-enforcement of the 2003 judgment. He further complained under Article 2 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to life, in the sense of normal life, and under Article 14 that he was discriminated against since the reason for the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour was his being Russian by origin."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "78ce73bf-d68f-4264-bd0b-a756385c1982", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government contended that the complaint made under Article 6 that the constitutional jurisdictions had taken an unreasonably long time to decide the case had never been brought before the domestic courts as the applicants had failed to institute a new set of constitutional proceedings in this respect. Arguing that such a remedy would be effective, the Government made reference to domestic case-law, namely Lawrence Cuschieri v. the Honourable Prime Minister (6 April 1995), Perit Joseph Mallia v. the Honourable Prime Minister (15 March 1996), and The Honourable Judge Dr Anton Depasquale v. the Attorney General (19 September 2001), where the constitutional jurisdictions had taken cognisance of complaints against the Constitutional Court in relation to the fairness of proceedings under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the first of these cases, the Constitutional Court held that it could not a priori exclude review of questionable behaviour or actions of the constitutional jurisdictions. In the Perit Joseph Mallia case, both the first-instance court exercising its constitutional jurisdiction and the Constitutional Court on appeal had upheld the applicant\u2019s claims and had found a violation of Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "910e580a-2642-4cf0-b3df-bf000a79a4ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings initiated at his request were excessively long and that therefore there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to pursue criminal proceedings against third parties and that Article 6 does not apply to proceedings aimed at instituting criminal proceedings against third parties. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e85c5a13-368f-4a22-8dfb-b11eac2fe98a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government further maintained that the applicants\u2019 employment contracts did not provide for the jurisdiction of national courts in case of a dispute. Pursuant to the Vienna Convention the Embassy had its seat in a foreign State, which had its own legal personality. They referred to section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 46 of the Resolution of Conflict of Laws and Regulations of other States Act (see paragraphs 30 and 35 above). They maintained that granting immunity to a foreign State in civil proceedings pursued a legitimate aim of complying with international law and encouraging good diplomatic relations between States, and could not be considered as a restriction on access to a court. They concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "28c5abc9-558f-4538-aaff-e03f2f07b88b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicants\u2019 administrative cases had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that each applicant had been given a fair opportunity to state his case, to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf, to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, in particular the police officers, and to present other evidence. The applicants were given an opportunity to lodge written requests and they availed themselves of that right. The Government claimed that the hearings had been open to the public, including to journalists, who had been present in the courtroom."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1a6a1853-fc67-4dec-b854-c5d48dbf0d74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants complained in their submissions of 29 March 2005 that the Court of Cassation\u2019s decision was not reasoned. They also complained that due to the fact that they were detained three hundred kilometres away from \u0130zmir, their representative did not have the possibility to visit them regularly during the criminal proceedings with a view to preparing their defence. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d4c8019a-c1d7-4245-a35d-6c692f02004a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant raised additional complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court\u2019s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f02ff6f6-006f-4078-a65c-18b5f3b23420", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant contended that throughout the investigation and the court proceedings there were several periods of inactivity or almost no activity, in particular from March 1995 until June 1998; from May 2001 until September 2002; and from May 2005 until June 2006. Moreover, although not formally objecting to his case having been heard together with the co-defendants\u2019 cases, having regard to the overall period and what was at stake for him, the applicant maintained that the length of the proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement within Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e7e66ad9-6a91-4a85-8003-d305ab5490c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been given the opportunity to examine and comment on the extracts from the electoral rolls of 2006, 2008 and 2010 submitted as evidence by the Ministry of Justice and cited in its reasoning by the Administrative Court. Under the same Article, he complained about the authorities\u2019 refusal to change his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll, as that refusal had violated his right to an ethnic identity. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, \u00a7 124, 20 March 2018, and S\u00f6derman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, \u00a7 57, ECHR 2013), considers that this latter complaint should be analysed from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention. Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c8a85990-239f-438b-90b6-eab758be7b8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicants complained that the authorities\u2019 failure to comply with the binding and enforceable judgments of 27 December 2006, 2 August 2006 and 11 October 2006 had violated their right to a court under Article <mask> of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4835336c-6f64-43c8-9c56-0a52cf4de16c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant emphasised that the claim he had attempted to lodge against the Ministry of Finance had contained references to many procedural and substantive violations committed by the Tverskoy District and Moscow City Courts during the examination of his claim against the Savings Bank. The domestic courts may not have rejected his claim de plano for a lack of justification or insufficient evidence, as those were the issues to be determined in the judicial proceedings. The Basmanniy District Court's refusal to examine his claim had been in breach of the constitutional requirements and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a465873e-748c-4ac3-8175-6ddd54f39146", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government added that it was not reasonable to require that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the higher courts had to hold an oral hearing on the specific question of whether leave to appeal should be granted in order to comply with the requirement of fairness in Article <mask> of the Convention. This might result in an individual intentionally refraining from requesting an oral hearing at the first instance in order to request one on appeal, thereby circumventing the system of leave to appeal. As concerned the present case, they observed that the applicant had been represented by legal counsel during the entire process, including before the Social Insurance Office, for which reason it could not have been difficult for him to submit in writing his arguments and the written evidence that he wished to invoke. Consequently, the Government concluded that it had been justified for the Administrative Court of Appeal not to hold an oral hearing."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c014f722-b73c-45eb-8304-180e9faa0998", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s claim, submitting that the amount was unsubstantiated and excessive. The Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (see Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, \u00a7 117, ECHR 2015). It further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, should he so request (see Salduz, cited above, \u00a7 72). It therefore rejects the applicant\u2019s claim."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "406b546e-1b60-4043-a0d5-aefd276450b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant in case no. 3159/10 also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure of the domestic authorities to enforce the judgment of 28 February 2007 providing her with a plot of land for the construction of a house. She also complained under Article 6 of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Chi\u0219in\u0103u Court of Appeal, which had failed to summon her and on 24 June 2009 had examined the case in her absence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "124fb214-7d3c-4f31-9f5a-87d547750df2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since tax disputes did not fall within the scope of Article 6 under its civil head (they cited Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII) and since the criminal head was unconnected to the facts of the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e988e185-1cae-44bb-8da9-e2964d7f495e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the appeal lodged by the State Licensing Chamber against the judgment of the Court of Appeal was late and that its upholding by the Supreme Court of Justice breached its right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ae5787df-7c0e-41ec-a289-bd59ae1599d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicants argued that, although they had made use of that remedy, it had finally proved to be ineffective because the examination of the applicants\u2019 complaints was procedurally flawed. The Court would observe, however, that not every procedural shortcoming results in the \u201cineffectiveness\u201d of the remedy in question. Article 13 does not impose on States the same obligations as Article <mask> of the Convention. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to extending the scope of Article 6 beyond disputes concerning \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, \u00a7 33, Series A no. 18, and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, \u00a7 113, Series A no. 61, with further references)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ec857a9d-48f4-414e-874f-ddc5faf48e8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government submitted in the first place that the application should be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. In this respect, they referred to the Court's case-law (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, \u00a7 67, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) and maintained that disputes relating to the career of civil servants were outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aa6c5960-ca80-46e4-b0fb-863dd298c6ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that a hearing held in the absence of the defendant did not violate Article <mask> of the Convention if the defendant was not punished for his absence in the proceedings and if his right to legal assistance was not restricted, on account of the fact that the defendant was represented in the proceedings by legal counsel. Moreover, the presence of the defendant at an oral hearing was not necessary when the only questions addressed were those which merely required an assessment of evidence and did not relate to the personality of the defendant. According to the applicant's written submission, which was completely identical to the counsel's oral pleadings, he merely claimed that he had left the motor vehicle with a third person and that therefore the applicant's presence was not necessary. Moreover the IAP took full account of the applicant's submissions. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicant had waived his right to attend the hearing on 22 February 2005, since he had not presented any medical certificate as evidence of his sudden illness."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7065a88b-670e-4289-abb2-ba1851eb6fcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government submitted that under the Court's case-law, the guarantees contained in Article <mask> of the Convention applied less stringently to civil proceedings than to criminal proceedings and that in appellate proceedings restrictions on publicity were permissible if the circumstances of the case required. They said that \u201cspecial circumstances\u201d had existed in the present case that justified restrictions being placed on publicity in the proceedings. In any event, the applicant company had been able to present all the arguments it had considered appropriate to the Supreme Arbitration Tribunal in writing and the tribunal had addressed each of those arguments. There had been a hearing in public at first instance. The Government therefore considered that the trial had been fair within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "880a50c7-1045-49cf-abc6-fe7f79b61251", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicant further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that the criminal proceedings against him had been instituted unlawfully and that his representative, B., had not been allowed to represent him. The applicant also complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention, that his requests to call witnesses and for the ordering of forensic examinations had been rejected by the court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6bfe0792-7b7c-4cb9-84b0-e4ccc5f58554", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant complained about the delayed enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. She also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings for compensation, stating that in the absence of any specific knowledge regarding military equipment or access to any information about the details of the military operation in Chechnya, apart from that made public in the mass media, she was not in a position to obtain any evidence as to what type of weapon destroyed her property or to what unit of the federal forces it had belonged. Lastly, the applicant complained that her housing and other belongings had been destroyed during the attack of 4 January 2000 but that no compensation had been awarded to her for their loss. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which, in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "edb1a979-1cbb-4437-8ee0-e636ff5c5c6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government contended that there was no causal link between a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the loss of income which the applicant alleged he had sustained as, in view of his financial situation, he would have been declared bankrupt in any event on account of the taxes assessed by the Tax Authority. Thus, the tax surcharges had been of no relevance to the bankruptcy decision. In addition, the applicant had failed to substantiate any loss of income. The Government further stated that the Court had no power under Article 41 to oblige a State to cancel a tax debt. Moreover, they contested that there was any causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage relating to the tax debt and the alleged violations of the Convention, which did not relate to the imposition of taxes and surcharges but to the enforcement of the decisions. In any event, only a very small amount of the relevant tax debt had actually been paid; the remainder had become statute-barred on 31 December 2001."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dbedcdad-0b41-4f30-8a86-21940af6be54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a648be15-e9b1-4946-9c2a-938497f328d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted, secondly, that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings before the Supreme Court for granting a review of the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment of 19 December 2007 and that the present case involved no factual or legal issues liable to trigger a fresh examination by the Court under Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3e24c703-758e-4971-a81c-6c903c4b6d1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s claims. They asked the Court to dismiss the applicant\u2019s just satisfaction claims as not related to the alleged breach of the \u201creasonable-time requirement\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to consider that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient compensation for any damage in the present case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a1a504f7-7fac-491c-9c8f-9f50ce3e07a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that he had been unable to attend some of the civil court hearings where he was a party owing to the refusal to escort him to those hearings. He also complained of a refusal by the domestic courts to examine some of his court actions in the absence of a preliminary decision by the Complaints Committee, the latter having refused to issue him with any of its decisions concerning his complaints. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cb2f5ffe-b855-4ec0-97a3-f23718297625", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government commented that the applicant's Article 14 complaint added nothing to her complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that, if privileges are compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention alone, then they must be equally compatible with the requirements of Article 6 taken in conjunction with Article 14. They argued further that a person about whom damaging remarks have been made in Parliament is not in a relevantly similar position to a person about whom such remarks have been made outside Parliament."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ee5e4668-3d06-4205-a9c2-9bb6e964f2f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government argued that the Court could apply in the instant case the same reasoning as in the cases of Korolev v. Russia ((dec.) no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010) and Holub v. Czech Republic ((dec.) no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010) and examine the disadvantage the applicant had suffered following the alleged breach of her procedural rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had never claimed that she had suffered any financial loss as a result of the way the second\u2011instance court had been composed, and no causal link could be identified between the two elements."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0a8d07ca-1bfc-4013-a513-231fca4256b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government alleged that the applicant\u2019s right to a fair trial had not been breached. They noted that the right to take part in proceedings was not absolute. Article <mask> of the Convention did not guarantee a right to appear in person before a civil court but rather a more general right to present one\u2019s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side. States had a free choice of means to be used in guaranteeing those rights to parties in a case (see, among other authorities, Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, \u00a7 45, 12 June 2012)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5cd9416b-d805-49f1-85df-06cee8b4e973", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant maintained that his summary trial did not comply with the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention. He denied that he was offered an opportunity to choose trial by court-martial. In any event, even assuming he had chosen a summary trial, he did not accept that he could be considered to have waived his Article 6 rights. He referred to the fundamental nature of the rights at issue (including independence and impartiality), he pointed out that he had not been legally advised and he stressed the unequal nature of the relationship between a soldier and his Commanding Officer. While he accepted that it was unlikely that he would have been tried by court-martial before 1 April 1997, he maintained that the post-1996 Act system also breached of Article <mask> of the Convention. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "912d945a-66b1-429c-a15f-aac1d7062074", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing. In this connection, they claimed that the domestic courts had failed to take into account the evidence in their favour and had relied solely on the incident report. They further criticised the fact that they had been denied the opportunity to ask Captain Y. questions because he had been heard by a judge of another court pursuant to a letter rogatory."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5a73376b-3393-4bcc-9f33-e3d62465d6ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government further argued that the Constitutional Court\u2019s task was to determine issues of constitutional law, rather than those of civil rights and obligations. On that ground, they requested the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione materiae with Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as it concerned the Constitutional Court\u2019s alleged interference with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by that provision."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e46aa1f8-d2c6-4de8-8992-926f38bed1f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained that he had not been provided with an interpreter to enable him to understand the accusations against him. Furthermore, the appeal proceedings had lasted an excessively long time. Moreover, the presiding judge had not conducted the hearings in an impartial manner and that the trial court had not adequately examined his alibi. Finally, although the trial court had been unable to establish who had actually committed the murder, it had convicted both him and his co-accused and imposed the same sentence on both of them. In respect of these complaints the applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "464e96e4-6695-4f3d-a45b-2902a1ce724f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant averred that the Neryungri Town Court's judgment of 16 March 2001 had not been executed since she had not accepted the sum transferred to her on 9 March 2006. She claimed that the reopening of the enforcement proceedings in 2006 had been illegal and considered that she had therefore had no right to accept the money. She stated, furthermore, that the amount had dropped significantly in value since 2001 and that no index-linking had been offered to her. Overall, she insisted that her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8d689e80-0107-42e7-b30a-6ea8fc3b0a71", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["10.  The applicant alleged that the length of the administrative proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further maintained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the default interest paid on the compensation awarded by the \u0130stanbul Administrative Court was insufficient. The Government submitted that the case had been complex and that there had been no delay in the proceedings which could be attributed to the authorities. The Government further submitted that the amount of compensation paid to the applicant had sufficiently compensated him for the damage he had suffered."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "53cd0791-2b52-4f56-b014-3b7ae077712b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government asserted that requiring the defendant to express a positive intention to appear was not in breach of the Convention. In that connection they pointed out that, under Italian law, the participation of the defendant in the hearing was a right rather than an obligation. In the instant case, the applicant had received a notice informing him of the date of the hearing and of the existence of that right, and stating that it was for the defendant to request the prison authorities to arrange his transfer from the prison to the place of the hearing. True, the applicant alleged that the notice had not been translated into Arabic or French. However, Article <mask> of the Convention did not go so far as to require that all steps in the proceedings should be translated; if he had not fully understood the notice, the defendant could have asked to be assisted free of charge by an interpreter or asked a fellow detainee to translate it."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e5de51ca-b417-45ae-906d-07a6dd26bbdf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant companies further submitted that in its judgment no. 274 of 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court had not examined the constitutional legitimacy of the law on the basis of Article <mask> of the Convention, namely the principle of a fair trial as also laid down in the Italian Constitution, and therefore it had not examined the constitutional legitimacy of the law in the light of the applicants\u2019 arguments \u2013 the said analyses having become customary only after the 2009 judgment in Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) ([GC], no. 10249/03, 17 September 2009). Indeed, in its judgment no. 274 the Constitutional Court had made statements which were contradictory to the principles derived from Article 6, and moreover had not categorically stated that the norm was one of genuine interpretation (see paragraph 54 above). Furthermore, the relevance of the applicant companies\u2019 arguments had been evident also to the Attorney General to the Court of Cassation (Procuratore Generale della Repubblica presso la Corte di Cassazione) who had not considered the challenge under Article 6 as manifestly irrelevant or ill-founded and who had made statements such as \u201cthe claimants\u2019 reasonable expectation to see their claim granted\u201d and \u201c[the provision] influenced the judge\u2019s decision\u201d."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "699abbf1-fff0-414d-b3a6-852bbd1a38d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government admitted that, in certain circumstances, the Court had indicated that the re-examination of a case or the reopening of proceedings would constitute the most effective, if not the only, means of achieving restitutio in integrum. However, they stressed that the majority of cases in which the Court had acknowledged that a retrial or the reopening of a case would be an appropriate way of redressing the violation had concerned proceedings which gave rise to breaches of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and which had been decisive for the applicant concerned (the Government referred to Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, \u00a7 89, ECHR 2009, and Davydov v. Russia, no. 18967/07, \u00a7 27, 30 October 2014). The Government further stressed that unlike, for example, the awarding of just satisfaction, the reopening of proceedings was a measure to be used in exceptional cases, having regard to the rights of third parties and the principle of res judicata."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "28742bda-926e-4450-89a8-42a5d0301d18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained that from November 2006 onwards the authorities had failed to honour the judgment of 27 October 1999 by applying a new method of index-linking in respect of the awarded amount, and from August 2009 had discontinued the payments. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the relevant parts of which read:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d70f92c7-b00f-44ce-a61f-d534ed888f35", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants complain that the administrative proceedings in their cases fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing, including the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, independence and impartiality of the tribunal, and also that they had been prevented from calling and examining key witnesses. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e80e343f-87d2-498d-9d1d-705d6e24f458", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant made several complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. In particular, he complained that (1) the record of the hearing of 5 February 2002 had been falsified, (2) he could not question witnesses K. and B. because he had been removed from the court room on 22 March 2002, (3) the trial court had removed the public from a part of the hearing of 22 March 2002, (4) the appeal hearing of his criminal case had been held in his absence on 1 July 2002 and he could not plead his defence and confront the prosecutor. The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention provide:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "06fcf597-bdd3-4811-9511-1ee108822f88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submit in the first place that Article <mask> of the Convention does not confer the right to an appeal or an appeal in cassation. However, if such an appeal is provided for in domestic legislation, such proceedings should comply with the requirements of Article 6. In the present case, the applicant is claiming a right to lodge an appeal in cassation, which right he does not have under domestic law. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the right of access to a court is not an issue in the present case since the applicant had access to a court at two instances. What he claims in essence is the right to submit his case \u2013 on his own terms \u2013 to a third court in order to seek a ruling on issues that have already been determined at two instances."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "301544a6-3b31-4610-b35b-24fc435ab2a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the considerable loss in the market value of his apartment, caused by the inactivity of the administration to demolish the illegal part of the neighboring building."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "74d2013f-896f-4567-96c1-fc1d38389dff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government, firstly, noted that enforcement of the judgment of 21 November 2001 was still possible, as the Company had not yet been liquidated. They asked the Court to dismiss the complaint as premature under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Having extensively relied on the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government further submitted that the judgment had been issued against a private company for whose debts the State could not be held liable. They stressed that the State\u2019s responsibility did not go any further than to assist the applicants in the enforcement of the judgment, through bailiffs or by way of bankruptcy proceedings. The Government reiterated that this was not an obligation of result but of means, with the means of enforcement available to the present applicants having been adequate and effective. The State should only bear responsibility for very serious omissions committed by its officials which had negated the point of enforcing the judgment. The Government further stated that the Court should distinguish the present case from the case of Kunashko v. Russia (no. 36337/03, 17 December 2009), in which it found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the State\u2019s failure to effectively assist the applicant in recovering a judgment debt against a private legal entity. Without providing any further details, the Government observed that, in contrast to the Kunashko case (cited above), in the case under examination the bailiffs had \u201cunder[taken] active measures aimed at the organisation of an appropriate procedure for the enforcement ... of the judgment of 21 November 2001\u201d. At the same time, the Government noted that the Russian courts had already declared the bailiffs\u2019 \u201cinactivity and their failure to take every possible step\u201d to enforce the judgment in the applicants\u2019 favour unlawful. The Government\u2019s final argument was that the enforcement of the judgment was at the material time in the hands of the Company\u2019s liquidator, who was not affiliated to the State in any way."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fdcc1463-8313-48b3-a615-6366473572c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Migration Board and the Federal Administrative Court violated his right to a fair trial. The Court notes that this provision does not apply to asylum proceedings as they do not concern the determination of either civil rights or obligations or of any criminal charge (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, \u00a7 40, ECHR 2000-X). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "df102447-8c91-4e0a-8903-d230a31aac57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings in her case and that they were unfair. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention she complained that in March 2002 her advocate had refused to represent her before the Court of Appeal. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her property rights had been violated since the domestic courts had found against her. Finally, she invoked Articles 14 and 17, on the same grounds."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d4024554-94a7-4655-8964-ac5ce0239d68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment delivered in her favour on 21 September 1993, in which the authorities had been ordered to pay her salary arrears, had breached Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She also complained that she did not have an effective remedy in this respect. The relevant parts of the provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "05154379-ed18-4bfd-b3dd-a23e6158e5ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgments of the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region of 23 July 1998, 22 April 1999 and 20 January 2000, and the judgment of the Federal Commercial Court of the Far-Eastern Circuit of 18 October 2004. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c85b8b92-ed35-4df6-ae71-e429075d6c63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of a lawyer during his police custody. Finally, he claimed that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ac65fede-9a5a-43b7-84aa-55ea1ce3fe6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgments of 18 December 1997 and 12 February 1999 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 13 December 2000. She asserted that she had not been informed about the supervisory review proceedings, or present at the subsequent hearings of 4 April 2001, after the remittal of the cases for new consideration. She submitted that she had known about the quashing only after the present case had been communicated to the Government. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (cited above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c190b359-5bad-4c30-ad4d-266c1aed4b09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government claimed that the applicant had not exhausted relevant domestic remedies. First, he had never raised before the domestic courts allegations regarding the unfairness of the proceedings as presented in his subsequent application to the Court. In particular, the applicant had not questioned the alleged restrictions on his access to the case file and on taking notes from it. Nor had he complained that he could not present his arguments in accordance with the principles of adversarial hearing and equality of arms. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was directly applicable under Polish law and the applicant could have relied on this provision before the domestic courts. However, in his appeals he had not put forward arguments related to the question of access to the case file."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4dabc7df-ee86-49c4-b836-1bfedd4eefd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["244.  The applicant argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that, as a result of the absence of an impartial and effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband's death, she had been denied effective access to the courts to determine her civil right to compensation for his murder allegedly committed by agents of the State. Furthermore, the political context in the area controlled by the \u201cTRNC\u201d regime and the special circumstances of the applicant's case made it all more unlikely that she would receive independent and impartial justice."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a88c769c-c6cf-4331-9300-f1503d4266a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government maintained that the additional compensation had been fully paid on 4 November 2002 and 22 May 2007 whereas the applicant had omitted to mention the second payment in his complaints. In addition the applicant had not suffered any material loss as a result of the interest rates applied and the authorities\u2019 delay in settling the relevant amount. Taking into account the Court\u2019s above-mentioned Akku\u015f judgment, the State had fulfilled its obligation to respect the applicant\u2019s right to the protection of his property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nor had there been any violation of Article <mask> of the Convention or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c6861646-3592-47bb-a032-1e05c4c015eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government disagreed with these statements and submitted that the possibility to set aside an appeal prohibition, if the decision concerned a person\u2019s civil rights or obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, was firmly established in the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court at the relevant time. The Government further argued that the case-law cited by it, and its later codification, was adopted specifically for cases where an appeal prohibition might otherwise violate Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and also in order to ensure compliance with the Convention regardless of whether the Court\u2019s interpretation of the term \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d had evolved since the legislation at issue was adopted."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b2214462-90ac-468d-bdbe-65a71b8028c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained about the unfairness of the lustration proceedings, the infringement of his right of defence and the lack of equality of arms. In particular, he alleged that the material in his case had been classified as confidential, which had limited his right of access to it. Before the institution of the proceedings he had had no access to the case file prepared by the Commissioner. After the lustration proceedings had been instituted by the Warsaw Court of Appeal the applicant could consult the documents only in the secret registry of the lustration court. The limitations on access were not applicable to the Commissioner of the Public Interest. Thus, the applicant was placed at a significant disadvantage vis\u2011\u00e0\u2011vis the Commissioner who had unlimited access to the file in his secret registry. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "561a5e00-330a-45e8-a991-e4f33d5c0e87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government maintained that the impugned proceedings were both factually and legally complex, requiring a number of witnesses and expert witnesses to be heard. In particular, five expert opinions had been given during the period of the Court\u2019s competence ratione temporis, all of them upon the applicant\u2019s proposal. Secondly, the applicant himself had been mainly responsible for the length of the proceedings. In particular, he had amended and further particularised his claim on a number of occasions, two of which after the Convention had entered into force in respect of Montenegro; several hearings scheduled between 1983 and 2002 had been adjourned because of him; and the impugned proceedings had been stayed between 23 September 1985 and 6 January 1986 due to his absence (see paragraphs 9, and 16-17 above). Thirdly, Y and Z had passed away in the meantime (see paragraph 20 above), which required that their legal successors be identified, which added to the overall length of the proceedings. Lastly, the impugned proceedings were of no vital importance to the applicant and, as such, did not require priority or any urgent action on the part of the courts. The courts issued seven decisions in total, two of which were rendered at two instances after the ratification of the Convention. It could not therefore be said that they were not active. The Government concluded that there was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d18abbe9-b995-4cb6-8003-0578c0a99b4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government maintained that the facts in dispute had no bearing on the applicant's civil rights; they concerned criminal proceedings against him. As those proceedings had been stayed, there could be no question of any violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial. That being so, at this stage in the domestic proceedings the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply. In so far as the criminal proceedings in question would resume their course at the end of the applicant's term of office, and he had not yet been convicted of any offence, the Government contended that the facts complained of did not constitute a restriction of the applicant's rights under Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bdb20c18-3402-4713-b111-a58b4161d890", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his right not to incriminate himself had been violated. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) that he had been denied access to a lawyer during the first two days after his arrest and that his lawyers had not defended his rights properly. Lastly, he complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) that he had not had the possibility to get summoned and question all the important defence witnesses. The relevant provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bf67962b-d626-45a3-9a53-520f358a902e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government submitted that the right of access to a court was not absolute and the requirement to pay fees in connection with civil claims could not be regarded as incompatible per se with Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that the fee required from the applicant in the present case had not been excessive and had taken into consideration his difficult financial situation of which the domestic authorities had been aware."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3c3b05a1-7c7f-4c83-b850-3d6f13cad7fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the trial court had not been independent and impartial. They further complained about the failure of the domestic courts to suspend the pronouncement of their conviction and to provide reasoning for their decisions. The applicants also complained of a breach of Article 6 on account of the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them and the alleged non-communication to them of the opinion of the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e2461c37-c27f-4a8d-b611-ea7142314128", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had assessed the evidence in an arbitrary manner and had failed to resolve contradictions in the testimonies. She also complained under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention that she had been refused access to her criminal case file after the conviction had become final."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7ab2d52f-b22c-4dfc-862a-e40ba07f5f66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she suffered an inequality of arms during the civil proceedings because the courts, without sufficient reasoning, dismissed her request that they order a forensic assessment of a piece of evidence; that the decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court to dismiss her application to reopen the civil proceedings was not subject to appeal; that she was deprived of access to a court because she sustained considerable financial losses as a result of the obligation to pay the defendant\u2019s legal costs; and that the investigation of her complaint regarding the alleged falsification of her medical records was excessively lengthy. She further complained under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of the protection of her personal data."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "844302f6-6a36-47fc-8ab1-1243c10b2853", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained under Articles 6, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the fact that the written opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had never been served on him and of the decision to discontinue the proceedings, as he had thereby been deprived of a trial at which he could have been acquitted. The Court considers it appropriate to examine these complaints from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention alone."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8fa52b6d-d04c-4c91-a915-383bc265132e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government contested the applicants' assertions. They argued that for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention the criminal proceedings commenced only when the applicants were charged on 5 and 12 February 2002. Thus, the Government considered that they had lasted for a little less than two years. Accordingly, they considered that the applicants' complaints should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c7df21b4-2a8c-414c-b932-1c63d05597fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court had actually re-examined his case, despite not being empowered to do so under the extraordinary review procedure envisaged by Article 400 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stressed repeatedly that the sufficiency of the evidence could not be assessed independently and required a full re-assessment of the new body of evidence from the standpoint of its relevance, admissibility, credibility and sufficiency. He claimed that in its assessment of the evidence within the extraordinary procedure the Supreme Court had gone beyond its jurisdiction defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore could not be considered a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5d240031-46fd-4999-bb5e-a8915839f97d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. He submitted that the courts did not properly assess the evidence before them and that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court did not correct the wrong decisions by the First Instance Court. He also submitted that all judges, in particular Judge S., had been biased against him. This was evident from this judge\u2019s initiative to have guardianship proceedings instituted against him. Moreover Judge S. should have instructed him, especially at the beginning of the proceedings, how to conduct them effectively. Further, at the time of the hearing on 7 July 1999, he had been in detention on remand and could not effectively prepare for that hearing. Lastly the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that, while in detention on remand, he had been escorted to the court hearing on 7 July 1999 in handcuffs, which constituted inhuman and degrading treatment."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f8de1f64-2cf4-41d3-bfbe-1414201c126a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention of various irregularities in the proceedings concerning his requests to have criminal proceedings instituted against the witness who had given allegedly false oral evidence incriminating him. He also alleged that in its letter of 18 January 2008 the Shchelkovo Town Court had denied him access to a court. The applicant also relied on Article 13, alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "55db0090-515d-44f4-9bc1-bb77353168d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government first argued that the Supreme Administrative Court satisfied all the requirements of a \u201ctribunal\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They asserted that in the case under consideration the scope of judicial review, limited under the applicable domestic legislation to ensuring that the administrative authority had not acted illegally, unreasonably and unfairly, was sufficient for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention. The Supreme Administrative Court was competent to examine whether there had been a breach of substantive law in the proceedings giving rise to the contested decisions and was required, in doing so, to review the merits of the applicant\u2019s case as well. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b9bb538d-b432-4176-9fce-df0c39ae0745", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government agreed that the offence of which the applicant was accused qualified as \u201ccriminal\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they disputed the applicant's contention that she had not been summonsed to attend the hearing of her appeal and sent the Court a letter dated 21 May 2005 from the President of the Str\u0103\u015feni District Court to the Government Agent, in which it was stated that the applicant had been summonsed to attend the hearing of 16 January 2002 by means of a registered letter which, unfortunately, had been destroyed by the court after two years."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c90d4353-45aa-452c-98cc-7cdd23cec8a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court, which tried him. He further alleged under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he had been deprived of his right to legal assistance while in custody and that the judgment of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court was based on his statements obtained as a result of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d5c90525-1400-43b1-88e8-3a35577a4d94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly applied substantive law. She finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts had refused to index-link the amount of compensation for the delayed payment of her salary. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as those complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "05672210-9364-4b9e-a1cc-4080a30219a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that the domestic courts had violated his right not to incriminate himself and had had regard to his confession given under duress, that the trial court had not provided him with an opportunity to confront a number of witnesses, that the counsel representing him during the investigation stage had been assigned to him against his will; that he had not had sufficient time to study the criminal case file; and that the trial court had been partial. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b54cfddf-aaa5-4510-833e-433157311563", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant considered that the proceedings in which the Criminal Court had been asked to convert the fine into a term of imprisonment fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged furthermore that a violation of the latter provision taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, \u201cnecessarily [arose] as a consequence of the complaint raised under Articles 14 and 4 \u00a7 3 (d)\u201d. In that respect, the applicant submitted that there was a strong link between jury service and the proceedings that had been brought against him. The compilation of the lists of jurors, the summons served on the applicant, the fine imposed on him and the proceedings for its conversion were events that were mutually dependent and entirely interrelated."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3c0ce1e0-1a5d-4a05-a1c9-f0cd8e4c1036", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government, relying on the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII), argued that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention were incompatible ratione materiae because the applicants were former police officers and the awards made by the courts had concerned social payments related to their service in the police force."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4f1ba70b-b97c-495d-a52c-4ba440b8c2af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention of the length of their detention in police custody. Under Article <mask> of the Convention they further maintained that the first-instance court had been unduly influenced by prejudicial reports prepared by the police and that the indictment contained statements establishing their criminal guilt in breach of the right to be presumed innocent. In that connection, the applicants further complained that, subsequent to their arrest, the police had organised a press conference where they were presented to journalists as criminals. In addition, the applicants complained of the refusal of the domestic court to hear evidence from their witnesses or to allow an on-site inspection. They criticised the manner in which the procedure for rectification of judgments was set out under domestic law. Finally, they alleged that they had been convicted on the basis of statements given under torture and duress."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9c2f0c13-0b69-427c-83f8-1baa58e0a699", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic judicial authorities had not assessed the facts of his case thoroughly and they had only taken into account the arguments of the administrative authorities. The applicant further contended that his purportedly unfair dismissal had amounted to a \u201cheavier penalty\u201d within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that his rights to respect for private and family life and to freedom of expression had been violated on account of his unfair dismissal."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4de13520-345b-46c6-bf93-2bb2abd1593c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant maintained that his acquittal should not prevent the application from being examined. The acquittal had no bearing on the fact that the Italian procedure in such matters, as applied in the initial set of proceedings in his case, was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the damage he had sustained on that account had been irreversible. In that connection, he observed that the compensation to which he was entitled under Italian law did not cover the damage resulting from the violation of Article 6 of the Convention. However, after reserving the right to submit further particulars and specific claims for just satisfaction in the event of the Court's finding a violation, the applicant did not quantify his claims under Article 41 of the Convention and left the matter to the Court's discretion."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b2e4e071-614a-4efd-aa49-f2e61640b97a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had been unfair. She claimed, in particular, that, whereas the Moscow Housing Department had explicitly acknowledged that she had bought the flat in good faith (see paragraph 28 above), the domestic court had reached a conclusion to the contrary. Furthermore, the court had relied on an \u201cinformational ban\u201d in respect of the flat, whereas such legal notion did not exist in the domestic law. Lastly, the District Court had not followed the instructions given by the Moscow City Court on 14 June 2011. In so far as relevant, Article 6 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "23472c53-3822-4c70-a7f4-a965d599b767", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property and had not received adequate compensation for the violation of this provision upheld by the Constitutional Court. They alleged a violation of their right under Article <mask> of the Convention arguing that they did not have access to a court to challenge the measure depriving them of, or interfering with, their property."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "07b4f89e-d5a2-4380-89b9-23e5f6c64701", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s exceptional appeal. They argued that the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 14 March 2008, rejecting her first appeal, had been an interim one and had not determined her civil rights or obligations. It was the Supreme Court\u2019s later decision of 5 June 2008 rejecting her second appeal that had \u201cdefined\u201d her civil rights and obligations. However, as the applicant did not complain that the June 2008 proceedings were flawed, Article 6 was not applicable."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f01eb9c6-1850-4805-a646-bb3af38e0b43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the principal of the school classified him in the wrong pay grade. He also complained that by upholding the principal\u2019s decision the domestic courts were biased and the proceedings unfair. He further complained that as a consequence his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been breached since his pension will be lower."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "503fc88b-7345-496a-922c-97073fe9aa4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that no oral hearing was held before a \u201ctribunal\u201d and that the Administrative Court had wrongly applied its own case-law. The applicant further complained under Articles 13 and 14 that neither the Constitutional Court nor the Administrative Court had effectively dealt with his complaints, which was common for complaints filed by social welfare recipients. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the refusal to grant him rent allowance."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "969ac651-ba7d-45c1-a36a-23f836b365c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant company submitted that the quashing of the judgment of 19 June 2002 had violated its right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Interpretation Act had not been able to have retroactive effect and the use of it by the Supreme Court of Justice for the purpose of review of the final judgment of 19 June 2002 had been contrary to section 45 of the Legislation Act. The review procedure had in fact been an appeal in disguise."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "af018c0d-afa5-483d-ab44-5151c42b3c57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention that their conviction following the publication of a newspaper article had not been fair and had amounted to unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that this complaint does not raise a separate issue under Article <mask> of the Convention and falls to be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c2512f2a-1f34-4731-802a-d026d8694f55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicant claimed 150,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which he argued to have suffered because his conviction in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention had resulted in the loss of his apartment due to the fact that he had not been able to pay the bank loan, and because he also had had to pay maintenance for his children. The applicant also claimed EUR 700,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage because he had to live without his spectacles and because of his wrongful trial and the fact that his conviction had caused him great despair and had ruined his life."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8d4544c0-8937-432d-91bc-13244a75d9aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted firstly that this complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant association had failed to demonstrate the \u201ceconomic nature\u201d of the dispute which it had brought before the Conseil d\u2019Etat, with the result that the dispute could not be classified as \u201ccivil\u201d for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant association had not alleged that it had suffered any economic damage in support of its application for judicial review. Its interest in bringing an action before the Conseil d\u2019Etat had been justified only on the basis of defending its stated aim. The applicant association did not describe itself as an association of local people defending the rights and interests of its members. Having regard to its stated aim, it was in fact an environmental-protection association whose task, in a specific geographical context, was to defend the \u201cgeneral\u201d interest against any threat that could harm the environment."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b6a68465-b6b7-4a0c-b3d5-bd3bf5045de7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that different conclusions reached by different courts were not compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that the inability of the children to see each other, and that ordering the first applicant to pay maintenance to his ex-wife in respect of his daughter because he was a male, was discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention and infringed their rights under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b3d23df1-5965-4c5a-a8ed-415c7ccdfb3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention concerned the execution of the judgment delivered by the Court in the case of Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1) (nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, ECHR 2001\u2011VIII). They submitted, with reference to the case-law of the Court, that the Court\u2019s finding of a violation was essentially declaratory. With particular reference to the decision in Leyla Zana and Others v. Turkey ([dec.]), no 2932/04, 29 September 2008), they added that even if Article <mask> of the Convention were applicable to the instant case, the reopening of the proceedings should be considered as part of an ongoing judicial process under domestic law originating in a lack of fairness in the proceedings which had led to the applicants\u2019 initial conviction."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1414fbb5-6a54-45d6-8bf6-3081e0522068", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicant submitted that his inability to question some of the witnesses was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, the evidence given by witnesses R. and B. was clearly inadmissible as it was unclear which authority, when and on what grounds had ordered to interrogate these witnesses. Furthermore, their oral evidence was neither properly legalised nor translated by competent translators. As regards P., A. and M., according to the applicant, at the pre-trial stage of proceedings these witnesses gave evidence against him, whilst at the trial they retracted their previous statements and witnessed in his favour. The applicant submitted that, in breach of Article 6, the court had preferred the former evidence and had failed to take account of the latter. Finally, the applicant submitted that the court ought to have rejected that evidence as inadmissible."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "64329382-bb68-48bf-93f4-56010eb44ac8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant also claimed that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that under Moldovan law it was impossible for him to adduce evidence in support of his claim to have his ethnic origin changed from Moldovan to Romanian. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "898b8a04-3d42-4aa8-b955-8f8834e0a6b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the voice identification was ordered and carried out in breach of the relevant procedural rules. They also complained that the trial court refused to hear a further witness and to examine further material evidence. The applicants maintained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court to examine their appeals in cassation against their convictions had not respected the principle of equality of arms. The second applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e763da01-a115-47c4-b269-4919b70eb81b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government, relying on the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII), argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible ratione materiae. The applicant had been a military officer and the dispute concerned an allowance paid to him in connection with the obligations he performed in the sphere of State defence. The disputes raised by servants of the State such as military officers over their conditions of service could not be regarded as \u201ccivil\u201d and were excluded from the ambit of Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "74c727af-d079-4909-ac48-5b4d76ed86c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and submitted that in the circumstances of the case she had been deprived of access to court. There had been over the years successive changes in the case-law of the civil and administrative courts as to which authorities, judicial or administrative, were competent to examine restitution cases. Ultimately, in 2010, the Constitutional Court had held that such cases should be decided by civil courts. Prior to that judgment her civil case had already been determined by the civil court on the basis that a civil court lacked jurisdiction until a substantive administrative decision on the merits of her restitution claim had been given. After the judgment of the Constitutional Court the administrative authorities discontinued the proceedings, thereby closing for her the possibility of access to the administrative court. Nor could she bring her case before a civil court, because the case had become res iudicata."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d2dd2ca1-68e5-42b3-bd22-303cb1eda4da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government claimed that the court of appeal had had to comply with the requirements of Article 376 of the CCrP before starting the examination of the case. They appear to have been referring to the duty of the court to give the parties two weeks\u2019 advance notice of the upcoming appeal hearing. However, the fact that the courts had to comply with some domestic formalities does not absolve the State from its obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, the Court observes that the domestic law applied the same two-week notice period to the appeal proceedings on the merits and the appeal proceedings concerning detention. The Court reiterates that detention proceedings should be conducted speedily, sometimes at the expense of certain other procedural guarantees (see the Court\u2019s finding in Jablonski, cited above, \u00a7 93, where it held that there was special need for a swift decision determining the lawfulness of detention in cases where a trial is pending). This is why detention proceedings should only comply with the most basic, \u201cminimal\u201d guarantees of fairness (if compared with the more rigorous standard of fairness established under Article <mask> of the Convention \u2013 see Lebedev, cited above, \u00a7 76). The Court does not need to take a stand as to whether the two-week notice period for the preparation of an appeal in detention proceedings is sufficient or excessive per se. The Court simply finds that in the circumstances of the case, which was, by all appearances, quite simple, the application of this rule unnecessarily protracted the detention proceedings. The Court does not see why that period could not have been shorter. Lastly, the delays involved in the examination of the appeal in the present case were longer than two weeks, and the Government has not provided any explanation for the remaining time. The Court concludes that the appeals against the detention orders of 2, 9 and 21 July were not examined speedily. There has therefore been a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 on that account."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d216d5ff-3b1a-4d70-b124-12773abed05f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government stated that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case were administrative and that the domestic law made a clear distinction between a criminal and an administrative offence. They submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case, as the proceedings against the applicant did not relate to the determination of a \u201ccriminal charge\u201d against her."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1341774a-416c-4488-82ac-f836fccbe6b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government argued that the recent case-law of the Court suggested that the severity of a penalty was the decisive element in determining whether related proceedings fell under the criminal limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant, who was running a business, had not incurred any particular disadvantage from having to pay a fine of RUB 20,000. Furthermore, the proceedings had not concerned any \u201ccivil right\u201d or \u201ccivil obligation\u201d relating to the applicant."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a529f670-e74b-4976-b282-c0a43de39211", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government built their argument along two lines. They firstly submitted that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had petitioned the appeal court for their personal attendance at the appeal hearing. Relying on Article 376 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the Government stressed that in the absence of such a request the Supreme Court had correctly held the appeal hearing in the applicant\u2019s and his counsel\u2019s absence. The Government reminded the Court that Article <mask> of the Convention did not imperatively require the personal attendance of a defendant at appeal hearings. They further argued that the Russian courts could not be held responsible for counsel\u2019s failure to attend. The applicant\u2019s counsel had been retained by him and it was in the applicant\u2019s best interests to ensure that his lawyer took his responsibilities seriously."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e618a1f9-1842-4ee7-a3d3-29c55cd19b7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that State-appointed counsel, P., who had represented him before the trial and appeal courts, had failed to carry out her duties properly. In particular, she had not appealed against the verdict of 1 March 2005 and had not attended the appeal hearing of 25 April 2005. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "404211fa-5b85-4ff6-82b1-3353ecf2dc83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government noted that there had been no causal link between the pecuniary damage accrued and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. No compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded under this heading. In the event of a violation being found under Article 10, the Government pointed out that the applicant had not provided any proof of the pecuniary damage claimed nor any receipt or other clarification of the payment of the amounts claimed. Should the Court find that an award is to be granted under this heading, it should not exceed EUR 33,390.84, that is, the total amount of legal expenses ordered by the domestic courts to be paid by the applicant as legal expenses of the opposing party. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that a part of the applicant's claims should be rejected as unfounded as they related to non-communicated complaints. In any event, the applicant's claims were excessive as to quantum and any award should not exceed EUR 5,000."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d9457c8c-a870-48a6-a765-a776d59f7798", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, together with Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the forced redemption of her 1982 USSR bonds in 1992. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these facts do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5f56e11d-eccd-4349-9c6c-28695a068420", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government, however, maintained that a judge\u2019s status and right to stay in office were unique and could not possibly be equated with \u201cordinary labour disputes\u201d, as pointed out by the Court in the above-mentioned judgment (cited above, \u00a7 62). Moreover, it could be argued that the right of access to a court under Article 21 of the Constitution could have a wider scope than that of Article <mask> of the Convention, as had been found by the Supreme Administrative Court in its recent judgment in case KHO:2008:25. Accordingly, Article 6 might not have automatically applied to all situations covered by Article 21 of the Constitution."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8e1dc36a-28b1-4590-9efb-380cff06d8ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government argued that, in so far as the applicant could be said to be wishing to challenge the enforcement proceedings under Article <mask> of the Convention, his complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the requirements of the Convention and its Protocols. Moreover, as regards all of these remaining complaints, they raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies: a properly formulated constitutional complaint."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e58a4bf3-757e-4a3a-8059-71cc2f291294", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant alleged that not a single witness called on behalf of the defence was heard in the proceedings before the National Judicial Council. The Court reiterates that while Article <mask> of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, \u00a7\u00a7 45-46, Series A no. 140, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, \u00a7 28). Similarly, it is in the first place for the national authorities, and notably the courts, to interpret domestic law and the Court will not substitute its own interpretation for theirs in the absence of arbitrariness. This principle applies, inter alia, to the application of procedural rules concerning the nomination of witnesses by parties (see Tamminen v. Finland, no. 40847/98, \u00a7 38, 15 June 2004). In this connection, the Court further reiterates that it is not within its province to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the national courts. However, under the Court\u2019s case-law, the requirements of fairness of the proceedings include the way in which the evidence is taken and submitted. The Court\u2019s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken and submitted, were fair within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see, inter alia, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, \u00a7  31, Series A no. 274)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "93a339bc-41ef-420e-a0ef-538f64a52c86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that they had been tried and convicted by the Ankara State Security Court which was not an independent and impartial court within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention because of the presence of a military judge on the bench. They further complained that they had been deprived of their right to legal assistance while in the custody of the police. Finally, the applicants complained that the Ankara State Security Court had not taken into account their ages and had not, therefore, applied the procedures pertaining to the trial of juveniles. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cab6a754-95dd-4a6a-bea5-30cb7ed12bad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government contended that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they did not complain about the alleged unreasonable length of the proceedings before the national courts. The applicants\u2019 argument before the domestic courts had been that the Crown Court had lost its jurisdiction to impose confiscation orders by failing to comply with the statutory requirements of the CJA 1988, and not that there had been a breach of the reasonable time requirement under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "afce8580-0162-41a5-ad3f-a85bef9e6b0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicant contended that he had not had a fair trial in the proceedings before the supervisory-review court. The applicant stated that he had been deprived of an opportunity to appear in person and to submit arguments. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the prosecution had participated in the hearing, the applicant considered that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9cb0352f-a09a-450b-b452-c6037029b904", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been convicted on the basis of statements extracted from her under duress and alleged that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried her. The applicant also complained about the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts and the lack of a hearing before the Court of Cassation."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3d8ceb28-878d-43fa-b5f9-2f7d56ffa792", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The applicant also claimed that she had been denied a fair trial in that the expert appointed by the Court of Appeal had proved to be incompetent and in that the Court of Appeal had wrongly assessed his opinion. With respect to this, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article <mask> of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, amongst others, Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, \u00a7\u00a7 45-46, and Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999-I)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "af7e036e-2b40-4eba-b4c9-bd2e9bad99e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the respondent State, by expropriating the plot for the company\u2019s benefit, deprived them of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, \u00a7 127, 26 November 2009), considers that this complaint should be analysed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e03538a6-3beb-480a-99aa-fb59d35edca7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant argued that, in the absence of express exclusion of access to a court for legal disputes of civil servants, the issue was not excluded from the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, she submitted that a labour dispute related to the dismissal of a civil servant inevitably carried pecuniary consequences that obviously fell into the category of \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e777de16-5b24-4057-bde8-002250da4ae1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant contended that Article <mask> of the Convention had been engaged as from 15 January 2010 when the PRC had first met. At that point he had de jure become a suspect in an investigation which could result in a proposal from the PRC to Parliament to indict him. Alternatively, he maintained that Article 6 had become applicable on 18 May 2010 when the PRC had requested his written comments on the report of the SIC or on 28 September 2010 when Parliament had decided to commence proceedings against him. In any event, the applicant submitted that the proceedings should be viewed as a whole when assessing their fairness."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "537f0700-a367-439c-a03a-930266baccbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government argued that for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention the criminal proceedings commenced only on 25 February 2003 when the applicant was charged for the first time and that the signing of the declaration for the applicant\u2019s income and possessions was not sufficient to consider that criminal proceedings had been opened against him. Thus, they contended that the proceedings had lasted for about two years and were therefore not excessive. Accordingly, they considered that the applicant\u2019s complaints should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "741f91fe-30c3-4cb9-ae81-42d82432855c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been deprived of the right to a fair trial in the criminal and civil proceedings, stating that the domestic courts had erred in their assessment of the evidence and had refused to examine further evidence in his favour. He also complained that the courts, as well as the public prosecutor, were biased. In his observations of 19 July 2007, the applicant also complained that the courts in the criminal proceedings did not respect the presumption of innocence and failed to exclude at the pre-trial stage the statements given to the police."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bff6a2e8-90fa-4edd-8ae8-eee808f2aa9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government further stated, with reference to Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by a Decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 February 2000, that the summoning of parties to a supervisory\u00adreview hearing remained at the discretion of the relevant court, provided the review procedure was not triggered by an application that would be to the applicant's detriment. The Government noted that the application for supervisory review, like the prosecutor's pleadings at the hearing, was not to the applicant's detriment. Given that the supervisory\u00adreview procedure had benefited the applicant by entailing a shorter term of imprisonment as a result of a new legal classification of his acts, the Government were of the view that the Supreme Court's failure to secure the attendance of the applicant and his counsel had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "56687ce3-0415-4fcf-8a88-2b88878e5047", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his trial. He referred to his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearing, the intensive schedule of hearings, and alleged that he had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. He further submitted that he had not been able effectively to defend himself owing to a lack of possibilities to consult his legal counsel in confidence during the trial. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "41fcdc17-e91b-48a7-954e-08533d242250", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings at issue and the discontinuation of criminal proceedings instituted against the defendant doctor. Relying on Articles 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention she also complained that the Regional Court had not considered facts submitted by her and had forwarded false data to the court appointed expert."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "833c92ea-5c09-4569-bffe-a7275f6d409e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article 14 taken either in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. She maintained that the reasoning underlying section 53(3)(a) of the General Social Security Act, namely that claims against employers enjoying extraterritorial status could not be enforced, was no longer justified under public international law. The ensuing distinction between employees of extraterritorial employers and other employees was therefore not justified."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6a3f8c41-c962-4f73-8332-3c6e4a5d81c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a number of procedural irregularities. In particular, he complained about the failure to conduct an expert medical examination on him during the preliminary investigation so as to determine whether he could have committed the offence, taking into account his injury. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b), he alleged that he had not been provided with the opportunity to study the case file. Invoking Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c), he complained that he had been de facto refused legal assistance because the investigator had sent his request to the law firm of his choosing too late, which rendered the presence of his lawyer impossible. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d), the applicant also complained about the court's failure to examine the key witness Ms Y. at the hearing."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "eeb3ffa8-07f8-4add-9bc8-666eaaebb708", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants complained under Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention about the refusal of the domestic courts to recognise the applicant association as a religious entity in both the recognition and registration proceedings. They also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as no oral hearing had been held in either set of proceedings. Articles 6, 9, 11 and 14, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "163e0a5e-66e6-4c45-a9ef-6755d0d0e66c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that the refusal to take evidence in the proceedings was in compliance with both the relevant requirements laid down by Polish law and with the requirements of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's submission, and as regards the evidence of witnesses, the courts refused to call the witnesses proposed by the applicant on the ground that their testimony would not have been relevant for the determination of the case. The courts considered that in the absence of any documentary evidence these witnesses would not have been able to contribute reliably to establishing whether S.N. had been an informant of the secret police. They would only have been able to testify as to whether S.N.'s name had indeed been originally included in the list and later deleted. Under Polish law pertaining to the taking and assessment of evidence, the courts were clearly been empowered to take such a decision. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8392bf1b-44cd-40f3-ae14-ed6bc3f4630d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government observed that the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in cases where a defendant's failure to appear at the trial had been governed by the former Code of Criminal Procedure (they cited Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; T. v. Italy, 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C; and F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B). The new procedural rules introduced subsequently and the special circumstances of Mr Sejdovic's case, they argued, set it apart from those cases, in which there had been cause to doubt that the applicants had deliberately sought to evade justice, or that they had had the opportunity of taking part in the trial, or grounds to believe that the authorities had been negligent in ascertaining the accused's whereabouts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "edadf7dc-0578-4c10-8ba5-75b0ec73da29", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government contested the allegation that the proceedings in this administrative case had been conducted in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity to state his case, to obtain the attendance of thirteen witnesses on his behalf, to cross-examine the police officers whose statements formed the basis of the charges and to present other evidence. The applicant was given an opportunity to lodge written requests and he availed himself of that right. They also pointed out that the hearing had been open to the public and that the hearing room had been full to its capacity of about twenty to twenty-five people."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b6f94d0b-9c17-47cf-b406-3322e9b06fc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. They referred to the absence of legal counsel during their initial interrogations; the trial court's reliance on the second applicant's confession allegedly made under duress at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings and without legal advice, in connection with the murder charges. The applicants also referred to the impossibility of obtaining the attendance and examination of witness S. in relation to the arson-related charges."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1ea75ecd-5061-475d-904e-c5723a44c80f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings at issue were unfair in that he had not been summoned to the hearing before the District Administrative Authority and could, therefore, not sufficiently prepare his case. Furthermore the Administrative Authority did not record all his comments in a transcript. He also complained that all three instances failed to deal with the merits of his submissions. Under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 the applicant complained that the granting of the permit to the municipality affected the drainage system on his real estates."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "06a1b350-f842-4c85-a730-724a24b6da39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted that the proceedings at issue did not determine any criminal charge against the applicant within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing issues relating to the execution of sentences. No new charge was brought against the applicant and the proceedings did not affect the substance of the charge that had been previously determined by the Kochubeyevskiy People's Court. The Knyazhpogostskiy District Court founded its ruling on the factual circumstances that had been established by the Kochubeyevskiy People's Court and did not question the legal characterisation attributed to those facts. The sole purpose of the proceedings was to bring the applicant's sentence into conformity with the new Criminal Code."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "78410f6a-67ce-44c8-bfec-9b198fc5d92d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant argued that his right to fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated on account of his inability to examine the prosecution witness, Ms K., and the use of her pre-trial testimony for his conviction. In his opinion, her testimony should not have been read out and used in view of her troubled mental state. The District Court had adjourned the hearings multiple times due to the failure of the witness to appear and had issued a subpoena. However, the authorities had had no valid reasons for reading out her statements, since nothing in her medical records had indicated that she had been unable to attend the hearings or that the trial could not have been postponed until her discharge from the clinic. The applicant also stressed that similar medical treatment had not prevented Ms K. from being questioned by the police during the pre-trial investigation. He further pointed out that his conviction was based exclusively on her statements as the only direct evidence, except for the conflicting statements of the two co-accused."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "585a4f18-3c2d-4fd3-866f-e0b877786662", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["5.  The applicant complains, inter alia, about a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 58 of the judgment suggests that the main reason for finding a violation is a lack of clear rules concerning the enforcement of final judgments delivered by the administrative courts. I note in this respect that the enforcement of judgments is more of an issue under Article 6 (provided that this provision is applicable in a particular case) than under Article 10. There is no doubt that final domestic judgments remained unenforced in the present case and that such a situation is unacceptable in a democratic State ruled by law. In my view, however, the subjective right to information recognised in Bulgarian law is a public right. It is not a \u201ccivil right\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b11a98f6-6fc3-4c3d-8af7-ce18e7262f9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government considered that there had been no violation of the applicant company\u2019s rights. Article <mask> of the Convention left a wide margin of appreciation to States in organising their judicial systems. Article 6 did not guarantee an absolute right of access to court and it could legitimately be restricted, including by requiring the payment of court fees as a condition for examining court actions. Moreover, the domestic courts had fulfilled their positive obligations by giving the applicant company, on two occasions, additional time to pay the court fees. Finally, the applicant company did not show the domestic courts any document to confirm that it was going to pay those fees. In such circumstances, the courts had to take a decision in order to prevent a violation of the applicant company\u2019s right to an examination of its case within a reasonable time."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "12c8e714-a0d9-4cfc-b6ad-ad8c66e3d8bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant\u2019s case was examined in an expedited procedure under the CAO: in cases concerning an administrative charge for an offence punishable by administrative detention, the police were to transmit the administrative offence file to a court immediately after having compiled it, and the court was to examine the case on the same day or within forty-eight hours of the defendant\u2019s arrest (see paragraphs 57 and 58 above). The Court reiterates, however, that recourse to that procedure when a \u201ccriminal charge\u201d must be determined is not in itself contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention as long as the procedure provides the necessary safeguards and guarantees (see Borisova v. Bulgaria, no. 56891/00, \u00a7 40, 21 December 2006)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "099f06ba-6467-46e5-aa3d-6dc3de693049", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government, relying on the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant was a military officer and the judgment award had concerned allowances for her military service. They further argued that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was also inapplicable because the applicant had not had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of that Convention provision as she had had no right to receive \u201cpayments in the amount claimed\u201d. She had neither an \u201cexisting possession\u201d nor a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d. As to the merits of the complaint, the Government noted that the judgment of 25 July 2003 had been quashed because the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison had incorrectly interpreted and applied substantive law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d67a239f-a89d-4987-8f4d-48fff452b332", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the act of quashing of the final judgments of 24 August and 17 October 2000 had violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d. She also complained that she had not been able to effectively participate at the supervisory-review hearing. The relevant part of Article <mask> of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bdfe1431-29bd-4349-83e4-3b2ea5035855", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government considered that the bench of the Court of Appeal that declared inadmissible the applicant company\u2019s request for a retrial had been an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They underlined that there were no elements to call into question the personal impartiality of the judges composing the bench of the Court of Appeal. As to the objective test, the Government emphasised that it would have been contrary to the interests of a fair and speedy administration of justice if the judges had had to withdraw simply because a request for a retrial, which was not prima facie admissible, had been made."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b0aeca5e-6cb4-488f-9493-c011a5d694fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government also submitted that the civil aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in respect of the relevant domestic proceedings under the CAO. The criminal limb of Article 6 was also inapplicable, since Russian law made no provision for free legal assistance in CAO proceedings. However, the applicant could retain counsel for such proceedings, which were in any event quite simple. The applicant had been made aware of her procedural rights and had made use of them during the proceedings, in particular by way of lodging submissions. Provision of free legal assistance was not made necessary by the circumstances of the case, in view of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant, and the simplicity of the procedure, which could be fully understood by a lay person. In fact, the contents of the applicant\u2019s submission to the domestic courts disclosed that she was well versed in domestic law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8997b498-afb5-4ee7-9521-dede8a27f4c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had not ensured his attendance at the hearings in the proceedings against the Bayil Prison authorities concerning his complaint of lack of adequate medical assistance. He maintained that his presence would have been particularly important having regard to the fact that the domestic courts had ignored the written statements of former inmates. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "54957c7e-9d2d-4c5b-bc98-63abdd54dc95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) and (d) that the criminal proceedings initiated against him on 18 July 2005 for forgery of documents had been unfair. The Court observes that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention which, according to him, occurred in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (see Osmanov and Husseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003). The Court notes that the proceedings against the applicant were discontinued on 17 May 2006 because the relevant limitation period had expired. The Court considers that in these circumstances the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "da74141a-590d-4673-815c-3e91e1a49a9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government further pleaded that the quashing of the judgment in the applicants\u2019 criminal case for reasons of the differences between the two copies of the judgment would not be justified. It would involve summoning witnesses, victims and other participants to the proceedings for the fresh examination of the case and probably the applicants\u2019 detention pending retrial. It would entail a violation of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. What is more, given the insignificance of the differences between the two copies of the judgments, the retrial would lead to the same outcome."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fc9b76b1-b354-4e9a-b1c8-684923b0e5b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial on account of the absence of a lawyer during their time in police custody and the use by the trial court of their statements and other evidence taken in the absence of a lawyer to convict them. They also complained that the criminal proceedings against them had not been concluded within a reasonable time. Lastly, the first applicant alleged that he had not been able to question an important witness, namely A.A., before the trial court. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "741d842c-a17f-4aab-ba2b-d4e86e7f597b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicant organisation alleged that there had been a number of separate violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the 1998-2000 proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. It also considered that the events complained of disclosed discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention since the authorities had favoured one of the rival leaderships of the Muslim community."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3783bee1-c3db-4314-97db-c4a9e7dae80e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government acknowledged that there was a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in favour of Mr Timofeyev. As regards the situation of Mrs Kiryushkina, they accepted their liability only for the period of non-enforcement lasting until 10 March 2005, the date on which Mrs Kiryushkina had refused the first offer of a two-room flat."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ed2686ad-8b7b-42bf-b66a-6e2fe01155b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities\u2019 failure to duly notify him of the date and place of the appeal hearing in the civil proceedings relating to the conditions of his detention. He also complained under Article 6 that the proceedings concerning his ownership of the flat had been unfair on account of his alleged inability to collect evidence in support of his claim and the judge\u2019s refusal to assist him in collecting that evidence. Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads in the relevant part as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "260a3387-c729-4aae-b17f-39e193aa8e33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant company said that the reduction in value of its shareholding had been an ongoing process. Although the first two stages in that process had taken place before 11 September 1997, the third had not begun until 18 November 1997. From that date onwards, its shareholding had fallen in total from 49% to 20.7%, such that it had lost control over Sovtransavto-Lugansk's activity. The case therefore concerned a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d that had culminated in the Ukrainian company's liquidation in June 1999. The applicant company also contended that as regards the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention the entire proceedings had been reopened after the Supreme Arbitration Tribunal's ruling of 6 March 1998, that is to say after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Ukraine."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "75874080-f915-449e-a865-4f0a0aa486f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government, however, maintained that the applicant had had access to a court affording him a fair hearing that satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and in which his right to be presumed innocent in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Article was respected. They claimed that even in the proceedings before the Tax Authority the applicant had benefited from many of the legal safeguards afforded by Article 6. Furthermore, the applicant had had recourse to the administrative courts which had jurisdiction to examine all aspects \u2013 both facts and law \u2013 of the matter before them. Throughout the tax assessment proceedings, it was for the Tax Authority to prove that incorrect information had been furnished and that, consequently, there were grounds for imposing tax surcharges. In so far as the immediate enforcement of the tax debt as determined by the Tax Authority could be considered to have limited the applicant's access to a court, the Government contended that that limitation had been proportionate. Enforcement served to protect the financial interests of the State and the community as a whole. Given the considerable length of time allowed for lodging an appeal against a tax decision \u2013 normally five years after the assessment year \u2013 a system giving an absolute right to a stay of execution without security having been provided would probably lead to a vast increase in the number of appeals with a view to postponing or even avoiding the payment of taxes. The Government argued, moreover, that the applicant had had a preliminary examination by the courts of the Tax Authority's decisions concerning taxes and tax surcharges in the stay-of-execution proceedings; in both those proceedings and the bankruptcy proceedings, the courts had to conduct a summary review of the merits of the applicant's tax case. They also pointed out that the applicant had been declared bankrupt on account of a tax debt of which the surcharges formed only a minor part. As he had virtually no assets, he would have been declared bankrupt even if no surcharges had been imposed. Furthermore, in the event of a successful appeal against the Tax Authority's decisions, the applicant's position could be restored by having the bankruptcy decision quashed and by bringing a claim for compensation from the State for any financial loss incurred on account of that decision."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9c1e2d2c-68d7-4d14-a888-8d8886d57107", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government submitted that the judgment of 1 June 2001 had been enforced by 23 March 2003 and that the judgment of 27 April 2002 had been enforced on 13 May 2003. They admitted that the delayed enforcement of the judgments constituted a violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government, however, claimed that the judgments had been enforced within a \u201creasonable time\u201d."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5204779d-86b0-4af3-931f-54058024e7fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing was breached since he was tried and convicted by a State Security Court. He further submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter\u2011arguments. He submitted under Article 10 that his conviction and sentence for disseminating separatist propaganda by publishing a book amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Finally, the applicant alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the confiscation of copies of the book at issue infringed his property rights."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "27cd417e-17fa-4d33-aa58-d9ae1f56160a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government objected that the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply ratione materiae to the proceedings commenced by the mother\u2019s petition of 31 August 2010 for an order governing the exercise of parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child (see paragraphs 8 to 10 above) and to those concerning her petition for reopening of the Hague Convention proceedings (see paragraphs 29 and 30 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dfc288b9-4026-496b-97cc-72d44e59de7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since he had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e87d7f4c-4ca7-435e-8453-a4d9702ff0e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government invited the Court to conclude that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular having in mind the time elapsed after the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Croatia. They submitted that the cases disclosed factual complexity as many of them involved a significant number of plaintiffs."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "08945ebd-2e1a-437b-8556-cfef6fe079a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government lastly submitted that although in the past the Court had not excluded that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article <mask> of the Convention by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive had suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country, the facts of the present case did not disclose such a risk. In particular, there were no grounds to question the reasonableness and lawfulness of the decision of the Supreme Court of Belarus of 18 May 2002 and the applicant\u2019s statements about the risk of an unfair trial were explained by his unwillingness to stand trial. The Government further referred to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Belarus on the presumption of innocence and indicated that this provision was a sufficient guarantee against an unfair trial in the applicant\u2019s criminal case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "19d50f30-90d3-4172-aa6d-e58d67875ed2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government accepted that Article 6 \u00a7 1 is applicable to the proceedings where the applicant had sought the return of his passport. In this respect they agreed that the applicant's claim concerned a determination of his civil rights since it had been directed at a return of the applicant's property, i.e. his passport. However, they contested the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the part of the proceedings which had occurred after the applicant had changed his claim and had sought only a declaration that his passport had been taken from him by the Croatian authorities on 6 February 1999 and returned on 4 April 2001. They relied on the Court's case law claiming that Article 6 was not applicable to the proceedings dealing only with a procedural issue (see Senine Vadbolski, Demonet v. France, no. 22404/93, Commission decision of 12 October 1994)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a8455b0f-0208-4021-9a4b-8a93b28f55a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government argued in all but two cases (Sobakar and Sereda) that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the domestic litigations at issue as the applicants were on service in the Russian military forces at the material time. They supported their argument by reference to the special jurisdiction exercised by military courts and stressed that the applicants\u2019 cases were not amenable to ordinary courts that were competent in ordinary civil cases. Accordingly, their lawsuits in Russian military courts could not be qualified as \u201ccivil\u201d and the applicants\u2019 complaints were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3139c755-7694-408e-82bf-bf80e8bb6538", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted that the applicants had lost their victim status following the Constitutional Court judgment which found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which in their view the latter court had been examining together, and owing to its award of compensation which covered the period from 1967\u20112010. The Government noted that no consideration had to be given to the time prior to 1967 before the Convention had become applicable to Malta; and that since a new declaration had been issued in 2010 the value of the property had to be taken to be that in 2005 in accordance with the law (see paragraph 24 above). Moreover, since 2010 the applicants had been able to challenge the public interest of the declaration issued in 2010 by means of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of Chapter 88 as well as the compensation offered by means of Article 22 of Chapter 88 (see paragraph 24 above). Thus, the Constitutional Court had not needed to order the Commissioner to institute proceedings, unlike what the Court had pronounced in Curmi v. Malta (no. 2243/10, \u00a7 53, 22 November 2011)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "06400adb-8b00-4905-895f-6f68c33a3125", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant first complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. Secondly, he claimed that the court had been influenced by the Army since the proceedings against him had been prompted by the request of the Second Chief of the General Staff. Finally, he maintained that he had been convicted solely on the basis of the statements of the journalist who had a personal interest in incriminating him. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "852d22f5-7aa1-40ca-a20f-1279176baa7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government pointed out that it was in the first place for the national judicial authorities to ensure that the requirements of a fair hearing were satisfied. They submitted that, in the circumstances of the present case, the refusal to take evidence did not amount to a disproportionate restriction on the applicant's ability to defend himself in the proceedings. Accordingly, there was no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cf58f0ed-db20-48ad-9ccb-930dc265a275", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences that they had been incited by the police to commit and that their plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. These complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d64b3b35-3422-4b84-9cce-e81f7b6740a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 January and 14 December 1999 and that of 6 June 2000 violated his right of access to a court enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3d8a6f9a-66be-4a8d-9b87-91079921578d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The applicant alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention on behalf of her son on the ground that he had not had a trial before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in the event that the Government were to claim that the arrest and detention of her son were lawful and that he was guilty of an offence under domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b33e2c12-7f34-4bb4-bf7d-69acb41c441f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants further complained of the fact that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In this connection, they complained about the structure of the State Security Court and the links between the judges sitting on the bench of this court and the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors. In addition, the applicants complained about the lack of reasoning by the Court of Cassation and the latter\u2019s refusal to hold a hearing in their case. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6571fdf7-d545-42e4-8879-f2e45775c0d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the charges against him and that he had been deprived of his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. Although he had been unable to defend himself, he had not been appointed a lawyer. The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3f1a382e-ea3e-4a8f-8871-dbdb2508281f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government admitted that the fact that the same judge had sat twice as a judge of the Supreme Court in the same criminal case was contrary to the domestic law. However they submitted that, having regard to the specific facts of the case at hand, the rights of the applicant guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention were not disrespected. The Government referred to the fact that the Supreme Court had delivered different decisions in two hearings. In the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 9 August 2005, the panel of three judges, including N.H., upheld the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law, quashed the original appellate judgment of 18 March 2005 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for a new examination. The Supreme Court noted that the evidence in the case should be re-examined. In its subsequent decision of 10 October 2006, the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court, including N. H., upheld the Court of Appeal\u2019s new judgment of 12 July 2006, declaring the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law unsubstantiated. It was the Government\u2019s view that the applicant\u2019s case had been examined by the national courts in accordance with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "db630443-aa32-4547-8752-17a5c0f38502", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as neither the prosecution in seeking to adduce the tape recordings into evidence nor the judge in ruling them admissible had provided a good reason for Mr Pearman\u2019s non-attendance at court. In Al\u2011Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011 the Court had focused on witnesses who were either dead or in fear of attending court; nevertheless, even in cases where there was alleged fear by the witness, the Court required that appropriate enquiries be made to determine whether there were objective grounds for the fear and whether those grounds were supported by evidence. In the present case, as soon as the trial judge had been informed via a prison officer that Mr Pearman was refusing to attend court no further efforts were made to secure his attendance, even though he was in the hands of the State at the relevant time and, as such, the State had been in a position to secure his attendance, even if the privilege against self-incrimination meant that he could not be compelled to give evidence. For example, the authorities could have made a production order or special measures, such as a video link, could have been utilised to provide the applicant with the opportunity of cross-examining him."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "47d30b48-0bc4-42fd-9cc8-714d0a5dad62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government argued that delays in the examination of the applicant's case had been caused by the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. According to them, the applicant had repeatedly amended and supplemented his claims with the result that the first-instance court had had to spend time on studying new materials. Moreover, on 26 June 2003 the applicant altered his claims so significantly that, in the Government's opinion, the proceedings could be regarded as having commenced anew, and therefore the period to be taken into account should start on this date. The Government also pointed out that on several occasions court hearings had been postponed due to the defendants' failure to appear, for which the State was not responsible. The Government further conceded that a period of inactivity between 13 October 2003 and 22 December 2005, totalling one year, eight months and twenty-six days, could be imputed to the authorities; however, they gave objective reasons for this, namely judges' sickness, annual leave, dismissal from service and their exceptional caseload. In the Government's opinion, apart from the aforementioned period, the examination of the applicant's case was rather expeditious and conformed with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d4b6663d-ccd3-459b-b2ae-373ad44a06df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants argued that their case was the same as the case of Suda v. the Czech Republic, cited above, where the Court found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the account of lack of access to court. They maintained that they had also not consented to arbitration and that the arbitration proceedings did not comply with the Article 6 guarantees because, in particular, they were not public. They added that the possibility of judicial review of an arbitration decision was not sufficient because it was limited only to procedural issues and not the merits."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3f79d353-5560-40df-b242-81144827b0ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s administrative case had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity to state his case, to obtain the attendance of three witnesses on his behalf and to present other evidence. The applicant had been given an opportunity to lodge written requests and he had availed himself of that right. The Government accepted that neither the police officers who had arrested the applicant and had drawn up the police report nor the officer who had issued the statement on the administrative offence had been called as witnesses. However, they pointed out that those officers could have been summoned to the court hearing if doubts or questions had arisen."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4ecd1618-98ca-4e81-bc0a-3fb72532f62f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government contested the claims. They proposed that the Court conclude that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. In addition, relying on several earlier judgments of the Court, including Dvorski v. Croatia [GC] (no. 25703/11, \u00a7 117, ECHR 2015) and Ibrahim and Others (cited above, \u00a7 315), they pointed out that it was impossible to speculate as to the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, and that any finding of a violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention would not mean that he had been wrongly convicted."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6d39efe1-9bdc-4e91-a2bc-a83e0ec23e1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government did not contest the applicant's claims. They referred to insufficient funding of the social-security authorities as the reason for the failure to comply with the judgment of 6 March 2000. They admitted that the delayed enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour constituted a violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "878660a9-cd9b-406b-a87c-0e17221b3697", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s criminal case had been heard in compliance with the requirements of Section 51 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and that Article <mask> of the Convention in its criminal limb was inapplicable to these proceedings. In the latter connection, they referred to the cases of Antoine v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 62960/00, ECHR 2003\u2011...) and Kerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63356/00, 23 September 2003) and maintained that the procedure under section 4A of the 1964 Act was similar in operation to the procedure in the case at hand. The Government argued that the purpose of the compulsory medical measures was curing the persons who had committed a socially dangerous act or improvement of their mental health as well as preventing them from commission of other such acts. According to the Government, the applicable domestic legal provisions did not prescribe mandatory attendance at court hearings by a mentally ill defendant. At the same time, they guaranteed the protection of the interests of a mentally ill defendant through mandatory legal assistance and representation by a legal guardian. Furthermore, on the facts of the case, the applicant\u2019s lawyer had attended the hearings and had ensured the applicant\u2019s defence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "07765b38-7e29-4ea4-8874-2aa30d75f383", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The Government of Cyprus made observations similar to those of the applicants. They submitted that given the existing legal and political context and the circumstances in which the first applicant had been abducted, detained and tried as a hostage as part of a State policy, it would have been unrealistic to expect the applicants \u201cto seek remedies in the legal system of the perpetrator\u201d. The \u201cTRNC\u201d was not a valid and legal State and its courts had not been \u201cestablished by law\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had not been set up by Turkey through legal acts of its democratic institutions, but rather as a result of an invasion and continuing military control. Turkey did not exercise control over the \u201cTRNC\u201d by rule of law, but simply by means of military occupation; as a consequence, the remedies available in the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not be considered remedies of the respondent High Contracting Party. They submitted that the illegality of those remedies in international law amounted to a \u201cspecial circumstance\u201d absolving the applicants from the requirement of exhaustion."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "69a82a74-e6b2-4201-802a-16da1667eefb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government maintained that the restrictions imposed on the applicant had been necessary in a democratic society. The means employed had been proportionate to the aims pursued. The authorities were under a positive obligation to provide an effective mechanism for the enforcement of judgments debts to be paid by private persons and for the protection of creditors\u2019 property rights. If they failed to do so, their responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention could be engaged. The applicant had not paid the judgment debt voluntarily and enforcement proceedings had therefore been instituted. The bailiffs\u2019 service had taken various measures to secure payment of the judgment debt. However, all those measures had proved insufficient for the enforcement of the judgment debt, in large part owing to the applicant\u2019s behaviour. As established by the decision of 19 October 2004 (see paragraph 11 above), the applicant had attempted to hide his property in order to avoid its forfeiture in the enforcement proceedings. In the absence of any other means of ensuring that the applicant honoured his debt, the bailiffs\u2019 service had decided to impose a travel ban on him."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f8ada457-6cf1-496b-9e20-ee01964c0829", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument. Relying on the Court\u2019s case-law, he argued that Article <mask> of the Convention applied to all stages of criminal proceedings, including the proceedings whereby a sentence is fixed (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2001\u2011VII). In the applicant\u2019s view, the hearing was in any event decisive for the determination of his civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. The question to be decided by the domestic court concerned the determination of the aggregate prison sentence to be served by him. Accordingly, it was the applicant\u2019s right to liberty, which was a civil right, that was at stake (see Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, \u00a7 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e25ed551-cb1c-42c4-8083-bcd37862aac9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government reiterated that the case did not concern the determination of the applicant's civil rights or obligations within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Hence, she could not derive a right of access to a court from this provision. The Polish authorities had never accepted the obligation to redress the wrongs done to Polish citizens by Nazi Germany. The Polish Foundation had been acting merely as an intermediary between the claimants and the founder, the German \u201cRemembrance, Responsibility and Future\u201d Foundation. It had been playing only a supporting role, collecting documents, processing applications and establishing the eligibility of claimants. Furthermore, the charitable nature of the payments made by the Polish Foundation did not allow them to be regarded as civil in character. This was confirmed also by the size of the Polish Foundation's assets which, given the magnitude of wrongs committed by the German occupying regime to the Polish citizens during the Second World War, would clearly be insufficient to compensate the victims for damage which they had suffered."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "07f10c78-9ce7-4524-988a-126c4cdd7171", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant maintained that the failure to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008 had constituted a violation of her Convention rights. By its judgment of 30 July 2008, the Administrative Court had obliged the Mayor\u2019s office to conclude the agreement mentioned in the decision of 10 October 2002 no. 1785-A with the applicant. The domestic authorities had had no right to deviate from this clear judgment. The other plots of land offered to the applicant had been unacceptable since they had been located elsewhere than at the specific address identified in the judgment and they had been in an area where business would have been less profitable than at the address indicated in the judgment. The applicant had proposed nine different acceptable new locations but they all had been refused by the Mayor\u2019s office. Although the applicant had taken all possible steps for its enforcement, the judgment had remained unenforced for more than eight years. By discontinuing the enforcement proceedings, the domestic authorities had violated the applicant\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7aaf06a7-f32b-453e-80c9-04245cbf4ed0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant also complained under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 and 7 of the Convention about a lack of a fair trial and a violation of the legality principle in respect of the embezzlement charges. He complained that, as far as he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and bookkeeping crime as a representative of the company, Article 7 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 had been violated. Finally, he complained about the proceedings before the Appeal Court during which there had been a failure to provide detailed information about the charges, an impossibility to question one of the witnesses, a failure to record his statement correctly, and a failure to reason the judgment adequately. In his letter dated 16 January 2012 the applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 12 December 2011 concerning the extraordinary appeal."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b599353d-3d03-4139-9054-c936d66d40f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained of the lack of legal assistance during his questioning by the police on 17 December 2009 and of the lack of effective legal assistance before the investigating judge on 18 December 2009. He further complained that the Court of Appeal, and later the Court of Cassation, had failed to provide redress for the consequent infringement of his defence rights. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "15480b17-6641-44a6-b094-1d3b8e4b9fae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant contended that he did not have a fair trial in the proceedings before the supervisory review court. In his view, he had faced a new charge. He was informed of the proceedings and the contents of the Deputy President's request too late. The applicant stated that he had been deprived of an opportunity to be present and to submit arguments on that particular issue. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the prosecution had participated in the hearing, the applicant considered that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0a6dca43-9a36-42f4-a233-ec746bacb635", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant alleged under Articles 5 \u00a7 1 (c) and 13 of the Convention that he had been detained under a prison regime from 28 July to 9 August 2005 and from 22 to 30 September 2005 in contravention of the applicable domestic regulations. He further complained under Articles 5 \u00a7 1 (c), 8 and 13 of the Convention that his arrest on 18 September 2005 had been unlawful. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the national courts had reinstated a time-limit to permit the prosecutor to appeal against the decision of 19 August 2005 and had then quashed the said decision in contravention of the principle of legal certainty. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "44af0231-a2a4-4918-8f0c-9ea1890f1ceb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of unfairness of the supervisory-review proceedings. However, in their later observations they did not appear to maintain this complaint. Given the Court\u2019s finding that the applicants\u2019 right to a court was violated by the quashing of the judgments in their favour in the supervisory-review proceedings (see paragraph 23), the Court does not find it necessary to examine separately this issue."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1e7b2495-b13e-462b-bc73-2cf3670e24f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by the final judgment of 4 December 2002 the domestic court incorrectly resolved her case and rejected her claim for non-pecuniary damage. She further complained that the courts had ordered that the award of the arrears should have been paid from the regional budget. Finally, she alleged that the first instance court had been biased because judge P. had examined her case twice."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fd646b63-4fb2-45f8-8bf0-370293ed4d13", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant company complained that the domestic court\u2019s retrospective application of legislation which had specifically aimed to protect the party unlawfully using its trademark had unlawfully restricted its use of its property, specifically its registered trademark. It alleged a violation of its rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1edaa37b-626a-4edc-93e1-21f1e88c85b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant claimed that her husband's detention was not attributable to any of the exhaustive purposes listed under Article 5 and hence unlawful. Under the same provision, the applicant contended that none of the guarantees listed under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 were respected. The applicant stated under Article <mask> of the Convention that her husband's unlawful detention and subsequent disappearance had deprived him of his rights to defence, his right to see his family and counsel, his right to know of the charges brought against him and his right to be brought before a court within a reasonable time."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4638ce2d-71f1-4d06-b9e4-c85fb9979389", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since they had not been given the opportunity to put questions to all the witnesses. They also contended that the domestic authorities violated their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this connection, they invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0a810631-2bd4-4519-93dc-652f62873d28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant reiterated that her application only concerned the search of her law office, not seizure of items. There were no explicit or, for that matter, any provisions or case-law even suggesting that a person subject to a search could have access to a court in order to challenge that search. It was true that the civil liability of the officers conducting the search could be invoked but this possibility was neither effective nor capable of providing redress for the interference with her right to respect for her home as she would have to show that she had actually suffered damage. Nor could a private prosecution be regarded as access to a court. The threshold for \u201creason to suspect\u201d was very low and none of the private prosecutions initiated against officers having conducted or ordered a search had been successful. This remedy was therefore theoretical as well as illusory. The same was true for lodging a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) and the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern). If the Court were to find no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, there was in any event a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "60d9ec31-4fff-43aa-b901-afc5549e4c86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant company complained that the judgments by which the Prosecutor General's actions were upheld had had the effect of infringing its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant argued that the interference was not provided by law since the guarantees provided by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached and that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. The Government disputed the applicant's contention and argued that the applicant company received back the price paid for the shares bought in 2000 and that the applicant company was allowed to keep the profits earned between 2000 and 2007. In the Government's opinion, it was the State's right to property that had been breached as a result of the unlawful sale of the shares in 2000 and the applicant company had profited from the unlawful use of twenty-seven carriages by the quarry."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "944e9173-735d-45ad-9382-94868d8cf7e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Family Court and Family Court of Appeal were unfair and thus in violation of her right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained that the failure of the Court of Appeal to properly consider her appeal meant she was deprived of her right of access to Court, in further breach of Article 6. Where relevant, that article provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5b446827-81b6-4a19-9699-55ad5967a85e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["2.  The applicant newspaper Flux submitted complaints relating to two violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The majority declared inadmissible the first complaint on the lack of independence and impartiality of Judge I.M. A second complaint regarding the alleged failure of the domestic courts to give reasons for their decisions was disposed of by the majority with a finding that this complaint did not raise an issue separate from the freedom of expression complaint under Article 10, and that consequently the Court did not consider it necessary to examine it separately."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ad989021-5a34-4621-8ca6-636459951fc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the applicant's acquittal following the retrial meant that his application no longer raised a live issue and that he had ceased to be a \u201cvictim\u201d. They asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that he had applied to the Court before the retrial proceedings had ended or, in the alternative, that, since his situation had been remedied at national level, he could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Failing that, the Government requested the Grand Chamber to confirm the judgment of the Chamber, which had held that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the instant case, and to dismiss the applicant's claims for just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6e45c925-9001-44eb-8102-72b0d391b0bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant further submitted that the supervisory review court determined issues of both law and fact. In this connection, he claimed that, depending on the amount of drugs concerned, the unlawful procurement of drugs was punishable either as a criminal offence or as an administrative offence subject to a light penalty. The applicant stated that he had been deprived of an opportunity to be present and to submit arguments on this particular issue. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the prosecution had participated in the hearing, the applicant considered that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f481baa2-c037-4878-ab15-6de8b3e00000", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as the Court of Appeal had relied on the pre-trial statements of witnesses L.G., A.A., A.B. and A.At. in its judgment. This evidence, although used by the Court of Appeal to substantiate the finding of her guilt, had not been read out and examined in court and, moreover, she had no opportunity to question these witnesses. The applicant conceded that witness A.A. had testified before the District Court. She observed, however, that in its judgment the Court of Appeal had referred to A.A.\u2019s pre-trial statement made on 18 February 2002 and not her testimony made at the trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "59d1ef9d-1341-4b3c-9733-510032a89a34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.   The Government argued that the sum claimed by the applicant was excessive in view of the financial situation of the country. In the Government\u2019s view, the mere finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. In any event, there was no causal link between the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the amount requested by the applicant."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d0647113-765e-48b7-9cef-08574fd6b049", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government did not dispute the applicability of Article 6 to the present case. For its part, the Court recalls that it has already established that \u201cin principle, the general character of the Code of Administrative Offenses (\u201cthe CAO\u201d) and the purpose of the penalties, which are both deterrent and punitive, suffice to show that for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention the applicant was charged with a criminal offence\u201d (Ziliberberg v. Moldova, no. 61821/00, \u00a7 33, 1 February 2005). It does not see any reason to depart from that finding in the present case. Accordingly, Article 6 was applicable to the applicant\u2019s case under its criminal head."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b5815c75-b4d5-423a-863e-3c4b68d9c169", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government maintained that, in so far as the applicant complained about the length of the court proceedings, she could introduce a complaint concerning the delay in the proceedings with the Regional Court, relying directly on Article <mask> of the Convention, and the court would have to react to it. As an example, the Government furnished a separate ruling given by a Regional Court within a set of civil proceedings, where the court, with reference to the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention, decided to inform the Regional Qualifications Commission about delays in proceedings caused by a judge of a first instance court. In the Government\u2019s opinion, such a decision could entail the disciplinary liability of the judge who was responsible for the delay in the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f2376812-cd37-4e9a-ae98-de288e90c765", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant appears to argue that she was compelled to assume liability for crimes allegedly committed by her late husband who had not been convicted. In this context, the Court recalls that it is a fundamental rule of criminal law that criminal liability does not survive the person who has committed the criminal act. Imposing criminal sanctions on the living in respect of acts apparently committed by the deceased person calls for its careful scrutiny (see A.P., M.P. and T.P. v. Switzerland, 29 August 1997, \u00a7\u00a7 46 and 48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V). The Court further reiterates that the scope of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention is not limited to pending criminal proceedings but extends to judicial decisions taken after a prosecution has been discontinued (see, most recently, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, \u00a7 33, 10 January 2012). With regard to the application of the presumption of innocence, the Court\u2019s case-law also shows that the autonomous meaning of the expression \u201ccharge\u201d in Article <mask> of the Convention means that a person can be considered to have been \u201ccharged\u201d for the purposes of that Article when that individual\u2019s situation has been \u201csubstantially affected\u201d (see Serves v. France, 20 October 1997, \u00a7 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "375f5ae5-3e10-430a-9352-c50c2fd17222", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to a fair and public hearing during the appellate proceedings had been restricted, that he had been unable to obtain examination of witnesses prepared to testify on his behalf, and that the court had been biased in favour of the prosecution and had rejected the majority of his petitions without justification. Article 6 provides, where relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7589909e-abcc-4e6c-bb2d-d8ead2e516b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted at the outset that Article <mask> of the Convention under its \u201ccriminal head\u201d was not applicable to the confiscation procedure at issue. In the criminal proceedings against the criminal organisation led by M.S., in which the confiscation of the applicant\u2019s property had been imposed, the applicant was not accused of any criminal offence and the domestic courts did not determine any charges in her respect. Neither was Article 6 applicable under its \u201ccivil head\u201d, given that no question concerning the applicant\u2019s property rights in the sense of civil law had been determined. In the Government\u2019s view, the confiscation of certain property imposed on the applicant was merely a preventive measure, aiming at deterrence of serious crimes based on property reasons. In that connection the Government also noted that in her application the applicant had made no express reference to Article 6 in so far as it related to \u201cher civil rights and obligations\u201d."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b5ff4207-7f40-4879-a32e-04e69f3a3b9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government also contended that legal aid had been granted to both applicants when they had complained of a violation of their right to a fair trial and about not being provided with legal aid. Moreover, they stated that the requirement to be assisted by a lawyer in the cassation proceedings was not contrary to requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The fact that the applicants were rejected legal aid to prepare their cassation appeal did not impair their right of access to court as their cassation appeal would have probably been rejected as not raising important legal issues."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aacc1d9e-682a-4f09-8cfa-e39ce82247f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant further argued that the Supreme Administrative Court should have granted him a hearing since the Administrative Court of Appeal had refused him one and it was in the interest of the fairness of the proceedings that he be granted one. In his view, an oral hearing would not have been unnecessary and there had been no particular reasons against holding a hearing in his case. Furthermore, the appellate courts had in several other cases granted a hearing to determine whether or not to grant leave to appeal and so, by rejecting his request for a hearing, they had deprived him of his right to a fair procedure, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "70e72cf2-a8ef-4b0d-b425-8e4d03ca0595", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government distinguished the present case from that of P.S. v. Germany (no. 33900/96, 20 December 2001), the four victims having given statements independently of each other concerning the same suspect and similar acts, which statements corroborated one another. In the opinion of the domestic judicial authorities, there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the victims' statements, including the statements given by Mrs E. and Mrs F. The Government argued that, in balancing the respective interests of the applicant and the victims, the judicial authorities could conclude in all reasonableness that there was no need to summon the latter to give further evidence in court. On this point, the Government further emphasised that the defence had an opportunity at every stage of the proceedings to challenge the reliability of the statements given by the four boys and, relying on the Court's considerations in the case of Asch v. Austria (judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, \u00a7 27), that Article <mask> of the Convention does not require a direct confrontation with witnesses in all circumstances."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b12839e8-9e06-4dc2-a559-6aca161027bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government argued that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. As regards the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention, they referred to the cases of Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands (dec. nos. 19005/91 and 19006/91, 9 December 1994); Pan\u010denko v. Latvia, (dec. no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999) and Kiryanov v. Russia (dec. no. 42212/02, 9 December 2004) and argued that the applicant's pension dispute involved the interpretation of pension legislation rather than the determination of her right to pension benefits and that the method of the calculation of an old-age pension belonged to the public-law domain."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "06f3ec16-fc76-41bd-a4d7-e6f874a74a02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the final appeal judgment of 3 August 2004 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 7 October 2004. Mr Kucherov also complained that the judgment of 6 July 2004 and the appeal judgment of 17 August 2004 were quashed via supervisory review on 28 October 2004. In so far as relevant, this Article reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "502e6524-5a6e-41e1-b5c1-bc1440f80a41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government argued that the applicant's \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention were not at stake in the proceedings in question. Referring to the Court's judgment in Ferrazzini v. Italy ([GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII) and previous judgments by the Court concerning tax proceedings, they concluded that tax disputes fell outside the scope of Article 6, which provision was thus not applicable to the enforcement of taxes in the present case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9e4c3c5a-4dbe-4a3b-a6c6-82018c079ef6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair in so far as his conviction had been based on the confession of 22 March 2005 obtained from him under duress and when he had had no legal representation. The Court will examine his complaint under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c), which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9c7aa700-c095-464c-aec7-0310ecfbec18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant argued that at the time of the facts, police practice was not to admit solicitors to attend with an accused person during police interviews. To vindicate his Constitutional right to a trial in due process of law and his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention, the State ought to have ensured that he was entitled to have a solicitor present during his interrogation. The applicant submitted that he was vulnerable as he was inexperienced in the interrogation process. The absence of his solicitor from the interrogations meant that the police were able to pressure him to give his confession which was ultimately relied upon at trial. The applicant recognised that he had been cautioned and advised of his right to remain silent at the beginning of each interview. He argued, however, that the interviewers sought to undermine his caution in a manner calculated to instil fear and anxiety and erode his will not to self-incriminate. In view of the above, he was deprived of a fair trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8346fd29-3756-4a7c-939d-ec4964ba38fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant submitted that his application had been originally based on Article <mask> of the Convention and that, from this point of view, his wife\u2019s salary had no significance for revocation of his retirement pension. He further noted that he had lodged the application himself, without the assistance of a professional lawyer, and that he had had submitted information which was relevant according to his best knowledge. He also argued that the application had been lodged only on his behalf and therefore the facts concerning the members of his family seemed irrelevant."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1b9b64da-c046-4ff1-ba16-86009b9c176f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant submitted that the present case resembles the case Yavuz against Austria (no. 46549/99, 27 May 2004) where the Court found a violation because of a lack of personal hearing of the applicant before the IAP. The facts of the present case were even more blatant, as the applicant not only did not know about the hearing but, without efforts being made by the IAP, did not have the legal possibility to re-enter Austria. The applicant further argued that when court authorities transmit the summons solely to counsel, the latter will bear the burden and risk of delivery, which, in the applicant\u2019s view, runs counter to Article <mask> of the Convention. A request by counsel that the applicant be summoned in person would have been in vain, as the direct service of a writ to an accused who is assisted by counsel, is not provided for in administrative criminal proceedings. In any event, counsel had received the summons for the hearing on 11 June 1997 only less than three weeks before, namely on 21 May 1997. During this short period, which moreover consisted of several public holidays, it would not even have been possible to obtain a visa for the applicant. The IAP should have heard the applicant, in particular, as to the question whether he had acted in good faith when staying illegally in Austria. The IAP, in any way, had not summoned any witnesses for the hearing of 11 June 1997 so that there were no technical difficulties in postponing this hearing. However, despite the applicant\u2019s repeated requests to be heard, the IAP had undertaken nothing to allow the applicant a short-term visit to Austria."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1f57d2e9-133f-4209-b304-147dec2608e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant raised several complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the criminal proceedings against him. He firstly alleged that the Gabrovo Regional Court had appointed counsel for him with such short notice before the hearing that she had been unable to defend him effectively. He secondly complained that the Supreme Court of Cassation had refused to appoint counsel for him. Lastly, he alleged that the courts which had examined his case had erred in assessing the evidence and in establishing the facts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fa02d571-ae14-4b78-9c60-3076a8327e30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicants complained that the courts decided arbitrarily in the 1997-2000 proceedings, disregarding the judgments of 1995 and 1996 and thus in violation of one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law \u2013 the final nature of judicial decisions. The applicants also submitted that they had been deprived of their property by way of arbitrary decisions. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and also on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "af77b0d4-18f1-4416-b966-8b49bffb2651", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant submits under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing as the domestic courts erred in their assessment of the facts. The applicant argues that the same court, namely the Supreme Administrative Court, examined both the requests for leave to appeal and for rectification of the judgment, in violation of his right under Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ee88be74-8199-4a66-b4d1-e6a71da3be32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government agreed with the applicants that the fines in question had constituted penalties and that the offences committed by the applicants should be considered \u201ccriminal\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. This had also been acknowledged by the Supreme Court. The Government furthermore acknowledged that the applicants had been tried and convicted by the District Court in absentia."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4e63cf27-f323-4ef8-8ebf-39561fe681cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not been subjected to ill-treatment while in custody and that his statements could therefore not be considered as having been obtained under duress. They noted in this connection that at the end of the criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers, it had been established that the applicant had sustained his injuries as a result of his own conduct (see paragraph 39 above). The Government further contended that the trial court had also taken other evidence into consideration in establishing the applicant\u2019s guilt. They noted that in its reasoning the Istanbul State Security Court had not made any reference to the applicant\u2019s police statements. The Government concluded that the applicant\u2019s trial had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6ba97215-a9b4-4bec-945c-d8f108cd3282", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant considered that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. He contended that meeting the conditions for the reopening of the proceedings as suggested by the Government would be possible only if he came to Croatia and sought a retrial, which would mean that he would be arrested and imprisoned. In his view, this trading of his liberty for securing his right to a fair trial in his presence was contrary to the basic principles of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d714ff65-df19-487d-b2bf-32b4a061e4ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention inter alia that the Court of Appeal was biased, in that the Chairman of the Court of Appeal made a comment which displayed actual or apparent bias in favour of the prosecution; that it failed to conduct a full oral hearing, re-hearing only eight of the witnesses heard in the District Court, that its judgment misinterpreted the evidence, failed to address critical elements of the offences charged and contained serious misapplications of Finnish law; as well as convictions for offences inappropriate to the facts. These factors he relied upon as violations of Article 6 as well as supporting his allegations concerning lack of impartiality and lack of a full oral hearing. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 3(a), alleging that he was convicted of offences the details of which were never supplied to him and in respect of which he had no opportunity to defend himself, Article 7 (prohibition of retrospective penalties) alleging that he was convicted of offences that were not offences at the time of the events in question and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, alleging that he was convicted of more than one offence based on the same conduct."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7b6bb231-d4e2-4611-ae87-6eac480ac06f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government argued that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been upset. They submitted that the decision to close the trial to the public was aimed at ensuring the safety of the victim of the applicant\u2019s crime, and was justified by the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. They also noted that the sentence was announced publicly."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8203e783-ed89-4b36-9413-0e538cda05d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.   The applicant complained that he had been denied effective access to the Supreme Court, in that his legal-aid lawyer had refused to lodge a cassation appeal in his case and he had not had a possibility to have a cassation appeal lodged by another lawyer. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "66748209-4426-45a7-a60b-7e2e638ed5db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings concerning her initial dismissal were unfair. She stated in particular that the District Court, when hearing her case in the second set of proceedings, was, contrary to domestic law, composed of the same single judge as in the first set. The applicant claimed to have suffered a violation of her right to have her case heard by an \u201cindependent and impartial tribunal established by law\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "64ee3dff-f624-4e05-8d8c-1520e41dc8ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government submitted that the lustration proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had been in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had used all available means in the administrative proceedings to contest the initial findings of the Commission. That the courts had not given weight to his evidence did not mean that the proceedings had not been adversarial or had violated the principle of equality of arms. Any concerns as to the authenticity of the information in his file should have been decided, as stated by the Administrative Court, in separate proceedings before a competent court and \u201cbefore the impugned decision had been delivered\u201d. The Government also argued that the applicant had not requested an oral hearing. Furthermore, it had been possible to decide all the issues of fact and law on the basis of documentary evidence and so holding an oral hearing would have been in conflict with the principles of economy and efficiency. Lastly, they maintained that the courts had provided sufficient reasons for their decisions. The courts had accepted the documentary evidence on which the Commission had based its decision as authentic and had regarded it as \u201cfacts\u201d."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cad6e795-2b9f-4d1c-9a07-7d6224241cbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 September 1998 given in his favour, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedies in respect of the above complaints. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length and unfairness of the second, third and fourth sets of proceedings. The applicant finally complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of the judicial system as a whole. The Articles invoked provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aa56f4b2-ce28-4798-9d42-f50e7eba65eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government argued that the Supreme Court had acknowledged that the District Court procedure had been flawed and not in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the applicants\u2019 access to the appeal procedure before the Supreme Court had not in any way been limited on the grounds that they had been absent from the District Court\u2019s proceedings. They had been able to present their case before the Supreme Court in such a way that the procedure as a whole complied with Article 6 of the Convention. The process before the Supreme Court had sufficiently remedied the defects of the District Court proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e0a208f5-1921-44a1-b034-b3af4e1d12f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government further contended that the applicants had merely repeated the objections already presented in the course of the administrative proceedings, without submitting any new evidence, which they had also failed to do at the hearing before the Vara\u017edin County Court. The County Court, finding that the administrative bodies' application and interpretation of the relevant legal provisions had been correct, had dismissed the applicants' claim. In the Government's view the expropriation proceedings, taken as a whole, had satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "96406208-15cb-4748-a7f3-b0b1151e20bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government considered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been conducted in strict compliance with the domestic rules of criminal procedure and disclosed no violation of the applicant\u2019s rights set out in Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Government pointed out that the applicant had consented to be represented by counsel Sh. who had conducted his defence during the investigation and trial and that the applicant had not complained about his alleged incompetency during the investigation or trial. He had raised this issue only after the jury had delivered a guilty verdict in his case. The Government admitted that the applicant had not been provided with legal assistance before the appeal court on 21 July 2005. However, on 6 June 2007 the supervisory-review court had expressly acknowledged the violation of the applicant\u2019s right to legal assistance, had quashed the judgment of 21 July 2005 and had remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court. In a new set of appeal proceedings, counsel R. had been appointed to represent the applicant. R. had studied the materials of the case-file, had met with the applicant and had taken part in the appeal hearing. The applicant had consented to be represented by R. The defence carried out by counsel R. had been competent and effective. The mere fact that R. had not filed an additional statement of appeal was not sufficient to disclose a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2ad7d291-5b01-4f41-b57d-53a638bf4f51", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court, instead of referring the case to a trial court for fresh consideration, had reassessed the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do so. The applicant further complained under the same provision that his right to remain silent and his right to defence had been violated anew, given that the Supreme Court had excluded part of the evidence obtained in breach of these rights but had relied on other pieces of evidence obtained in the same manner. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a-d) that the retrial had been conducted in his absence, that he had had no adequate facilities to prepare his defence as he had not been informed of the evidence on which the prosecution had intended to rely if his initial confessions had been excluded, and that the exclusion of some of the evidence from his case had changed the situation to the extent that it had required the witnesses to be re-questioned, but this had not been done. The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a07727d8-0773-4080-b4a3-e595736d76ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing as he had not been properly defended by a lawyer and that he had not been able to question certain witnesses or to obtain the appearance of witnesses on his behalf. The relevant parts of Article <mask> of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0dc1d084-07a8-4cf9-9c73-730f0394694d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government considered that Article <mask> of the Convention was only applicable in the present case from the moment when the applicant had been formally charged with the murder of Mrs K. on 25 February 2002. In their opinion, the investigative procedures that had been conducted with the participation of the applicant prior to that day did not fall within the ambit of Article 6, as the applicant participated in them voluntarily as a witness and therefore did not have a right to be represented by a lawyer."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "781627ba-1f76-45f9-8721-9c885ff3d045", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the appeal judgment of 2 April 2004 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 23 September 2004 and that the supervisory-review hearing had been unfair because he had not been informed about it and therefore had not been able to attend it. In so far as relevant, these Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8d30ba6d-b025-44fa-ae3b-44b8856fb248", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the judicial authorities\u2019 failure to inform him of the date and place of the appeal hearing and the resultant violation of the principle of equality of arms. He also complained that the reclassification of the offence by the trial court from accepting a bribe to fraud had prevented him from exercising his defence rights properly. Article 6 in its relevant parts provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "855c516f-a0bb-4185-a669-9f4d5f2aae95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings before the Croatian Health Insurance Fund. Those proceedings had not involved any contentious issue between two conflicting parties. In the Government\u2019s view, Article 6 of the Convention could be applicable to proceedings before the administrative authorities in cases where there was a dispute between an applicant and the relevant administrative body, but only with regard to complaints concerning the length of such proceedings. In other situations, such as the instant case, which concerned a complaint about the lack of fairness in the proceedings concerned, Article 6 of the Convention would not be applicable."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bf9c459f-ccb4-484c-83d2-647130e754dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that all four applicants had been duly notified of the forthcoming appellate hearings, and that Article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 16 above) allowed the courts to proceed with examination of appeals in their absence. By contrast with criminal proceedings, civil disputes do not require the presence of both parties on appeal, and neither Russian law nor the Convention provides for the absolute right to be present before courts of both levels. In the cases of Mr Belkin and Mr Kiryushkin, the Government argued that not all types of civil proceedings required an oral hearing and that, given the nature of the applicants\u2019 claims, the courts considered their presence unnecessary. In Mr Belkin\u2019s case, the Government further submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not provide for a specific form of service of summonses. Lastly, in the case of Ms Shevchenok, they pointed out that the summons had been sent to a post-office box to which only she had access. It was therefore impossible to ascertain whether she had actually received it."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f9f78078-c40b-40c1-9abc-e55e55aab999", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a denial of access to a court on account of the suspension in the functioning of the courts in Chechnya from October 1999 until January 2001, the unreasonable length of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 14 February 2001 and the unfairness of the proceedings in 2002 in view of the arbitrary findings made in his case by the domestic courts, together with their failure properly to examine his legal arguments and the evidence adduced by him, as well as to address his claims regarding compensation for the occupation of his estate and non-pecuniary damage. With reference to the above deficiencies in the domestic proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 13 that the domestic remedies had proved to be ineffective in his case. The respective Articles in their relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d15c215c-4954-4183-82d8-6a2f0f5caf8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government of Serbia and Montenegro added that the underlying explanation for Article <mask> of the Convention was to be found in the principle of the rule of law enunciated in Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. They said that it would be difficult to envisage that principle being applied without access to a court and referred to the judgment in Fayed v. the United Kingdom (21 September 1994, \u00a7 65, Series A no. 294\u2011B), in which the Court stated: \u201c[I]t would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 \u00a7 1 \u2013 namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication \u2013 if, for example, a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons.\u201d"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b1c8980c-6e3f-4d3b-89c2-7ad66f2c0b67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained that his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been infringed by the use of the confession extracted from him as a result of coercion in police custody, during which he had been denied access to a lawyer. He further contended that his conviction had been based on statements that had been taken unlawfully from him and the other co-accused H.K. despite the fact that they had later been retracted. Furthermore, the applicant complained that the Adana Assize Court had not taken any steps to test the veracity of these statements. Lastly, he argued that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive. The Court will examine his complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c), which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "871d1e54-741c-465f-bc57-c358186d15ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that while assessing the disciplinary proceedings, the domestic courts had delivered their decisions on the basis of the case files without holding hearings. He maintained that he had been deprived of his right to defend himself in person or through the assistance of a lawyer. The applicant, based on the same facts, also invoked Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine these complaints solely under Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1dc38c37-6152-4a81-ad4b-b444eb4cfaf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government argued that the applicants' \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention were not at stake in the proceedings in question. Referring to the Court's judgment in the Ferrazzini case (Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, to be published in ECHR 2001-VII) and previous judgments by the Court concerning tax proceedings, they concluded that tax disputes fell outside the scope of Article 6, which provision was thus not applicable to the enforcement of taxes in the present case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dbb701bf-2693-44e8-83e1-731e23d93f41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in that she had not been invited to take part in the court proceedings involving the determination of her civil rights and obligations. As she had been a minor at the time when the criminal proceedings had been brought before the court, the authorities should have provided for the representation of her rights and lawful interests by appointing a representative for her. Even if the applicant\u2019s legal representation had been carried out by her mother V. before she reached the age of majority, the quality of that representation was highly questionable and had not ensured the full protection of her interests. To fully protect the minor\u2019s rights under such circumstances, the same social service authority of the municipality that had approved the sale of the apartment at 9 Mahtra Street should have been involved in the court hearings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b14055ae-83e3-4d42-bdc8-0cecd3c148d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant disagreed. He argued that the relevant regulation applicable to court record keeping was not the list of standard documents relied on by the Government, but the instructions governing documentation and record keeping at the administrative courts (see paragraph 15 above). He referred to provisions of the Code of Administrative Justice and the instructions, which required that court documents be sent by registered rather than ordinary untraceable mail, and that delivery slips be kept in the case files (see paragraphs 10 and 15 above). Accordingly, his application was admissible and disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f4ba6551-dccc-4732-b8ee-95d4eb0d5078", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicants replied that had the Agency acted in accordance with the law they would have had the building permit by 8 August 2005 at the latest and there would have been no need for the court proceedings which followed. They also maintained that the 2006 DUP no longer provided for construction of the initially planned shopping centre and that thereby the subsequent calculation of the charges, as well as their right to a final decision and its enforcement, became pointless, which was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0d926e68-1306-4732-bc5a-67d76cbe7308", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the quashing of the judgments of 27 June and 15 August 2001 by way of supervisory review. The Court observes that the supervisory review took place on 14 October and 11 February 2002 respectively, while the above complaint was first raised before the Court in 2009. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bf9263c8-8197-4d8b-a071-3b9517e9a30d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 September 2001, as upheld on appeal on 9 January 2002, violated his right to a court under Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "477f5293-43d4-4e10-8563-227986e6124b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the respondent State had failed to enforce a final and enforceable decision of 16 May 1994 rendered in his favour and that he had been unable to obtain payment of the difference between the pension actually paid to him and the pension for the period between September 1990 and December 1993 as awarded to him by that decision. The applicant also complained under Article 13 that he had had no effective domestic remedy by which he could have had the 1994 decision enforced."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f88f8908-de6c-4606-8e7c-e3ae17e2ea39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants contested the Government\u2019s public policy argument, asserting that the interests in an effective prosecution of traffic offences could not justify curtailing the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, which were core contents of the notion of a fair trial. Moreover, the example of other member States showed that it was possible to secure the prosecution of traffic offences without resorting to a provision which was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a02faa76-b485-4959-a7af-8970dbf47061", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government did not explicitly contest the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention. They rather argued that the text of the police decision reflected a state of suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence and could not in the circumstances be considered to be a statement of fact or opinion, since it was issued prior to the initiation of any criminal prosecution. Moreover, a criminal prosecution had not been possible under the applicable domestic law as the applicant's husband had not given his consent as required under Article 163 (a) (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (see paragraph 16 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aab2d27e-7b7f-4a08-906f-c40646e1efa7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant claimed that Article 6 was applicable to her case. In particular, her case concerned a \u201cdispute\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as with her claim she challenged the legality of the decisions and actions of the public authority. Furthermore, such dispute related to a civil right under Article 6 as the disputed right was recognised under the domestic law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0f3727a5-2620-48f0-82a6-855749fb3763", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government emphasised that Article <mask> of the Convention did not grant the accused an unlimited right to secure the appearance of witnesses in court. It was normally for the national court to decide whether it was necessary or advisable to call a witness. In the present case the court had conducted fair, extensive, detailed and diligent proceedings when taking evidence. The applicant had been able to avail himself of all his procedural rights. He had requested that new evidence be taken and certain of his requests had been granted. All this evidence was examined in the applicant's presence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f773bcb9-d67e-40d8-af2a-c60f1bfeaef9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government added that neither the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court nor the prefect\u2019s decision to reafforest had violated the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In deciding the admissibility of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court had held that the Supreme Administrative Court\u2019s finding that the prefect\u2019s decision was not an operative act was not arbitrary. Furthermore, under Article 117 of the Constitution, the protection of forests was guaranteed without any limitation in time and notwithstanding any illegal destruction or deforestation. The decision to reafforest was not left to the discretion of the authorities but had to be taken when necessary and when the conditions laid down in Article 117 were met. The Supreme Administrative Court had found, on the basis of a large amount of evidence, that it was probable that the disputed area had been a forest in the past. It followed that the prefect\u2019s decision was not arbitrary but dictated by reasons of public interest, namely the protection of the environment."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "221e21fe-8b46-418e-85ec-47d40fe2dbfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that her right of access to a court had been violated as a result of the District Court\u2019s refusal to examine her counter\u2011claim on the ground that the power of attorney submitted by her representative did not comply with the requirements of the law. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8f59baff-73ff-4312-b459-618b751cb86d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 position and submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention required accused persons to be given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the evidence, which had to be presented to them at the hearing. There could be exceptions to this principle, but they should not infringe the rights of the defence, which as a rule required accused persons to be entitled to examine or have examined a witness against them, either when the witness gave a statement or at a later stage (they cited Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, \u00a7 57, ECHR 2001\u2011X). Furthermore, in Schatschaschwili v. Germany ([GC], no. 9154/10, \u00a7 107, ECHR 2015), Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, \u00a7 119, ECHR 2011) and Seton v. the United Kingdom, (no. 55287/10, \u00a7\u00a7 58 and 59, 31 March 2016), the Court had established three criteria which criminal proceedings had to satisfy in order to be compatible with Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) where witness statements had been admitted in evidence without the witness having been examined by the accused."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8e4efed0-80be-438a-9c0a-8982ba7d9bc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that the domestic courts had relied on a confession that he had only given under duress and that he had been deprived of the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "73e08722-c3b5-4d1f-9d6a-ea9eca94c566", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Government contended that there was no causal link between a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the loss of assets or income which the applicants alleged they had sustained. The Government contended that the first applicant had had hardly any assets at all at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy and, in view of its financial situation, would have been declared bankrupt in any event on account of the taxes assessed by the Tax Authority. Thus, the tax surcharges had been of no relevance to the bankruptcy decision. Further, the second applicant had failed to substantiate any loss of income as his average declared income during the years 1997 to 2000 had been well above the income received from the first applicant the year before its bankruptcy. The Government further stated that the Court had no power under Article 41 to oblige a State to cancel a tax debt. Moreover, they contested that there was any causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage relating to the tax debts and the alleged violations of the Convention, which did not relate to the imposition of taxes and surcharges but to the enforcement of the decisions. In any event, only a very small amount of the relevant tax debts had actually been paid; the remainder had become statute-barred on 31 December 2001."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "eddb4b2b-0154-4072-b517-713a4a84c125", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government argued that the Katowice Court of Appeal had informed the applicant about his legal-aid lawyer's refusal and held that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal would start to run anew, starting on the date on which the refusal had been served on the applicant. They reiterated that the mere fact that a legal aid lawyer could refuse to represent a defendant in proceedings before the highest court could not be said to be, of itself, tantamount to a denial of legal assistance which would have been incompatible with the State's obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, in case of a lawyer's refusal to draft a cassation appeal, the State Parties were not obliged to provide assistance by successive legal-aid lawyers."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "73f8c33d-e164-4e29-a108-08a3acdd7b51", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the contested proceedings, because the applicant had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. They further argued that the applicant had been able to argue her case in the domestic courts. In particular, she and her representative had lodged an application for the examination of a video-recording, which had been granted by the appellate court. While the justice of the peace had refused the representative\u2019s request to admit two photographs and a video-recording into evidence, it had granted his application for the release of street camera footage which could allegedly show the events of 15 September 2012. The Government concluded that the domestic courts had examined and assessed all the evidence at their disposal."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "091a26ad-8787-4fa5-b819-f6363d5f0be3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained, notably, under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the judgments. Mrs Gladkova complained under these provisions that she was not notified of the supervisory review hearing and could not be present at the examination of her case. These Articles, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "df24dee2-3497-478b-baaa-7c80fcdbe805", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicant alleged in his original application that he had had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaint about the courts\u2019 refusal to examine his complaints involving a disciplinary reprimand he had received at the Ras\u0173 Prison (Article <mask> of the Convention also being invoked in this respect). Moreover, he complained of the refusal of the domestic courts to entertain his complaints against certain private newspapers, journalists, the police and other State institutions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a04ab8fb-74fa-4448-b845-85133c2c4051", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to equality of arms had been infringed as a result of his inability to consult the criminal file submitted by the prosecutor to the R\u00e2\u015fcani District Court before its decision of 14 June 2004. He also complained, under the same Article, of absence of relevant and sufficient reasons for the various decisions in his case. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c806e539-6f31-4975-a5be-7030c1d91542", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the judgment of 3 July 2001. The Court recalls that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a reopening of the proceedings as in the present case (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, 12 February 2004 and Khanyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 19065/05, 5 July 2007). The Court further recalls that, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, it may only examine complaints in respect of which domestic remedies have been exhausted and which have been submitted within six months from the date of the \u201cfinal\u201d domestic decision. If there is no adequate remedy against a particular act, which is alleged to be in breach of the Convention, the date when that act takes place is taken to be \u201cfinal\u201d for the purposes of the six months\u2019 rule (see, for example, Vala\u0161inas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 44558/98, 14 March 2000)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fe6f9239-7110-4e86-a92e-095af3d4b154", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial \u2012 because he had not been provided with a legal aid lawyer at any stage of the criminal proceedings \u2012 and that the trial court which convicted him had lacked impartiality to the extent that a substantial part of his trial had been conducted in the absence of a prosecutor. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e4c2b551-2679-4c7f-a111-959d6eb0944c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment in her favour on supervisory review and the issuing of a new decision by which her claims had been dismissed in full. She also invoked in this connection Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provide in the relevant parts as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "831a45e5-6ced-4a5c-8db5-a3eeb043eb41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant raised numerous complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention about the criminal proceedings against him. He complained that there had been a violation of his defence rights regarding the examination of the undercover witness, that the judges had been biased, had not given reasons for their decisions and had rejected his requests for the admission of evidence. He further alleged that his conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence obtained by using special investigative techniques and that the witness whose statement had served as the main evidence against him had been involved in the operation as an agent provocateur. He complained also that the documents in the case file had not been translated into a language that he understood. The Court considers that these complaints should be analysed under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, the latter concerning particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1, which, in so far, as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0f459dda-e0be-402b-a6a4-4a7e5dc7ffea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Commissioner of Public Interest had refused to call advocates of the Koszalin Regional Bar as witnesses for him. Furthermore, the lustration courts had refused to hear a number of the applicant\u2019s witnesses who were to testify that he had not been a secret and conscious collaborator of the security service. He also complained that he had been deprived of the right to practise as an advocate for ten years and accordingly sustained significant moral and pecuniary damage. Lastly, the applicant alleged that judges of the Lustration Chamber of the Warsaw Court of Appeal had not been permanently assigned to either the first or the second-instance lustration court but had heard cases sometimes sitting on the first-instance court and sometimes sitting on the second-instance court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c044ef58-4401-4742-8f5a-35e501274a52", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government were of the view that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings concerning the imposition of solitary confinement on the applicant. This provision did not apply to incidental proceedings conducted in the course of criminal proceedings concerning the determination of a criminal charge, even when important procedural issues were determined in them. Such proceedings did not relate to the merits of the criminal case against the applicant. As a consequence, they did not concern the determination of a criminal charge against him. The procedural safeguards laid down by Article <mask> of the Convention did not, as a rule, apply to various preliminary measures which could be taken as a part of a criminal investigation before bringing a criminal charge, such as the arrest or interviewing of a suspect (Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, \u00a7 34, ECHR 1999\u2011VII)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3705a3f5-f8d4-4ac7-b66e-c56e98024d24", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants submitted that in the absence of a prosecuting party the trial judges had taken on the role of the prosecution. The court therefore was not \u201cindependent and impartial\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant also alleged that the domestic courts had dismissed the testimonies of the defence witnesses and video recording favourable to him while giving weight to the written statements of the police officers."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c2cae75f-d6bb-4b98-b77a-03fd2d46696b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts had not taken into consideration the evidence proving the unlawfulness of the Ministry's refusal to register the association and had failed to properly examine the complaint concerning the Ministry's breach of statutory time-limits for an official response to the state registration request. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "34ec923a-c75c-4e6d-bae2-24c1aa0f4ff0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. He further argued that the Supreme Court had re-established the facts of the case although it had not been vested with such a jurisdiction; that it had not been impartial and independent, as it had decided under the Government's influence. He further maintained that it had not decided in public. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f4320e8c-6c54-4131-82d6-b7343b92f7bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against him had been a drastic step. By their very nature and consequences a \u201cright\u201d in the sense of Article <mask> of the Convention had been created. Any public\u2011law features of a disciplinary nature in the case did not exclude the proceedings from the scope of Article 6 since their outcome had been severe and far-reaching: the applicant had been dismissed from his post, affecting his career and professional activities. The fact that Articles 12 \u00a7 5 and 30 of the Constitution, which contained equivalent guarantees to Article 6 of the Convention, had been applicable to the disciplinary proceedings were indicative of the civil nature of the right at stake."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a9d14b79-bf15-4d86-989c-6b7b56256a67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that the manner in which the domestic courts had dismissed his claim had not been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, he also relied on Article 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints should be examined as an \u201caccess to a court\u201d complaint under Article 6 (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, \u00a7 88, 31 May 2005). The applicant also complained that the judges had been biased and the principle of equality of arms had been violated. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1e99b299-1819-4de2-8510-d3497ada0f70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that various irregularities in the criminal proceedings against him had rendered them unfair. In his view, his conviction had been based on insufficient and inadmissible evidence. In particular, the courts had taken into account the expert report of 13 April 2004, and had rejected an alternative expert report submitted by the defence. Also, the courts had incorrectly assessed statements by a number of prosecution witnesses and referred, in convicting the applicant, to a statement by a witness who had lodged an anonymous complaint, and to a statement by another witness who had been biased against the applicant. At the same time, in the applicant\u2019s view, the courts had failed to give appropriate weight to the statements of the defence witnesses. The applicant also disputed the establishment of facts by the trial court, stating that its relevant findings had not been substantiated with sufficient evidence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "67cb1a23-70b3-478c-9cf8-e60cb54241a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 December 2001 delivered by the Ryazan Garnison Military Court. Invoking the same provisions the applicant S. Panchenko also complained of delayed enforcement of the two other judgments delivered by the same court on 13 and 20 December 2001 and of insufficient compensation subsequently awarded by the same court on account of this delayed enforcement. The relevant parts of the Convention\u2019s provisions are cited above."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1e432cc1-e9e6-44e4-aeab-c37adc5ef7eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained that the prolonged failure to enforce the judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September 1999, 21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, 10 May 2000, as upheld on 22 June 2000, and 16 May 2000 violated Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of Article 6 provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "82c553d0-4d42-4128-973e-8f20af0a46b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant argued that the dismissal of her \u201cPinto\u201d compensation claim as being out of time had disregarded the Court\u2019s case-law to the effect that the execution phase is an integral part of the \u201ctrial\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, according to the applicant, based on the principles set out in the Cocchiarella judgment (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7  87\u201190), the \u201cfinal domestic decision\u201d, to be taken as a starting point for the six-month period within which to bring a claim for just satisfaction under section 4 of Law no. 89 of 2001, should be the garnishee order of 25 January 2005 issued by the enforcements judge."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b66045b7-9b59-4352-8d78-c54141fb534b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the proceedings regarding the trial of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the Larnaca District Court and the appeal lodged against the decision of that court in this respect should be excluded from the period concerned in determining the overall period of the proceedings. They relied on the case of Buchholz v. Germany (judgment of 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42) which in their view was applicable in the present case, since the courts were not called on to determine the dispute between the parties; their ruling did not relate to the right claimed by the applicant against the defendant. Therefore, they argued that these proceedings did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "74b90957-1f95-490f-aa06-18a3af8149b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.   The applicant further complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that the courts had refused to obtain an opinion from an expert in photographic analysis in order to show that the impression created by one of the published photographs, namely that he was exchanging a French kiss with the seminarian K., was an optical illusion."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "288c0a7a-787a-4157-8cd1-d88f42201ca6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government, referring to the complexity of the case, number of participants and conduct of the parties to the proceedings, pleaded that the proceedings had been held within the reasonable time. In particular, they submitted that the authorities had carried out twenty-three forensic examinations and interrogated more than six hundred witnesses. The criminal limb of the proceedings had been also complicated by civil actions brought by the victims, numbering in total up to twelve persons. The civil limb of the proceedings had been complicated by the claimants, including the applicant, who had enjoyed their procedural rights (for example, modified their claims, inter alia, indicating new defendants to the case whose number on different stages of the proceedings ranged from four to eight, appealed against court decisions, lodged various requests, etc.). On several occasions the parties had requested the hearings be adjourned and had failed to appear before the courts, which according to the Government had delayed the progress of the proceedings for eleven months. The domestic authorities, on the other hand, had caused no delays and a fortiori had taken measures to speed up the proceedings. Accordingly, the Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c0bb2582-6d30-45dd-9b9e-0b0b760aa593", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the judgments in Phillips v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and in R. v. Benjafield (see paragraph 26 above) had recognised that the 1994 Act was designed to combat the serious problem of drug trafficking, by punishing convicted offenders, deterring other offences and reducing the profits available to fund future drug-trafficking ventures. The objectives of the legislation reflected not only national but also international policy, as was made clear by the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs (see paragraph 27 above). Moreover, as also found in those judgments, the operation of the legislation was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and provided a number of safeguards for the defendant."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9cfa6415-b70a-4dfe-8c78-bc95087abaa0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied access to court twice (in November 2005 and June 2006) in connection with several charges related to a cover-up, racist behaviour towards him and a breach of his personal rights because of violation of data protection. He also complained that the Patras Court of Appeal's judgment lacked sufficient reasoning. Under Article 6 \u00a7 2 the applicant complained of a claim made by the Patras prosecutor that the applicant had signed a forged document in order to incriminate the police officers. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his private and family life had been violated because one of the defendant police officers had submitted information on past criminal activity of the applicant's relatives in order to discredit the applicant's statements."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "73880c70-d35c-4b7d-9f7b-d48c56746803", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that under Moldovan law it was impossible for him to adduce evidence in support of his claim to have his ethnic origin changed from Moldovan to Romanian. Since this complaint relates to the same matters as those considered under Article 8, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine it separately (see, mutatis mutandis, Megadat.com S.R.L. v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, \u00a7 80, 8 April 2008)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e28a36ec-ef1e-42f3-b541-9c50875508cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right of access to court was violated by the refusal to hold a hearing at which they could challenge the order made by the High Court of Justiciary on 15 February 2005. They further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that this was an unjustified interference with their right to impart information as guaranteed by that Article. Finally, under Article 13 of the Convention, they complained that there was no effective remedy to challenge the making of an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1983."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f0b436cf-3736-43d9-b6e2-93e4bbb44013", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant submitted that the Administrative Court had unlawfully dismissed his request to hold an oral hearing, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to discuss the expert opinions in the context of a public hearing. Since an oral hearing could have elucidated the facts of the case, the Court's refusal to hold one was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6ceedcf4-057e-4b4f-9e25-bf5c18ecb4f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant submits that the right to a fair trial in which a lawyer can defend the accused in his or her absence \u2013 and therefore without fear of arrest \u2013 is an integral part of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the Court\u2019s findings in Lala and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands (judgments of 22 September 1994, Series A nos. 297-A and 297-B), the applicant argues that, in weighing the State\u2019s interest in securing the appearance of accused at their trial against that of defendants in exercising their right to be defended by counsel, the latter interest should prevail."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "84b64287-0add-4ea8-baea-d5e4fa06bc65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. It reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see \u00d6calan v. Turkey, cited above, \u00a7 210 in fine)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b3dce329-b9f4-404f-85b6-348724e9e9fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 4 February 2004 and 27 May 2005, as well as, in substance, about the quashing of the judgment of 27 May 2005 and the unfairness of the supervisory-review proceedings. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f537639f-c85e-4173-9b3b-012b492189e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of other proceedings. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the outcome of the first set of the proceedings and the proceedings instituted by the company, G., against the Inspectorate, and that both sets of proceedings were unfair. He complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that pecuniary damage had been caused to him and his company."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fd14c2d8-4cba-470c-a08f-d904041ca2dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government submitted that, considering the limited and technical nature of the issues arising in costs proceedings, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. In any event the applicants had not raised the question of costs before the court or addressed the Supreme Court on this matter, although they had had the right to do so at any stage of the hearing of their appeal or in their written addresses. The applicants had known that the Supreme Court would decide on the issue of costs at the end of its judgment. The Government referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kypros Economides and Christos A. Theodoulou v. the Republic of Cyprus through the Council of Ministers, the Minister of the Interior and Director of Town Planning (appeal no. 3196, 4 July 2007) in which the appellants had raised the issue of costs before the Court in their written pleadings and the Supreme Court had addressed the matter in its judgment and applied the general rule that costs follow the outcome of the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0dbca5b9-c1dc-4ea7-a412-ee6e2dcaf13f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not necessarily require a hearing in all proceedings. They argued in that connection that where no controversy existed over the facts of a case and the legal question was not particularly complex, proceedings could be dealt with on the basis of written submissions. They submitted that in proceedings before enforcement courts the examination of a case was done on the basis of the case file. The only exception to this rule concerned objections against disciplinary penalties, where a hearing would be held. In the present case, the fact that no hearing had taken place had not prevented the applicant from submitting his arguments against the decision of the Edirne Enforcement Court before the Assize Court. They also argued that in certain proceedings, such as the present one, the demands of efficiency and economy could justify dispensing with a hearing. They maintained in that connection that if each application submitted to an enforcement court were to be examined by holding a hearing, thousands of detainees and convicts would be required frequently to go outside of the prison institutions which would, economic hardships aside, jeopardise the security and the discipline of the institution."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "75dddabf-1827-4c61-87aa-7f93d8c7d9a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They further complain that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1fb75274-9b3f-4372-ae1e-5b3a32fc4788", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, under various heads. Firstly, they complained that the 2004 Act had introduced a legislative amendment that interfered with their rights in pending proceedings. Secondly, they complained that the proceedings regarding the compensation due to them have not been concluded within a reasonable time. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "73fa438e-64c2-47cb-81fc-8212fcbb0b02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government put forward an admissibility objection as regards one specific complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that the applicants had not contested the decision to disjoin the case against X from the criminal proceedings against them. They claimed, in particular, that the first applicant had not challenged the rulings of 17 October 2012 and 10 December 2012 under the procedure set out in Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the second applicant had not lodged any complaints at all. The Government therefore argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as regards this complaint. If they had considered this remedy ineffective, the Government claimed in the alternative that they had missed the six-month time-limit for lodging their complaint with the Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "162e7841-aa60-46c8-96cc-564984fab55c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claim was of a public-law nature and fell outside the material scope of the application of Article <mask> of the Convention, therefore it was incompatible ratione materiae with its provisions, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a). They stressed that although access to a court was not excluded expressly in respect of the right claimed by the applicant, this could not create a substantive right under Hungarian law, to be recognised as a civil right for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "485f5df3-fda5-4086-b681-6ae3bec0c792", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The applicant submitted that the civil limb of Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable to each set of domestic proceedings (see paragraphs 31-33 above) aimed at declaring his administrative arrest in breach of domestic law and arbitrary, and at obtaining compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of such arrest. The civil courts had wrongly declined jurisdiction by referring to the competence of courts in a CAO case to assess the legality of administrative arrest and related actions on the part of the police. In both sets of proceedings, the civil courts had wrongly reasoned that the courts in the applicant\u2019s CAO case had assessed the legality of the arrest, by emphasising that the related court decisions had become final. The CAO contained no provision requiring courts in CAO cases to assess related issues of legality. The courts in the second set of proceedings had omitted to assess the relevant factual and legal elements arising from his claim."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "503ccba6-8883-4373-aac9-db5f830a3a9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair trial on account of his trial by the Istanbul Security Court whose composition included a military judge, the denial of access to a lawyer during the preliminary investigation, the use of statements taken under duress to convict him, the non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court Cassation and the failure of the trial court to hear important witnesses. He further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive. Article <mask> of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5a5aeebc-f7e1-49c7-891c-ae35e2dd8795", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government maintained that the Respondent State\u2019s liability may only be engaged in so far as it relates to the enforcement proceedings against the debtor while the subsequent insolvency proceedings against the debtor should not be assessed in the context of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued, taking into account that the debtor was at one point a privately owned company, that the Respondent State cannot be held responsible for the failure to fulfil its obligations. They finally argued that the State cannot be held responsible for the debtor\u2019s lack of assets."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3dc55780-9b8c-4cb4-b7be-ec2d3d1c0751", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant also complained that at the material time the courts were not functioning in the Chechen Republic, and therefore the company had to bring court proceedings in a neighbouring region. It was thus placed at a substantial disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the other party, as the company had difficulty in securing the attendance of witnesses and obtaining necessary materials, and because its representative incurred additional travel expenses. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in its relevant part, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8d21a648-2ed7-432c-830f-2719d5366ba5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had the opportunity to question witnesses. He further complained, without invoking any Convention provision, that his health had deteriorated in detention and that the medical assistance provided had been inadequate. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention that the judicial authorities had failed to take into account his detention before 16 January 2005 when calculating his prison sentence and under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that he had had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-conviction detention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "26538fb1-e551-48de-b3c0-21e9aa1b56f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied access to a court since their claim had remained undecided on the merits due to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the national courts to decide the case. They also complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "11b81ad0-9c39-4ec0-8152-8350b149dc41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant contended that the reports on his background check had been based on unverified and incorrect insinuations made by the police. Although he had asked for disclosure of the information on which the reports had been based, it had never been provided to him. Instead, the Administrative Court had reviewed it ex parte and thus prevented him from effectively arguing his case. In the applicant\u2019s view, this had run counter to the requirements of equality of arms and adversarial trial under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also considered that he had sufficiently demonstrated that he had no problem of alcohol abuse and there had therefore been no reason not to renew his firearms licence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b54a3541-5206-4273-b7d3-ebf6afc809f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government stated that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the applicant's case. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing on appeal on 17 August 2005 and had been able to request the adjournment of that hearing, that her lawyer had also been aware of that hearing, which was confirmed by his request of 7 September 2005, and that after the hearing of 17 August 2005 the decision of the Court of Appeal together with other materials of the case had been available at that court. On these grounds, the Government contended that the applicant and her lawyer had had a real opportunity to submit an appeal in cassation within the time-limit set by the law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "05832efd-afca-4bc4-81d1-5640d668ddbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and that the prosecutor\u2019s office had refused to initiate criminal proceedings against third parties. The Court considers that there is nothing in the material submitted by the applicant to suggest that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair in any way. This part of the complaint is thus manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention. As to the second part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to pursue criminal proceedings against third persons and that Article 6 does not apply to proceedings aimed at instituting criminal proceedings against third persons. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "73496dfe-c531-4526-9c8f-a257b64054d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been arbitrary and unfair, in particular on account of the failure to comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms when the evidence and witnesses had been admitted and examined. They complained about their conviction for acts which had not fallen under the legal classification assigned to them. They also alleged that they had been deprived of having the judgment against them delivered in public because the date of delivery had been moved to prevent attendance by the public and press and because only the operative part of the judgment had been delivered at the hearing. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "984377e3-da71-4775-8107-2a17fa6a44c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he complained that his inability to take part in the supervisory-review proceedings before the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia had rendered those proceedings unfair. The Court is of the view that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aed27b1b-603e-4c71-b4bd-7e50242ae1c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government, agreeing that the delays in the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s rape had been excessive, argued that the situation had been appropriately redressed by the competent domestic authorities, which had awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time. Taking the view that in the specific circumstances of the present case the remedy in question had constituted appropriate and sufficient redress with regard to both the alleged violations of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement under Article <mask> of the Convention and of the applicant\u2019s procedural rights under Article 3 of the Convention, the Government argued that she had lost her victim status. They pointed out that in the proceedings for compensation under the 2006 Act, the domestic courts had taken account of the particular circumstances of the criminal proceedings, emphasising that the applicant\u2019s case had not been handled in a careful, resolute and rapid manner, as required by the serious nature of the criminal acts involved, and that during the lengthy proceedings the applicant had had to relive the abuse she had suffered, which had caused her severe mental distress. Consequently, the applicant had been awarded a considerably higher amount than would normally have been granted under the 2006 Act. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the domestic courts had therefore appropriately examined the substantial deficiencies in the criminal proceedings on which the applicant had based her allegations concerning a violation of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 3."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "37ce39a7-4a6b-45ab-9ac1-bb1187caf989", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government contested these claims stating, firstly, that there was no causal link between the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and any pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered the applicant\u2019s claim exorbitant as to quantum. In the event that the Court were to find a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage should not exceed EUR 3,000."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "98679214-c783-46ea-8083-0a72b04efbab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant further claimed that both Article 70 \u00a7 3 of the CCP and Article 22 of the Law on State Fees contradicted the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. These provisions created inequality between physical and legal persons, the former being able to obtain an exemption from payment of the court fee in case of insufficient financial means, while the latter was deprived of this possibility. Even if a legal person which was experiencing financial difficulties was granted a deferral of payment of the court fee, it would still find itself in a difficult financial situation in the future. In sum, the applicant company claimed that the non-examination of its cassation appeal violated its right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "366fe220-a78c-4184-9a3e-566d4f843a86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the circumstances of the present case concerning the proceedings relating to the applicant\u2019s family disability benefit request. Those proceedings had not involved any contentious issue between two parties. They had been principally conducted by the administrative authorities and only later by the Administrative Court. In the Government\u2019s view, Article 6 of the Convention could be applicable to proceedings before the administrative authorities in cases where there was a dispute between an applicant and the competent administrative body, but only with regard to complaints concerning the length of proceedings. In other situations, such as the instant case, which concerned a complaint about the lack of fairness in the proceedings, Article 6 of the Convention would not be applicable."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3fdd9ba3-c548-478d-b4f5-04c097aad1d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the fairness of the domestic proceedings, the assessment of the evidence by the domestic courts and their alleged failure to examine all his arguments. In particular, he complained, inter alia, that the domestic courts had committed errors of fact and law and the decisions had not been well reasoned. He further complained about the absence of a hearing prior to the imposition of the fine in question."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bc38a76e-66c3-4674-b30e-c8122e2bb413", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained that judge N.H. had been a member of both Supreme Court panels that had examined his two successive appeals on points of law. He noted that the participation of the judge in the examination of the same case for the second time had been in breach of the requirements of the domestic procedural law and therefore that the Supreme Court panel composed in this manner could not have been impartial. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows, in the relevant part:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e950e286-35ae-4175-b7a1-2172ab5c9f1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government argued that it could not be inferred from this Court\u2019s case-law that Article <mask> of the Convention requires domestic courts to refer a case to the CJEU or to provide specific reasons for refusing such a referral, irrespective of the content or grounds of that request. According to the Government, the duty to provide reasons when refusing to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling is \u201ca specific element of the general duty of courts to give reasoned decisions\u201d and, referring to Hansen (cited above, \u00a7 80), an appellate court was not required to provide more detailed reasoning when it applied a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal in cassation as having no prospects of success, without further explanation. Therefore, in the Government\u2019s view, the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment containing a summary reasoning based on section 81 of the Judiciary (Organisation) Act was compliant with Article 6 of the Convention and it should be read as that court\u2019s conclusion that the applicant\u2019s request for the referral of a question to the CJEU did not relate to a point of law that required answering."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "96313c80-5364-4711-889e-304d22fa8288", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government submitted that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular having regard to the time elapsed after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia. They submitted further that the subject matter of the applicant's case did not call for particular urgency in deciding it. They referred to the Court's case-law, arguing that the cases that did call for special urgency were those that related to family-law matters or to payment of damages to the victims of road accidents, those that involved the interests of a great number of persons and cases concerning dismissal from work."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b84bb1be-3e6e-48fb-baac-3b61e1096b2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant further complained about the outcome and conduct of the custody proceedings (5 F 283/98 and 5 F 18/99); he alleged in particular that the District Court had been obliged to take one single definitive decision on the attribution of custody when the spouses separated, that the attribution of sole custody to the mother had been contrary to the children's best interest and that the acting judge had been biased. He further complained that his children had not been heard in either set of proceedings, and that he and his former wife had also not been heard. The applicant further complained about the court's failure to determine his contact rights within the scope of the joint judgment granting the divorce and determining the custody rights. With respect to the proceedings 5 F 283/98 and 5 F 18/99 the applicant finally complained under Articles 8 and 17 of the Convention about the possibility of one parent to apply for sole custody according to Article 1671 of the German Civil Code. As regards the proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights (5 F 272/98, 5 F 271/04 and 5 F 33/08) the applicant, relying on Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention further complained about the content of the court settlement of 5 September 2002 and that he had allegedly not been involved in its conclusion. He also complained that his children had not been heard prior to the settlement, that the acting judge had been biased and that the domestic courts had failed to protect his relationship with his children, who had now been alienated from him. Finally, he also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of the proceedings instituted under file no. 5 F 33/08. As regards the proceedings for the regulation of the children's contact rights with their father (5 F 134/01) the applicant complained under Articles 8, 17 and 18 of the Convention that he had been prevented from representing his children in these proceedings. As regards the proceedings for the regulation of the grandparents' contact rights the applicant, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, again complained that he had also been prevented from representing his children and that the domestic courts had given priority to the grandparents' contact rights."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3eaa4cf8-0d4d-4cfa-8e61-3a255080bdee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government noted that, in Morris, the Court had rejected the applicant's general argument (as had the House of Lords) that service tribunals could not try service personnel on criminal charges consistently with Article <mask> of the Convention. The core question in Morris and the present case was not whether military tribunals were acceptable under Article 6 in times of peace or war but rather whether the applicant had obtained a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and the Government maintained that he had."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f30620c0-c87b-4a86-a386-257d153ed749", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the investigator\u2019s decisions to recommence the investigation of his case and the allegedly unsafe sentence that was based on contradictory witness statements and misrepresentations in the trial court records. In his application form of 25 April 2003 he also claimed that the late service of formal charges against him breached his rights provided by the Convention. The relevant parts of Article 6 provide:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fa15373e-4787-4e19-a8d7-725a75b25765", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the administrative offence proceedings against him had been unfair and unreasonably long. He also complained, relying on Article 7, that he had been forced to undergo a psychiatric examination applicable only to criminal proceedings. The applicant next complained, under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of the unauthorised entry into his flat and theft of his property while he was in hospital. He complained under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that by ordering his psychiatric confinement, the domestic courts had been punishing him for expressing his disagreement with \u201cthe political, moral, legal, religious and cultural values held by a certain sector of society\u201d. Lastly, the applicant complained that although he had never been married, the authorities had mistakenly decided to seek a character reference from his non-existent ex-wife, which he considered to be a violation of Article 12 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "125d6add-4892-4493-9683-0e2a8da3e0f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s statement had not been the sole basis for his conviction and that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer throughout the domestic proceedings and had enjoyed the rights guaranteed under domestic law. For the Government, a single shortcoming had not violated the rights provided in Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as it could be concluded that the trial had been fair taken as a whole. They submitted that the domestic court decision had been in conformity with the Court\u2019s case-law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cdd4973a-79e0-440b-ba7b-a26c23fc8af9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant asserted that the thirty-two hours (four days) allocated to him for familiarising himself with the case file had been insufficient to allow the preparation of his cassation appeal, regard particularly being had to the fact that the case file had contained twenty-eight volumes (some 7,000 pages). His situation had been further prejudiced by the fact that he had remained handcuffed on the occasions that he was allowed to familiarise himself with the materials, which had impeded his ability to take notes and had caused him severe physical suffering. In addition, there had been a six-month interval between the dates on which the applicant had studied the case file and the date on which he had participated in the cassation hearing, at which he had eventually found himself without legal representation. In the light of these factors, the Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to provide him with additional time to study the case-file materials had breached the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a3bad413-88fc-4fb3-b638-2170285c3073", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government first submitted that the proceedings in question did not concern the applicants\u2019 civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. This was so because the applicants had not shown that their legal predecessor W.U. had been the owner of the property concerned in 1948. The Government argued that he had never acquired ownership of this property, which had been bequeathed to him under the 1918 will drawn up by his father, K.U., on certain conditions. As those conditions had never been fulfilled, W.U. had not become owner of the property and his name had not been listed in the relevant land register."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b3367555-6d41-49d1-9337-272d93852438", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants complained that the appeal and supervisory review proceedings had fallen short of the requirements of fairness. In particular, they alleged that the legal assistance provided by State-appointed counsel had not been effective and that the video links provided had been of poor quality. The first applicant also complained that the appeal court had ordered his removal from the hearing and had proceeded in his absence. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8184f9e4-55af-4262-9ac3-c85238665b58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court changed its interpretation of the Salduz judgment in 2012 and 2013 (see relevant domestic law) and different conclusions were then arrived at. He noted that these conflicting judgments ran counter to the principle of legal certainty. It was the Constitutional Court\u2019s role to create certainty; however, concerning the subject matter it had done just the opposite. The applicant relied on the case of Beian, cited above. He noted that in The Police vs Alvin Privitera of 11 April 2011, The Police vs Esron Pullicino of 12 April 2011, and The Police v Mark Lombardi, also of 12 April 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the claimants had suffered a breach of their right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as they had not been legally assisted. This interpretation was reversed in the judgment in the names of Joseph Bugeja vs The Attorney General, 14 January 2013; The Police vs Tyron Fenech, 22 February 2013; and The Police vs Amanda Agius, also of 22 February 2013, as well as in his own case. The interpretation was again reversed in The Republic of Malta vs Alfred Camilleri of 12 November 2012, albeit that decision was once again overturned."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fa560de1-cacb-4976-a0da-c549a81aedd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of unfairness of the proceedings in her case. She also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of lack of access to a court on account of the outcome of the second, third and fourth sets of proceedings. The applicant finally alleged that the State authorities had violated her right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a56d25f8-4c24-4978-bbba-f451e23a8624", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant companies relied on the Court\u2019s principles regarding access to court and legislative intervention under Article <mask> of the Convention, and referred in particular to the Court\u2019s judgment in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006\u2011V). They considered that there existed no legitimate reasons or compelling general interest reasons which could allow the Italian legislator to legitimately intervene in pending proceedings by enacting a law with retroactive effect concerning facts which had already come to be and proceedings which had already been initiated, thus usurping the function of the judiciary and violating the applicants\u2019 right to a fair trial as well as impairing the very essence of the their right to a court. Indeed, the only reason behind the intervention had been financial, namely to avoid payments in a number of judgments, at first\u2011instance and on appeal, which had found in favour of the applicant companies and other companies in the same position. This was clear even from the name of the law \u2013 Urgent dispositions to favour development and to adjust the trend in public finances (Disposizioni urgenti per favorire lo sviluppo e la correzione dell\u2019andamaneto dei conti pubblici). Without the intervention, and in accordance with the established case-law arising from a multitude of cases including judgments of the Court of Cassation, the applicant companies\u2019 claims would have succeeded. However, the intervention ensured that, contrary to what had already been established, the INPS would be successful."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6adf7d62-ad96-441a-9d2c-4b7ad5f230a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The Government submitted that the lustration proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had been in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been represented during the proceedings, had the right to appeal, and the Commission and the courts had given reasons for their decisions. He had had full access to all the documents available in the file, which had been examined at the hearing before the Administrative Court in his presence. Given the small size of the applicant\u2019s personal record of around forty to fifty pages and its relatively simple content, the imposed time-limits had been sufficient for him to prepare his arguments in the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6f577735-ee77-49fd-8c22-77d6942c6923", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government reiterated their submission (see paragraphs 40 to 46 above) to the effect that there was no obligation under Article 3 or any other Article of the Convention to reopen domestic proceedings in every instance where a violation of the Convention had been established. The individual facts of each case alone would determine whether the need to ensure restitutio in integrum required the reopening of the proceedings and whether this need prevailed over the principle of legal certainty. The Government also stressed that the applicant had manifestly failed to disclose the nature of the \u201cvery serious consequences\u201d he allegedly continued to suffer as a result of the ineffective investigation into his ill-treatment. While the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against the police officers might have led to some disappointment for the applicant, it had not entailed serious consequences for him. In that connection the Government submitted that in the present case, unlike that of C\u0113snieks, cited above, no issue arose as to the impact of the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment on the fairness of the proceedings determining the charges brought against him, since the Court had declared the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention inadmissible."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1d3c32f4-9cbf-444b-ad3d-17bad962168a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the reasons given by the Indictment Division of the Samos Criminal Court presented him as the perpetrator of a crime with which he had not been charged and for which he was not standing trial. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 to the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "555cafde-290a-4cee-8790-6bf0fae3cd18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government, referring to the relationship between Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention and, in particular, to the case of Reinprecht v. Austria (no. 67175/01, ECHR 2005\u2011XII), submitted that Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to the present case. However, even if Article 6 of the Convention were applicable, the proceedings had not lasted too long."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "757fbecf-2a0f-46f7-8063-65a3df5b0bf6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant replied that she had in fact exhausted domestic remedies. She submitted that at the outset she could choose between appealing against the CDEC's decision or directly filing an action for damages against her employer. However, in 1996, when she had to make that choice, neither alternative seemed more promising than the other. Had she chosen to appeal, she would have had to rely on Article 120 of the Constitution or Article <mask> of the Convention to persuade the domestic courts to change their then established case\u2011law. Had she chosen to directly file an action for damages, as she had in fact done, she could try to adduce evidence to directly prove the occupational character of her disease. The advantage of this approach was that it saved her one set of proceedings, while in the same time presenting the same chances for success: the courts examining the action for damages could have relied on the principles underlying Article 120 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention and could have examined all factual issues relevant to her claim. Having chosen one set of judicial proceedings over another, the applicant was not required to embark on a second attempt."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dde3c72a-afb3-407f-a20a-b7f329e18d6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government did not contest the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted, however, that, although criminal sanctions could follow a finding of contempt, it was essential when considering the requirements of Article 6 to recognise that contempt proceedings were not akin to ordinary criminal proceedings, but were a sui generis form of proceedings which aimed at securing the unimpeded functioning of a court, the safeguarding of its authority and standing and the protection, in the public interest, of the integrity of the judicial process."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "03ac7911-c08d-48c5-b515-6fe006399190", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government submitted that the fact that the applicant had had no possibility to participate in \u00adex post factum review proceedings legalising his personal search had had no bearing on his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the relevant procedure as provided for in Article 290 of the CCP (cited in paragraph 37 above), the Government stressed that the competent judge had taken the relevant decision on the basis of supporting documents, in particular the decision to conduct the search and the police report on the search, submitted by the prosecution. Thus, the alleged negative impact of the above-mentioned judicial procedure remained unsubstantiated. In this connection, the Government again reiterated their inadmissibility argument, claiming that the applicant could have challenged the decision to conduct his personal search in urgent circumstances on the basis of Article 234 of the CCP, before the relevant court had legalised its results on 5 July 2004. Furthermore, according to the Government, the fact that the applicant had not been served with a copy of that decision prior to the personal search was irrelevant. Indeed, he had never voiced any grievances in this respect during the pre-trial investigation or before the first-instance court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8fc939e1-27c9-4b08-8f14-308e2d89963b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants complained that no prosecuting party had been present at the court hearings in the administrative proceedings against them, and that the trial judges had acted in breach of the impartiality requirement. The applicants also alleged that they had not been afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6e507f68-16fc-4fe8-8771-500ea734e7dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair and that his defence rights had been breached. In particular, he complained that he had not been afforded access to a lawyer during the police questioning, that he had not been allowed time to prepare his defence but had been questioned immediately upon his arrest, and that he had undergone an expert forensic examination, as he and his family had requested."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "76b24c62-6edc-4856-8e4f-db2b53d25f4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant disagreed and maintained that the domestic remedies had been exhausted. When she had requested an oral hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal, the court\u2019s obligation had been to examine her request according to Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the court for some reason had failed to do so. Therefore, the applicant had expressly alleged before the Supreme Administrative Court that there had been a breach of Article 6, due to the fact that she had been denied an oral hearing by the lower court. By doing so, the applicant had given the Supreme Administrative Court an opportunity to correct the violation and to refer the case back to the lower court for an oral hearing. Therefore, the applicant had already, during the administrative court proceedings, exhausted the domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant pointed out that she was only required to try one possible remedy, which she had done by invoking the matter before the Supreme Administrative Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "423d1ec7-acb5-402e-848c-54b5cd426278", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government took issue with the Chamber\u2019s judgment. They considered, in the first place, that the matter should be determined by reference to Article <mask> of the Convention and not Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Unlike in previous cases, the Government in this case had not appropriated property to its own use, and had not introduced legislation for the involuntary transfer of private property from one person to another in pursuit of a social-policy objective. The only interference with the applicant companies\u2019 land came about through the actions of private individuals, the squatters, who obtained adverse possession in 1983-84. The outcome of the proceedings was dictated by the applicant companies\u2019 own inaction. They contended that the application to the present facts of the conventional case-law as to the necessity, in principle, for compensation to be paid in respect of deprivations of property confirmed the logic of analysing the case by reference to Article 6: the purpose of a limitation period is to deprive a claimant, at the end of the relevant time period, of any opportunity of enforcing his rights through the courts. That objective would be frustrated if a limitation provision could only be compatible with the Convention if the claimant was provided with compensation against the very person against whom his claim was barred."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b86be8d9-d42e-4668-a8e2-baea060d1d88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government contended that the complaint is inadmissible on three grounds. They claimed, first, that the applicant is not a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because, in consequence of his reliance on the provision before the Court of Appeal, he obtained a substantial reduction in his sentence. Secondly, they contended that even if he is a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34, he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies because it was open to him to bring a civil action under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Human Rights Act in respect of the delay of the hearing of his appeal, but he did not do so. The applicant does not comment on these pleas. Finally, as noted above, they contended that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cacd1dfe-ffa1-4141-92ed-36e2fff83a08", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government considered that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the instant case, as neither the interim proceedings nor the main proceedings concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1. Relying on the Court's judgment in the Pellegrin case (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, \u00a7 59; \u00a7 64 et s., ECHR 1999\u2011VIII), they submitted that disputes on recruitment to civil service fell outside the scope of Article 6 \u00a7 1, as neither the Convention nor the protocols thereto guaranteed such right. This principle remained unchanged by the Court's judgment in the Vilho Eskelinen case (Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007\u2011IV, 8 August 2006). The office of a notary had to be regarded as part of the civil service, as he performed functions which were manifestations of public authority. It followed that the right to equal access to the notary profession derived from Article 12 in conjunction with Article 33 \u00a7 2 of the Basic Law did not qualify as a \u201ccivil\u201d right within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "15b4304a-f1eb-4d30-95dc-353bd52c9d8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicant submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable under both its civil and its criminal head. With particular reference to the latter, she reiterated the arguments she had submitted before the Chamber, arguing that the penalties liable to be imposed on her were of a criminal nature on account of their severity and the fact that they cast doubt on the honour, integrity and trustworthiness of the person concerned."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aea91369-08b8-4742-bdb4-a7e2a5cdb58b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the final judgment of 24 March 2000 had been annulled by way of the supervisory review on 5 February 2001. In this respect the Court notes that the applicant lodged his complaint in this regard on 25 March 2005, which was more than six months after the judgment was annulled. Therefore, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e1a7606a-78e6-4601-8ce8-3c1bcb8e8a29", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the defamation proceedings against her had been unfair. Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the complaint falls within the Court\u2019s competence, it finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9014c420-d8b9-4b55-9898-36e935ef41ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had not been allowed to see a lawyer during their initial detention at the police stations in Chi\u015fin\u0103u and Ialoveni, and that this had prevented them from challenging the court order for their detention pending trial. However, the Court notes that the applicants did not show that their case had been prejudiced as a result of the above alleged breaches. Accordingly, the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "15b5a5f6-756d-4e3b-a303-907e1e42293c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003, and the judgments of 5 January, 16 February, 15 April, 6 and 30 September 2004 were not enforced in good time. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "865f3243-4420-49b4-a3da-155ff00d3e38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The applicant complained that the proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of the Florence District Court\u2019s judgment of 18 September 2012 had been unfair, in that he had not been informed of the date of the appeal hearing on 12 March 2013, and had therefore been absent from that hearing. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "02a6b679-6ce9-4548-a36c-9a17385ed4a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant company complained of a violation of its right to a fair trial, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, it complained that the courts had failed to apply the statute of limitations and that it had not been summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "61ad2d7b-2cea-42ce-93a6-dcf0fbad124e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained of a violation of Article 13, arguing that the rules on the basis of which he had been convicted had been ambiguous. Lastly, he considered that the alleged violations also amounted to a violation of Article 17."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b9220166-5cf2-4cd6-b5ed-fd451baf7c03", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["4.  The applicants were found guilty of the administrative offence of market manipulation, provided for by Article 187 ter of the TUF and punished under a procedure set out in Article 187 septis of the TUF in conjunction with section 23 of Law no. 689 of 24 November 1981. The procedure before the CONSOB is not fair in the light of the standards laid down by Article <mask> of the Convention[3]."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e1f4b42a-c6c8-4702-8652-e6e1f1ddb60b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government argued that the mere fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law as inadmissible did not constitute a denial of access to court, in particular given that it had been the applicants\u2019 omission and lack of care which had led the Supreme Court to reach such a decision. The Government pointed out that the applicants neither had submitted their appeal on points of law as lawyers nor had they submitted a Bar exam certificate. In the Government\u2019s view, it was not the responsibility of the Virovitica Municipal Court to request the first applicant to submit additional documents in support of his appeal on points of law. The Government also argued that the first applicant had failed to inform any of the courts that he had qualified as a lawyer in the course of the proceedings. Finally, the Government pointed out that the domestic courts had conducted separate proceedings to ascertain the validity of the applicants\u2019 allegations, and had found them to be untrue. In the Government\u2019s view, by doing so the Republic of Croatia had fulfilled its positive obligations under the access-to-court limb of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f98d1110-179f-4270-b649-4e463bbaf0f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. They further submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had never been served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. Moreover, the applicants also claimed that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8e7a96d7-a168-4e5b-9ea8-266db7035112", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant alleged a violation of her right to an independent and impartial tribunal with full jurisdiction and of her right to a public hearing. She further alleged that, following the reclassification of the facts by the CSM, she had not been informed in detail of the accusation against her and had therefore not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in its relevant parts provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a82cd9c7-1f0f-4fa0-8f39-32ea9a0bec6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant maintained that any waiver by him of a trial by court-martial could not be considered to be valid. The Government observed that the applicant declined to elect trial by court-martial and submitted that there were no important public interest considerations which might suggest that the matter should have been dealt with otherwise than summarily. In such circumstances, they argued that he made a voluntary, informed and unequivocal election to waive his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Contrary to the position in the case of Thompson v. the United Kingdom (no. 36256/97, 15 June 2004), the present applicant could have chosen a court-martial convened under the 1996 Act which would have fully complied with the requirements of the Convention (Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, ECHR 2003\u2011XII). He could have taken legal advice and, even if he could not be legally represented at the summary hearing, he had access to the Accused\u2019s Adviser."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c99cbe1c-b20f-418e-b069-7949b2dc42bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing because (i) the trial judge had been manifestly biased against them and had overtly favoured the defendants; (ii) they had not benefited from the equality-of-arms principle; and (iii) the court had refused to admit their evidence and made findings that had been perverse and unsustainable in the light of the facts. Article 6, in its relevant part, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0bd8fb0e-5409-495e-b763-6acd199cf109", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, he complained that the decision of the Supreme Court of 19 November 2002 had prevented him from exercising his defence rights properly and thus rendered the supervisory review proceedings unfair. The Court is of the view that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4fcdf960-2763-4625-bd0c-378997390e0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant averred that compliance of the domestic court with the reasonable-time requirement in examining her case against the company could only have been established by the proceedings against the Ministry of Finance which she had sought to initiate. However, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Russian courts had refused to examine her claim, relying on the fact that the domestic law had not determined territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8fce1759-f1e5-4b64-86a3-8c68338ee814", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained that their right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as the Appeal Court had convicted the first applicant and ordered the forfeiture of the profit gained by the applicant company without holding an oral hearing and the Supreme Court had upheld this judgment. Due to the lack of an oral hearing, the applicants had not been able to present all evidence in the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c7edf77e-d378-4ca2-a468-d9250a992a1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The applicant Mr Rakov complained that his claim for compensation had been adjudicated in his absence and the absence of his chosen representative by both the first-instance and appellate courts. The Court reiterates that the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, as worded at the material time, provided for oral hearings before courts of appeal, and that the scope of review by appellate courts was not limited to matters of law but also extended to factual issues. The appellate courts were empowered to carry out a full review of the case and to consider additional evidence and arguments which had not been examined in the first-instance proceedings. Given the broad scope of review of the appellate court, the fair trial guarantees enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, including in particular the right to make oral submissions to the court, were as important in the appellate proceedings as they were in the first-instance courts (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, \u00a7 40, 31 May 2016, and Barkov and Others v. Russia, no. 38054/05 and 8 others, 19 July 2016)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e804259d-ac6f-4251-bee0-5262b68c188f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgment in her favour. She further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. Both provisions, insofar as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "97229b02-aa58-4b6b-b723-46e19c93f911", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government conceded that the courts had not examined the video cassette recording of the applicant's interviews on 4 and 5 June 1997. However, that did not raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention, since there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had not been ill-treated. The courts found that all the pieces of evidence in the case were consistent with each other and with the applicant's statements. They adopted judgments based on the facts of the case and having followed exactly the procedural requirements of the criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4003d5bb-a878-4703-a5f9-5766222b218b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained of an unjustified delay in the execution of the judgment of 23 December 2003 and a violation of his property rights as a result of non-enforcement of this judgment. Although the applicant did not specifically rely on any Convention provisions, the Court considers that the substance of this complaint must be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Article 6 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ea342613-2efb-4a7a-99f8-744a6ca63537", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government noted that the Court had repeatedly found that the Contracting States enjoyed wide discretion as regards the choice of the means to ensure that their legal systems are in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view the flaws in the District Court\u2019s procedure did not by themselves constitute a violation if these defects were remedied on appeal. The requirement of fairness in Article 6 of the Convention had been interpreted to mean that it covered the proceedings as a whole, and as a result flaws at one level might be put right at a later stage. Article 6 of the Convention did not require an appeal court to order a retrial at first instance if new evidence were submitted on appeal and the right to retrial was not, as such, included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. In this respect the Government referred to the Commission decision in the case of Callaghan and others v. the United Kingdom (no. 14739/89, Commission decision of 9 May 1989, Decisions and Reports 60, p. 296)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b78cb5d9-2eae-4d3b-8a98-701dba6e053b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had been partial, that they had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the domestic law. However, in the light of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "de85c252-07f4-4ca2-adab-c3e160ed9a16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the criminal proceedings and alleged violations of the presumption of innocence and of his right to adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. Also, he complained under Article 13 of a lack of effective domestic remedies and, with reference to Article 14, of discrimination on the ground of his political opinions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c27921dc-62ae-4e03-b7d7-d2a29bd131bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government concluded that they enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in respect of the rules they introduced for the exercise of the right of access to a court and in this case, the rule that the reasons for appeal should have been included in the report by which the legal remedy was lodged did not violate Article <mask> of the Convention. The dismissal of the applicant\u2019s appeal as inadmissible was entirely the applicant\u2019s fault as he had omitted to include the reasons for his appeal in the relevant report, even though he could have consulted his lawyer."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0bceee33-0fc0-4eec-9ac9-a8dd4c9edde7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Neryungri Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) of 16 March 2001, as upheld on 11 July 2001. She relied on Articles 1, 3 and 6 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 6, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9b903ac1-123d-4d32-940e-faa9efe202f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant complained that the domestic criminal investigation had been ineffective and that the civil proceedings instituted by her had been unfair. She submitted that the courts had not been objective in their assessment of the facts and had failed to redress the grievance which she bore as a result of the beating by the police. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and, in substance, on Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "95cdb46e-0d47-4e76-8cd2-a3705a6f8ec9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant pointed out that his tax case, which concerned the assessment year 1994 and thus his income during 1993, was examined by the first-instance court on 7 December 2001 and was still pending. He submitted that a \u201creasonable time\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention had been exceeded, especially in view of the measures that had already been taken against him and the fact that there was no longer any point in witnesses being called, as they would not be able to give evidence about the situation in 1993."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "58cac5f2-4e53-4a47-a3a4-2e2341cd0844", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The Government indicated two recent decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u201cthe Constitutional Court\u201d) finding violations of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in circumstances similar to those in the present case (decision no. CH/03/10999 of 9 May 2007 and decision no. AP 158/06 of 18 October 2007). While the Constitutional Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of approximately 300 euros in one case (decision no. CH/03/10999), it rejected a similar request in the other case (decision no. AP 158/06). The Government claimed that those decisions had been enforced on 31 August 2007 and 14 March 2008 respectively. Given the developments in the Constitutional Court\u2019s case-law, the Government submitted that an appeal to that court should now be considered an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of the non-enforcement of judgments ordering the release of \u201cold\u201d foreign-currency savings. Accordingly, they invited the Court to declare the present application inadmissible on non-exhaustion grounds, by reason of the applicant\u2019s failure to use that remedy."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "70bd8887-f689-4529-a7fe-540ad683f788", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings, the infringement of his defence rights and the lack of equality of arms. He alleged that he had not been given sufficient access to the case file and had been prohibited from taking and retaining his notes. Further, he could not make use of his notes during hearings or outside them. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ef434a01-06e0-4215-a01c-8df636c19cdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings before the Supreme Court were unfair. In particular, he argued that the principle of equality of arms had been violated as he had not been given an opportunity to comment on the company's appeal on points of law and the public prosecutor's request for the protection of legality. He further complained that the Supreme Court had incorrectly applied the national law. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b5e9dcc4-6cea-4aff-8e16-e2e142bd976a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, as a result of the inadequate criminal investigation into the murder of his son, he had no access to court to bring civil proceedings against the perpetrators, who have remained unidentified. He further argued that the inadequacy of the investigation constituted a violation of Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3af5ae50-bd2d-424c-a6d5-f51ee706e774", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government disputed the applicant's submissions and argued that the criminal proceedings in his respect had been fully compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the retrial of the case by the Supreme Court and the reversal of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the applicant's absence had been fully compatible with the principles of fairness and the domestic legislation because, inter alia, the applicant had refused to attend the hearing of the Supreme Court. According to them, the Supreme Court had given sufficient reasoning for finding the applicant guilty in respect of all the charges and had submitted detailed reasons in respect of each charge on which he was found guilty."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0e16f906-1328-4213-93ad-eeee77dc10ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government further argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not guarantee the accused an unlimited right to secure the appearance of witnesses in court. It was sufficiently proved by expert opinions that putting questions to the victim in the courtroom would have damaged the victim and would have thus been incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention. At the same time, the applicant had the opportunity to present objections to E.\u2019s statements when the video recording of her interview was played at the court hearing."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "90d3e0c9-8c15-4a18-8cd4-174d1c1562bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant further complained about various breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention during the criminal proceedings against him. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that these grievances do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects them as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7d5f700a-5c58-49be-9b07-622051e8f701", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Administrative Court had lacked independence and impartiality since it had failed to apply the law and to evaluate the evidence correctly. Besides, the applicants had been denied access to a court as the Court of Cassation had failed to give any reasons when declaring their appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. The applicants further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against on the ground of their political opinion."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b274c244-74dc-48d2-b97c-2c0a870380fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37. The Government argued that there had been no violation of the applicant company\u2019s right of access to a court guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that although the applicant company had been given the opportunity to submit evidence in favour of its claims before the domestic courts, it had failed to prove that the new Practice had been the legal successor to the original Practice, even though it had had a different tax number. The fact that the applicant company had failed to prove its allegations in the domestic courts could not be considered as a violation of the right of access to a court, as guaranteed under the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8d3cb71b-5a26-483f-b821-e7335dbc6ea7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government considered that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with in the present case. The case had been examined by independent and impartial courts, which had given fully reasoned judgments in accordance with the law. The Government considered that the proceedings had not been time-barred, as was clear from the formulation of Article 86 of the Civil Code, relied on by the Prosecutor General when lodging his request."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d9fa7235-6de8-4755-bf69-95a165ea6af1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her, as required under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They argued that she had not raised before the domestic courts, even in substance, specific allegations regarding the unfairness of the lustration proceedings. In particular, neither at the appellate nor at the cassation stage, had she challenged the restrictions concerning her access to the case files. Nor had she complained that the proceedings had not been public, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed out that this provision could be directly relied on in the proceedings before the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a8c7b4da-b4d5-47ac-8a77-8afa3f143f48", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government considered that there was no causal link between Mr Shaykhatarov\u2019s claims in respect of pecuniary damage and the violation alleged. They further submitted that the applicants\u2019 claims in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage were excessive and unreasonable. In any event, the Government considered that the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated and that no compensation should be awarded to them."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4cdd7fb8-2845-4a7c-8b20-add46d46dd47", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s grievances, except for those concerning legal assistance relating to the appeal in 2004, were either unsupported by evidence or unfounded. They considered that, in any event, all alleged shortcomings should have been definitely remedied in the new appeal proceedings in 2008. The applicant had had free legal assistance provided by A., who had studied the case file and had conducted a proper defence in support of the appeal statement lodged by Y. in 2004. The applicant\u2019s mother could not have served as a lay defence representative for health reasons and, similarly, the applicant\u2019s cellmate had been serving a sentence of imprisonment. The applicant had studied the case file in 2003; the new volumes had not contained any information affecting the appeal proceedings; and the applicant had been given access to all relevant submissions made by the other parties. The obligation to bear counsel\u2019s fees was acceptable and had not offended against Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "04a0be69-3186-44c9-9ce8-836f5fce4c82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants argued that they had been deprived of a fair trial on account of the lack of independence of the trial court. They contended that the relevant legislation on the status of assessors had not met the standard of \u201cindependent tribunal\u201d required under Article <mask> of the Convention. They supported this contention by the findings of the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 24 October 2007 and the case-law of the Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cea701c8-be50-4fc1-af31-0d8e62d09a7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submit that in the proceedings before the Review Chamber on the applicant\u2019s request for release from detention on remand, oral hearings were held in which the applicant, assisted by counsel, and the Public Prosecutor participated. The applicant had therefore the opportunity to reply to the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor at the hearing. As regards appeal proceedings on such issues before the Court of Appeal, the Government submit that the standard phrase in the introduction to decisions taken by the Court of Appeal - \u201cafter having heard the Senior Public Prosecutor\u201d - only meant that the Senior Public Prosecutor had taken note of an appeal. It did not imply that he or she had participated in the deliberations of the Court of Appeal or actually made submissions. However, even if a Senior Public Prosecutor makes written submissions to a Court of Appeal, the failure to serve them on a detainee does not violate Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention as proceedings under this provision need not offer the same procedural guarantees as proceedings under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, such a step is unnecessary if, like in the present case, those submissions contain no new aspects (see No. 20055/92, Moser v. Austria, Dec. 13.4.94, unpublished)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dc133751-5174-4965-8520-4ab320ebadd5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing. In this respect, he argued that the trial court lacked independence and impartiality, that his request for an additional expert report on the condition of his hand had been refused, and that he had not been given an opportunity to challenge the statements of several accused persons who had testified against him in their own police statements."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "270c2420-ab15-47e4-9b05-60ab2e3b5024", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 that the supervisory review decision of 10 August 2001 violated the principle of legal certainty. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that in breach of the right to a fair and public hearing neither he nor his lawyer were summoned to the supervisory review hearing held by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10 August 2001. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3b7588f3-bb77-4dd5-856a-1503b52db784", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant submitted that the length of the confiscation proceedings breached the reasonable time requirement under Article <mask> of the Convention. While he accepted that the case was reasonably complex, as evidenced by the number of hearings, and that some delay between each stage of the proceedings was unavoidable, he argued that there were nevertheless several long periods of delay which were not a result of the complexity of the proceedings and which could be attributed to the respondent State. In particular, he submitted that significant periods of culpable delay could be identified between conviction and the making of a confiscation order, between the making of the confiscation order and the grant of leave to appeal the confiscation order, between the grant of leave to appeal the confiscation order and the stay of proceedings, and between the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v. Soneji and Others and the judgment of the House of Lords in R v. Knights and R v. Soneji."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2516dc01-88c7-43d6-9a5c-dcc008e30a16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They maintained that the domestic court relied on statements given by them under duress in police custody and failed to take into account their arguments presented during the criminal proceedings. They further complained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6a880250-d362-430c-9077-c958b767837f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government were of the opinion that there was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the domestic courts had acted with due diligence and expediency. They argued that responsibility for the overall length of the divorce proceedings should be attributed to the applicant and his wife. They considered that the case had been of a complex character due to the voluminous pleadings of the parties and their numerous applications. They submitted that the proceedings had been further protracted by the parties\u2019 appeals against various interim decisions of the trial court. They also argued that \u2013 referring to the personal conflict between the applicant and his wife \u2013 the former had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "270c7ecd-2b90-4350-802e-477ecc19b197", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant alleged that the domestic courts had breached Article <mask> of the Convention (the right to a fair hearing) by not allowing him to prove his allegations. He also relied on Article 11 (freedom of association).  However, the Court considers that, although these complaints are admissible, in the light of its finding above of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraphs 44-47), it is unnecessary to examine the merits of these matters separately."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4174ed03-2c19-4891-a1c8-c7447497cb1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government considered that the applicant company had not submitted sufficient arguments in respect of this complaint and asked the Court to reject it, given also that no violation of its rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had taken place. They also referred to the power of the higher courts to verify compliance with the reasonable-time requirement, as expressly provided for in Article 192 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as cited in Boboc v. Moldova, no. 27581/04, \u00a7 17, 4 November 2008)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2dde02dd-cdb8-42b8-baa2-f0ad4b132074", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicant argued that the Court\u2019s case-law guaranteed strong protection to the freedom of expression of lawyers, who played a key role in the administration of justice and the upholding of the rule of law, with any restriction having to remain exceptional. Such protection could be explained by two reasons: firstly, no special circumstances could justify affording a wide margin of appreciation to States, bearing in mind that European and international texts, on the contrary, protected lawyers in the activity of defending their clients; secondly, their freedom of expression was linked to their clients\u2019 right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further observed that the right of lawyers to make press statements as part of their clients\u2019 defence was expressly acknowledged and that, in principle, there was, at European level, significant tolerance of lawyers\u2019 criticism of judges, even when made in a public and media setting. He submitted, however, that the Chamber judgment highlighted some major uncertainties and vagaries in the case-law that affected the exercise of such freedom, especially outside the courtroom. He hoped that his case would enable the Grand Chamber to clarify the interpretation of the Convention on that point and to secure the protection of lawyers\u2019 speech."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4d984d8e-8799-4036-b489-edcc4df8ee76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted them and that they were convicted solely on the basis of their statements in police custody. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b8d78d2a-235a-4bf2-a502-a7dff35b6efb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The Government invoked a constitutional complaint under Article 131 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court if and when they allege a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Such a complaint will be considered by the Constitutional Court only after the exhaustion of remedies in the lower courts, notwithstanding any further delays that this may cause."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c4bb180e-a3b2-4558-8d69-06651b0e0771", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government of Cyprus noted that Turkey had failed to indicate the precise remedies which were, in theory and practice, available to the applicants. In any event, given the existing legal and political context, it would have been unrealistic to expect the parents of Stelios Kalli Panayi \u201cto seek justice at the hands of a State which ha[d] killed their son, which ha[d] put forward a wholly false account of the circumstances and which ha[d] not conducted any form of investigation into the death\u201d. The \u201cTRNC\u201d was not a valid and legal State and its courts were not \u201cestablished by law\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had not been established by Turkey through legal acts of its democratic institutions, but rather as a result of invasion and continuing military control. Turkey did not exercise control over the \u201cTRNC\u201d by rule of law, but simply by means of military occupation; as a consequence, the remedies available in the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not be considered remedies of the respondent High Contracting Party."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7864a040-bb0b-4a44-a4a6-c607d6804c94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that the charges against them, which they argued to be criminal within the meaning of Article 6, had been examined by a justice of the peace instead of a district court as provided by the domestic law. They argued that even though they had not raised this issue before the domestic courts, the latter should have examined this type of matter proprio motu. The applicants further submitted that in the absence of a prosecuting party, the trial judge had taken the role of prosecution and had collected and presented incriminating evidence, including by way of calling and questioning police officers. The court was therefore not \u201cimpartial\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5a1015bf-da60-43bb-b0f9-12eb79409ca4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (c), Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention that the supervisory review proceedings had been unfair, that he had not been brought to the hearings on 2 July 2001 and 2 December 2002, that he had not been able to submit his arguments and that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence. He also complained about the outcome of those proceedings. The Court will examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention which, in the relevant parts, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "714602af-b462-4ed5-9a47-b7cfab1a84fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicant submitted that there had been no prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings against her. The police officers who had drawn up the administrative-offence report had not been present at the hearings and, in any event, it was not their role to support charges against the accused. In the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative\u2011offence proceedings, the trial and appellate courts had assumed the role of proving the accusation against her. That situation had breached the principles of impartiality, equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. Referring to Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, \u00a7\u00a7 22-37, 20 September 2016), the applicant argued that the Court had already found that the absence of a prosecuting party, stemming from the domestic legislation and judicial practice, violated the impartiality requirement under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case, the trial court had proprio motu reformulated the charges against the applicant and had corrected factual and legal mistakes contained in the administrative arrest report, thereby performing a task normally performed by a prosecuting party."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "26c957de-5fd1-4202-891a-6061978223d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant submitted that his detention had been devoid of any legal basis after 29 September 2010, as the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court on 20 February 2008, providing for a starting date fixed at the date of commission of the second crime, had expired. He maintained that his detention beyond that date had been in violation of Article 540 of the CCP which had not permitted the worsening of an appellant\u2019s situation in the absence of an appeal by the prosecution. He also submitted that his detention had been extended by means of a procedure that had been in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the impossibility of having the rectified appellate decision subjected to judicial scrutiny."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1034078e-a7dd-4f46-b72d-86954634e087", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to study the case file in its entirety, including audio and video tapes and physical evidence, both after the termination of the investigation and later in the course of the trial. However, since the applicant and his lawyer had been unreasonably delaying their studying of the case file, the court had limited the time afforded to them for such a purpose. The Government therefore concluded that the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant had been fair within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "90f92926-7b1c-47c0-b628-deb67bd4bb54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained about the annulment of his driving licence. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the application may raise an issue under Article 7 of the Convention. It reiterates that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts and as it could decide to examine the complaint submitted to it under more than one of the Convention\u2019s provisions (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, \u00a7 54, ECHR 2009\u2011...)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "de34ad88-df08-4c9b-8323-b84d847049af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants argued that in the absence of a prosecuting party, the trial judges had taken the role of the prosecution. In particular, they had read out the administrative-offence records, which could be considered as bills of indictment. The domestic courts had therefore not been \u201cimpartial\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant also submitted that her case should have been examined by the District Court at first instance, rather than by a justice of the peace, and that her appeal had been subject to examination by the Moscow City Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "67181eb7-9fb6-4c9d-9ad2-08b9156cceb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government argued that the report concerning the discovery of an offence while being committed did not constitute the sole evidence on which the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based, so the fact he had not had legal assistance at the relevant stage in the proceedings did not entail a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They added that the applicant had been informed very promptly of his right to defend himself or to benefit from legal assistance. Thus, on the very day of the discovery of the offence, during his first questioning by the prosecuting authorities, and subsequently throughout the proceedings, the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer of his choosing."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d717c857-d73c-478c-afd1-65883a3faad4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicants submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention applied in the case. They stated that the Supreme Court had found that the fines imposed on them were criminal penalties for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention. This was undisputed between the parties. In this respect the applicants referred to the case of T. v. Austria (no. 27783/95, ECHR 2000\u2011XII) and Weber v. Switzerland (no. 11034/84, 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177) and stated that, unlike in these cases, no maximum amount for fines had been stipulated in Icelandic law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ea40c37c-85bd-453b-8050-52f54db279e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the search of his flat had been unlawful. The Court notes, however, that there is no indication that the applicant challenged the search order in the national courts. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "16b5de5b-6794-4404-b9ef-e095b5bed674", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that the judgments of 19 December 2002, 9 June 2003, 16 February and 6 May 2004 had been enforced in full. They further submitted that the judgment of 25 October 2000 had been enforced in part and the judgments of 15 March and 26 August 2004 had not been enforced. They acknowledged that the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour violated his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8f62f5c1-8c42-4c22-bc41-638d37729dda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant argued that the dispute before the domestic courts had raised an issue under EU law, which had to date not been decided by the CJEU. By arbitrarily refusing to refer questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, the domestic courts had violated Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, the domestic courts had not provided adequate reasoning for the refusal. The Federal Court of Justice had been the court against whose decisions there had been no judicial remedy under national law within the meaning of Article 267 of the TFEU. It had therefore been obliged, pursuant to the Court\u2019s case-law (Dhahbi v. Italy, no. 17120/09, 8 April 2014, and Schipani and Others v. Italy, no. 38369/09, 21 July 2015), to provide reasons for the refusal, based on the CJEU\u2019s judgment in the CILFIT case (see paragraph 18 above). However, the Federal Court of Justice had provided no reasons whatsoever and had only repeated the wording of Article 543 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also had not made any reference to the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, which had not been the court of last resort, had at least considered the question of EU law, but had neither explicitly refused a referral to the CJEU nor referred to the CILFIT criteria established in the CJEU case-law. In particular, the Court of Appeal had not explained why the correct application of Community law had been so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "be7203d6-0074-4cf4-b0cc-1a45153af669", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["211.  The applicants raised a number of other complaints alleging a breach of their Convention rights. In particular, they complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings against them had been excessively long; that the stipendiary judge, the lay judges and the court\u2019s secretary had been partial; and that the trial court had relied on inadmissible evidence and erred in its assessment of the evidence. They further complained of the refusal to initiate supervisory-review proceedings in their case. Under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, they complained that the trial court had accused them of forgery when commenting on the origin of the correction in Mr L.\u2019s statement. The first applicant complained that Mr T. had not attended the hearing immediately upon the defence\u2019s request and that Mr. G. and Mr Tr. had not appeared before the trial court at all. The first applicant also complained that his legal-aid lawyer was incompetent. The second applicant complained that the trial court had relied upon his co-accused\u2019s testimony given in court. In his letter of 10 July 2003 the second applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his lawyer had not been present at the appeal hearing. In their letter of 23 February 2004 the applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of their pre-trial detention and about the fact that their arrest and the extension of their detention had been ordered by the prosecutor."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9d822555-b4f1-4089-9b35-79a3a29b7da9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the SJC was not an \u201cindependent and impartial tribunal\u201d since the President of the SJC, who had been member of the Commission in his case, as well as the President of the Supreme Court, whose request had set in motion the impugned proceedings, had subsequently taken part in the SJC\u2019s decision dismissing him. In this respect, he also alleged that the President of the Supreme Court, owing to his prior involvement in approving the judicial opinion of the criminal division of the Supreme Court (see paragraph 9 above), had a preconceived idea about the merits of the issue, namely his dismissal. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2fd9ad10-cacf-4436-9021-a9c4bd68fdf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government disagreed. They essentially argued that the review request had been used in order to correct a judicial error and a miscarriage of justice, so as to ensure that the interests of the third party who was the real owner of the land were taken into account. They further stated that the review procedure had been conducted in a fair and adversarial manner, and in full compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "38fbf212-b3a6-424c-8f6d-2563e7d65875", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicants complained that their right to a fair and public hearing under Article <mask> of the Convention was breached on two counts: firstly, they were never afforded an oral hearing in the determination of their compensation claim; secondly, they were never given an opportunity to reply to the public prosecutor's written opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation and the experts' report submitted to the Assize Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "449a33a1-db0a-4a14-b453-e20226bbcbc0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government failed to see a causal link between the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. In that connection, they contended that the outcome of the criminal proceedings would have been no different had the applicant had the opportunity of taking part in the appeal hearing. His conviction had been based on proven and undisputed facts. The Government further pointed out that any custodial sentence made it impossible for the convicted person to carry on a lawful, gainful occupation outside prison. They noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence of the existence of his work as a craftsman or of income arising from it."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9966153d-13cf-4110-97c7-8489cbd9bb90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["5.  The Government further relied on the fact that, in further contrast to the Stran Greek case, the State was not itself directly party to the dispute which gave rise to the present case. This fact, again, is not in our view of central importance, the principle which precludes intervention by the legislature in pending legal proceedings being founded not only the requirement of equality of arms between the parties to the proceedings but also on more general requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention relating to the rule of law and the separation of powers. In any event, while the State was not as such a party to the proceedings in question in the present case, we note that the participation of AP-HP, a public administrative establishment under the supervision of four Ministers, necessarily had major implications for the public finances and that the State was, accordingly, directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings to which the legislation expressly related."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cce4dea1-0449-4c7b-bf1c-c799b3953397", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the court that had convicted him on 29 April 2002 had not been a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d because it had been composed in breach of the relevant national rules. In particular, he alleged that the terms of office of the lay judges G. and Ka. had expired before the trial in his case had started and that the trial court had not been in possession of the list of lay judges at the material time. The relevant part of the provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e8c98573-ad0c-42cd-a958-d75a0b8b82c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant also complained in substance under Article <mask> of the Convention that in the 2002 commercial court proceedings he had been ordered to prove the fault of the State officials for the damage sustained and that the domestic courts had designated the Ministry of the Interior as the respondent and then dismissed his action because it should have been lodged against a different authority."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2a0085eb-0b70-4156-bc11-19916af58fa5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of her right to challenge the discontinuation of the investigation, since her complaint was examined in her absence on 9 November 2004, of the lack of a right to appeal against the decision of that date, and of the repeated discontinuation of the proceedings in her son's case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d39131d5-b0c1-4dc7-ab87-fe641a7c9484", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant alleged that, owing to the fact that she had not been properly served with the claim which had been brought against her, she had been deprived of any proper opportunity to participate in the proceedings. She also alleged that the reasoning of the domestic courts was arbitrary and insufficient. The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether or not those facts compromised the applicant\u2019s right to a fair hearing under Article <mask> of the Convention, and, in particular, whether or not the principles of an adversarial hearing and equality of arms were respected in those proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "14f7db95-5d87-416c-b3c2-d6d2628dd8d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government contested the claim for pecuniary damage and pointed out that the present proceedings before the Court had only concerned the length of the administrative proceedings. There was no causal link between the damage suffered and the alleged violation of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had not made any claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. No compensation should therefore be awarded under this heading."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "089fbc04-b127-4713-ba85-e778137d0fdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s telephone conversations had been tapped in the framework of the MIT\u2019s counter\u2011intelligence activities as permitted by Article 4 of Law no. 2937. Article 6 of the said law permitted MIT members to carry out counter\u2011intelligence activities and granted them the rights and powers enjoyed by the regular police. The MIT officers had decided to intercept and record the applicant\u2019s conversations with a view to protecting national security. The measure in question had complied with the requirements of proportionality. Furthermore, the recorded telephone conversations of the applicant were not the sole evidence against him. The photographs of military bases, two maps, one of which was designated \u201ctop secret\u201d, telephone and credit cards found in the applicant\u2019s possessions had constituted the basis of his conviction. Given that the applicant\u2019s defence rights protected by Article <mask> of the Convention had been respected, his complaints under this heading should be declared inadmissible."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e296b6a9-b69e-4f76-81f1-4448d3063414", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been convicted on the basis of search-and-seizure reports and video footage that did not reflect the truth. They had also been unable to challenge the veracity of the evidence, as the court had rejected their requests for an expert examination of the video footage without reason. They further submitted under the same head that admission of the video footage by the police in the case file had been unlawful, as the police had filmed the demonstrations illegally. The applicants also complained that the courts\u2019 decisions had not been reasoned. Lastly, the applicants complained that the references to past arrests and detentions of some of them had been in breach of the right to be presumed innocent."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ecebed1b-db21-4276-af37-c85c1f4f7b23", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention with regard to his conviction on the charge involving OZ, which he alleged had been brought about by the police. He argued that the decision of 16 November 2000 contained neither an acknowledgment of nor a redress for that violation of the Convention. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Presidium of the Moscow City Court were unfair in that, unlike the prosecution, he had not been given an opportunity to participate therein."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ca4b2574-e009-45b8-9fd9-4d9c153358a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied the right to a fair hearing in that the courts dealing with his case had lacked impartiality and had not given enough consideration to the facts in the applicant\u2019s favour. He further complained of ill-treatment during his arrest and the search of his property. He also argued that no search warrant had been shown to him and that the search had been conducted at night, contrary to the applicable legal provisions. The applicant further complained that he had been remanded in custody for ten months without any justification."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c055a21b-9054-423b-b773-abda89096c9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that the first applicant was not precluded from lodging an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation but there was a certain procedure envisaged by the law at the material time which should have been respected by a person wishing to apply to this court. They argued that procedural requirements for lodging appeals were not incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the domestic law envisaged a possibility to receive free legal assistance upon the initiative of an advocate. The Government finally submitted that the requirement that appeals on points of law could only be lodged by licensed advocates pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the quality of appeals lodged with the Court of Cassation and was later abolished due to difficulties revealed during the practical implementation of the relevant procedural rules."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fb9840e0-6a50-4ef5-ac93-1c7a382820fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 request for reimbursement of the costs of proceedings had been examined at two levels of national jurisdiction, which provided the applicants with all procedural guarantees under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicants had had access to court; they had been legally represented; they had had the opportunity to raise all their arguments and to contest the submissions of the opposing party; and the domestic courts had given sufficient reasons for their decisions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dc2196d0-396c-4c54-9a2c-659ed0df0508", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint could be examined in the light of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, having regard to the fact that the applicant had been acquitted of all charges by the judgment of 11 January 2013, no separate issue would arise under Article <mask> of the Convention, including the issue of the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a4589a11-219f-4cd9-8f37-a0b14e3f7127", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained that during his detention the police questioned him several times without a lawyer being present and the statements which he had made during those questionings had been used for his conviction. He also complained that lawyer S.\u2019s advice had \u201cworsened his situation\u201d. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "26a26697-2dda-434e-93ff-987b82bfdafa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that the length of certain of the impugned sets of proceedings and the non-enforcement of final judgments in the other sets of proceedings had not complied with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further alleged that the T. company had been denied the right of access to a court in the fifth and sixth sets of proceedings since the domestic law had not entitled legal entities to request exemption from trial costs and court fees. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6c75cc46-dc67-403b-9880-1a55ab452289", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant maintained that the Court of Appeal should have held an oral hearing since there were no exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with a main hearing in the present case. He had insisted that an oral hearing be held in order to rehear the witnesses from the District Court and thereby clarify certain obvious contradictions and misunderstandings between the testimonies. Moreover, he had wanted to be heard under oath. Thus, it was clear that the oral evidence was of great importance for the settlement of the case and that a main hearing before the Court of Appeal had been necessary to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "df57b1df-80cf-4b52-b60b-101c44f3120e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government argued that the applicant had never claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage in the proceedings against ATP-11. Thus, the proceedings had solely concerned his employment relations with the defendant and had not determined his \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d. Consequently, the Government invited the Court to dismiss his application as incompatible ratione materiae with Article <mask> of the Convention. As an alternative, they submitted that the proceedings had lasted from 5 May 1998, the date of entry of the Convention into force in respect of Russia, until 10 November 1998, the date on which the Town Court refused to examine the applicant\u2019s request for restoration of the case file, and their length had not been unreasonable. The applicant had been advised to re-submit his claims but had failed to do so."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "acb65e1f-da14-45e9-b105-e29e0fa6c7f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been denied access to a court on account of the unjustified refusal of the civil courts to examine her civil claim and the lengthy and ineffective pre-trial proceedings in the criminal cases. With reference to the above deficiencies, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic remedies available to protect her rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had proved to be ineffective in her case. The respective Articles in their relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1b2f6425-5c38-455f-8c4f-9e585665af56", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government argued that the refusal of the Greek parliament to waive the immunity of M.A. did not raise any issues under Article <mask> of the Convention because it did not affect the applicant's civil rights. First, they argued that the applicant's behaviour showed that his purpose in joining the proceedings as a civil party was primarily to obtain the defendant's conviction. The Government noted in this connection that, when lodging his indictment with the prosecutor of the Athens Court of First Instance, the applicant had merely claimed the symbolic amount of ten euros, without prejudice to the satisfaction of all his civil rights before the civil courts. Second, the Government contended that, even if the applicant was successful in obtaining a verdict against his former wife, it would not be \u201cdirectly decisive\u201d since any consequences of the said conviction on the matter of her compliance with the terms of the applicant's access to his child would have been uncertain and remote. Third, the Government submitted that the present application fell outside the scope of Article 6 \u00a7 1 because decision no. 528/2005, with which the applicant's wife had failed to comply was an interim measure under the domestic law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1f446300-0008-4f0f-acda-a690d5119664", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had not ensured his attendance at the hearings in the proceedings concerning his complaint of lack of adequate medical assistance in Bayil Prison. He maintained that his presence would have been particularly important having regard to the fact that the domestic courts had ignored the written statements of former inmates and had not heard some former inmates detained in Bayil Prison at those hearings. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fe2f6396-337c-4a7a-adc1-e9dedaa42312", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government emphasised that Article <mask> of the Convention was directly applicable under Polish law and the applicant could, therefore, have relied on that provision before the Polish courts, complaining of a violation thereof in his case. However, in his appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court the applicant had put forward arguments which had been based solely on domestic law, had concerned the merits of the case and had not been related to the question of access to the case file."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "25c55f43-9924-4f96-b7a4-14573c511bf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The applicant complained that he had not been given the time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, and had been unable to meet his lawyers in private and out of the hearing of the guards and to exchange documents with them. He relied in this connection on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "26b5efef-530b-4a60-b616-c9adad2eb607", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that the right of access to court was not absolute and was subject to regulation by the State. Thus, the fact that a special judicial remedy was not provided did not imply that the provision had been violated. The Government submitted that the person exercising parental authority could object within twenty one days of the issuance of the care order before it was confirmed by a Juvenile Court. The fact that a decision of the Juvenile Court was not subject to appeal did not raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aacc4bb7-1e5c-498f-9eaa-3704da8e47e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government submitted that the judgment of 24 July 2000 had been fully enforced on 12 May 2005. They conceded that the delay in the enforcement of that judgment was not compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. At the same time they considered that as far as the judgment of 24 July 2000 had been enforced fully, its continuing non-enforcement was compatible with the applicant's right to \u201cpeaceful enjoyment of his possessions\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They further pointed out that the main debt due to the judgment of 24 July 2000 had been paid to the applicant within a reasonable time, on 23 November 2000, and that the sum of RUB 9,357 was the payment of the interest, it was not the applicant's main income and therefore, the delay in payment of that amount caused no considerable damage to the applicant."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ead7add3-6536-490c-a5ad-1922615385d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicant further complained, without referring to any specific provision of the Convention, that his detention from 16 July to 5 November 2008 had been unlawful. He additionally complained under Article <mask> of the Convention: that his lawyers had not duly performed their duties; that the courts dealing with his case had been biased and the appellate court judges had taken a bribe from him; and that his conviction was generally unfair. He next complained under the same provision about the length of proceedings. The applicant also complained that the confiscation ordered by the courts in conjunction with his conviction concerned property which did not in fact belong to him and with which he had no connection. Lastly, he complained of some problems with the dispatching of his outgoing correspondence from the pre-trial detention centre."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a8241bbf-690a-4d02-bafe-8b606eec77af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that judge S. was biased and that the proceedings concerning her motion of bias against him were unfair. The Court notes, however, that the Salzburg Regional Court, on 16 December 1999, in any way, found that the judge S. was biased and that the proceedings were subsequently conducted by another judge. In these circumstances, the Court finds that this part of the application discloses no appearance of a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a52e3258-64c1-43a4-a941-c5825ccc8a85", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant, for his part, disputed the Government's contention. In his submission, either the court responsible for the execution of sentences was not a court \u2013 in which case there had been a wholesale breach of all human rights \u2013 or it was bound to comply with the obligations imposed by statute and the conventions and, above all, to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "36158ab5-bd9d-4f60-8bb4-6801b089582c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant was arrested and placed in police custody on 21 June 2006, in accordance with a search order based on the suspicion that he had committed the murder mentioned above (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). On the same day the applicant was informally questioned by Officers Z.K. and V.V. in relation to that murder; during that questioning he confessed to having also committed the theft (see paragraph 11 above). On the next day, 22 June 2006, the applicant was formally detained by a prosecutor in the context of the other set of criminal proceedings against him, and charges in relation to the murder and the theft at issue were only formally brought against him on 18 December 2006 (see paragraph 14 above). However, already at the time of his arrest on 21 June 2006 and interview with Officers Z.K. and V.V., the applicant\u2019s situation was substantially affected by actions of the authorities in relation to those two offences. Accordingly, it was as of this moment that Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in its criminal aspect, became applicable in respect of the criminal proceedings at issue."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a2662cfd-051d-4c43-a482-be1f81881c7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["259.  The applicant did not specify in the application form with which other complaint or complaints he intended to link his complaint under Article 18. His observations do not clarify the matter either. In such circumstances, given that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention is the main complaint in the present case, the Court considers that Article 18 was invoked in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "db6ed441-7e5c-4d1f-96a4-4e9de82f9c56", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that, following the referral of the case to the Court of Cassation, it would have been open to any party to the proceedings to obtain from the court's registry any information regarding the state of proceedings. When the applicant became aware of the advisory opinion of the principal public prosecutor, he could have asked for all necessary information, filed additional observations or responded to the prosecutor's opinion. Furthermore, the Principal Public Prosecutor's observations merely consisted of his opinion whether he approved or disapproved the first-instance court's judgment. Accordingly, non\u2011communication to the applicant of the Principal Public Prosecutor's observations did not infringe the \u201cequality of arms\u201d principle or the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "92c168e1-34e4-4a5f-8e9c-16f1d20b1dc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He further argued that the proceedings had been unfair in that he had not benefited from legal assistance during the preliminary investigation stage, could not cross-examine the witnesses against him during the trial and had not had access to the other incriminating evidence against him, specifically the computer disk. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b16d9cfc-0e5e-4aab-a44c-769c2f28a2f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicants complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, they maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time and they had been unable to obtain a fair hearing in those proceedings. Moreover, they had been deprived of their right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant to the complaint, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3686cf74-aa7b-4f7a-9304-4710df43b368", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained that in the second set of contempt of court proceedings the Constitutional Court had not been impartial because one of the judges, Judge J.Z., was married to a judge that had taken part in the decision on the applicant\u2019s appeal (see paragraph 22 above). The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, as far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f4314c43-66ea-46fb-b148-e01e9d7a9a9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant complained that his appeal had not been examined on the merits, given that the Court of Appeal had wrongly considered it as submitted out of time. He also complained that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b94d2f8e-94b5-4f89-bf37-3d427d05a8a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government noted that although the applicant had complained to the Supreme Court of a lack of reasoning in the decisions in his case he had not done so before the Constitutional Court or the Court. They therefore invited the Court to declare that complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They further submitted that, in accordance with the Pellegrin jurisprudence (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII), Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the instant case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e59a4b67-1480-4957-8c0e-7fd122518b18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government also objected that, as far as the Hague Convention proceedings were concerned, the applicant had failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, especially in so far as he was complaining under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of those proceedings and their alleged unfairness and under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life in those proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3d8356a6-9b83-4ae9-ad88-931b6cdddecc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government first objected that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention was not applicable. In particular, the applicant was a professional soldier and participated in the exercise of public power in that capacity. He had been fined under the Military Service Act 1997 for his failure to observe military discipline. Similar disciplinary offences concerned a restricted scope of persons, namely members of the armed forces. The nature and degree of severity of the penalty imposed on him showed that the offence in question was not, in terms of Article <mask> of the Convention, criminal in nature."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f1dc42d4-eabb-4ca8-9ecd-bb0a273c6d9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant, relying on Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, alleged that, in his position of insolvency administrator of the company, he was an impecunious litigant and was discriminated against compared to a litigant with sufficient financial means. He submitted that an impecunious litigant depended on a judge, who must arrange for notice to be given to the defendant of the request for legal aid, to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation. If he were a litigant with sufficient financial means, who could have lodged an action without requesting legal aid, the claims at stake would not have become time-barred."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b6e90df7-c310-4952-93b5-646d1e24b56d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant contested those arguments. His submissions, insofar as relevant to the complaints declared admissible, may be summarised as follows. The judgment of 5 December 1997, as upheld on 16 January 1998, remained unenforced due to the negligence of the bailiffs. On 18 December 1997, upon the applicant's request, the Lefortovskiy District Court ordered the seizure of the defendant company's bank account. However, despite the court order, the account was not seized. As a result, the company had time to withdraw money from the bank and thus avoid payment of the judgment debt. Furthermore, the bailiffs failed to take the necessary steps to find and seize other assets of the company. Therefore, the responsibility for the non-enforcement of the court judgment of 5 December 1997, as upheld on 16 January 1998 was fully with the State and the judgment of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow of 10 March 1999 was correct. The applicant concluded that the quashing of the judgment of 10 March 1999 by the Supreme Court was unjustified and breached the principle of legal certainty, enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ebc6df4a-78bd-4dfe-bd78-bcbd0d52e9c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant also complained that the proceedings had not been completed within a reasonable time, contrary to the requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 7 of the Convention, she complained that she had been expelled and banned from re-entering Turkey on account of her religious activities. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant further alleged that she had been discriminated against because, although persons who disseminated Islamic propaganda were not subjected to any sanctions in Turkey but were supported by the State, those who disseminated Christian propaganda were subjected to physical sanctions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2cbf5ff8-a131-4fc6-8876-621576119276", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant submitted that the domestic law did not provide for any algorithm on how stakeholders and judicial authorities should act in situations where it was impossible to restore a lost case file. For the applicant, the appropriate course of action would be either a new investigation and trial or a review of the case by a higher court based on the available material. However, domestic legislation did not allow for that. The context in which this situation had arisen could explain some of the delay in enacting a solution, but the lack of a solution for more than two years had \u201ccompletely eliminated the guarantees enshrined\u201d in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fef2ff20-44d3-4087-a7d8-75ccd59ba544", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that delays in the enforcement proceedings had been caused by Mrs H. who had repeatedly failed to submit the requisite documents to the city administration. They claimed that the final decision on the applicant\u2019s claim had been issued on 12 December 2005 and enforced within two months. They maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f2dea4b2-aa09-415e-ba0c-886bc4be43c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that the right of access to a court is not absolute and the requirement to pay fees in connection with civil claims cannot be regarded as per se incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that fulfilment of the Article 6 obligation to secure an effective right of access to a court did not mean merely the absence of interference but might require the State to take various forms of positive action. However, neither an unqualified right to obtain free legal aid from the State in a civil dispute nor a right to cost-free proceedings in civil cases could be inferred from that provision."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "baff3cf4-5e13-40df-af3a-66f4c5fcc5d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government considered that the amounts of the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicants were unsubstantiated and speculative. As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that if the Court were to find a violation, the finding of such a violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction. They further considered that should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, it should dismiss the applicants\u2019 claim for non-pecuniary damage in this part, given that the criminal proceedings against the applicants could be reopened if the Court found a violation (see paragraph 46 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0bd84178-b731-4ee4-9f28-2ec375a3b0d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["5.  The Government further relied on the fact that, in further contrast to the case in Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis, the State was not itself directly party to the dispute which gave rise to the present case. This fact, again, is not in our view of central importance, the principle which precludes intervention by the legislature in pending legal proceedings being founded not only the requirement of equality of arms between the parties to the proceedings but also on more general requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention relating to the rule of law and the separation of powers. In any event, while the State was not as such a party to the proceedings in question in the present case, we note that the participation of AP-HP, a public administrative establishment under the supervision of four ministers, necessarily had major implications for the public finances and that the State was, accordingly, directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings to which the legislation expressly related."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4dacd3b6-f0f7-45da-ab35-c51ec9fc9553", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had been represented by his mother for the entire duration of the proceedings against him and that this provision of the Convention did not require an accused to be represented by a lawyer. According to the Government, even assuming that the applicant had not been duly represented at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, a State-appointed lawyer had assisted him during the trial. The latter had been able to raise before the trial court complaints concerning any irregularities in the course of the investigations."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "429664fe-89f6-4fff-925a-fcd14da2585d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant further submitted that the use of evidence obtained under torture was in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. It was evident from the judgments of the courts at all three levels of jurisdiction that the coerced statements by the applicant and witness T. played a decisive role in securing the applicant\u2019s conviction. It was true that the applicant\u2019s conviction had also been based on a number of other items of evidence. However, this other evidence was used simply to confirm the three main items of evidence in the case, namely the statements by the applicant and witnesses T. and A., which had been made under duress. The courts also based their findings on the statement made by witness T. during the first trial in the Syunik Regional Court. However, the case had been examined three times by the Regional Court and at both the second and third trials witness T. submitted that he had been forced to slander the applicant as a result of torture and intimidation and that he was not aware of the circumstances of serviceman H.\u2019s death."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2090ce8d-8957-4ffc-801c-f6f9400fe964", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants also complained under Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention about the conditions of their life, under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of the proceedings against the bailiff, and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 about the impossibility to work or travel without the identity papers."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2b16ba80-81e5-4777-a769-938584dba589", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of the unfairness of the Hague Convention proceedings, in particular that the interlocutory judgment of 13 April 2009 had been missing from the domestic case file and that the domestic authorities had failed to send him a copy of the final judgment of 25 March 2010. In respect of the divorce\u2011and\u2011custody proceedings instituted against him by his wife, after the case had been communicated to the Romanian Government he complained under the same Article that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to hear foreign witnesses on his behalf through the international rogatory commission proceedings or to expedite the said proceedings, and the fact that he had had to incur high financial costs in order to submit the relevant testimonial and documentary evidence, had amounted to a breach of his right to a fair trial and prevented him from defending his rights."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "170d760e-c769-4b65-b66c-4b682e7e906d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government submitted that the applicant companies had lost their victim status as the Constitutional Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded EUR 15,000 each in compensation. It had found that the applicant companies could pursue proceedings for pecuniary damage before the LAB. Indeed a fresh declaration had been issued in 2009, and the amended law provided for direct access by applicants to the LAB guaranteeing the applicant companies\u2019 access to a court to challenge the compensation. Moreover, by then the applicant companies had been offered pecuniary compensation (see paragraph 15 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7d42950b-f83e-4e1b-a0ec-a2dacc5bab50", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.   The applicant finally complained that she had not been paid the \u201ctrue\u201d value of her share. In her observations of August 2005 she also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings in a labour dispute to which she had been a party had been unfair and excessively long. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court\u2019s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b9e3b838-3350-4e4a-aa50-167baa803778", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government disagreed. They considered that, even assuming that court fees collected by Hungarian courts for dealing with civil claims constituted a form of restriction on the individual\u2019s access to a court, they were legitimate to regulate access to courts and not in themselves contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the particular circumstances of the case, the Government\u2019s position was that the applicant himself had been responsible for the fact that he had been ordered to pay a significant sum in court fees, as he had indicated a grossly exaggerated amount in his claim when instituting the proceedings, in the light of the domestic practice on compensation for violation of personality rights. The Government further argued that the applicant was not obliged to advance the court fees, there was a statutory upper payment limit, and the law provided for some flexibility as to the payment of court fees. Thus, according to the Government, the restrictions were proportionate to the aims pursued, especially in view of the fact that the applicant\u2019s action had been 97% unsuccessful according to the first- and second-instance courts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "663f07ee-afd8-4b4c-9733-800ec255acce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government admitted that the proceedings that had taken place before 23 January 2001 had not met the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. At the same time, they contended that the length had been justified by the objective factors, such as the complexity of the case, multiple referrals to the prosecutor\u2019s office and orders for Mr S.\u2019 psychiatric examinations, the applicant\u2019s co-defendants\u2019 illnesses and Mr K.\u2019s remote location. They further stated that the delays had not had an adverse effect on the applicant as he had not been detained pending trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "59b1cbcc-8b00-46ae-8f85-36e74c1d9bbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["10.  The applicant company complained that the domestic courts had dismissed its claim contrary to established case-law without providing any reasons in their decisions for their departure from that case-law. As a result, a higher interest rate was applied to the repayment of its loan. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Article 6 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "82aa6cc6-d15c-45e7-bb95-0a33c7292803", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants maintained that they were tried and punished in absentia before the District Court and that they had not enjoyed any rights under Article <mask> of the Convention before being fined by the District Court\u2019s judgment of 12 December 2013. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment and concluded that it had been enough for the applicants to enjoy these rights before the Supreme Court."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f95cb7d1-7036-4293-b56a-591eacb09688", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The applicant submitted numerous complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that the trial court had made incorrect findings of fact, misapplied national law and made an inadequate assessment of the evidence. She argued that the trial court had relied on evidence obtained through unlawful searches and on the transcripts of the (telephone) tapping prepared by the prosecution."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "da890a0c-bf6b-44b4-b38c-29d06eb75a04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["136.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. They alleged a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The first and fifth applicants raised a further complaint under Article 13 of the Convention as regards the lack of effective remedy in domestic law. The applicants all claimed that there were no grounds for distinguishing their cases from the Court\u2019s findings in its Ivanov judgment. On the contrary, the circumstances of their cases demonstrated that the national dysfunction identified in the Ivanov judgment persisted to date."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2091ac98-dc62-4348-930c-b01b8d47196b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions had been violated because of the domestic authorities\u2019 continuing failure to decide on the expropriation of their plot of land and their consequent inability to make use of their property during that period. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e7c582cf-f4ae-4e6a-8249-4e2fce3c46c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants complained of the prolonged failure of the domestic authorities to comply with the binding judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, annulling the agreement to transfer Demirbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund and its subsequent sale by the latter to the HSBC bank. They alleged that the continuing non-enforcement of the judgments amounted to a breach of their right to a fair trial and to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The applicants further alleged that the unlawful administrative acts had constituted a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In this connection with their complaints, they relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6193871e-fe8a-4636-950d-ca8c7058657b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant's heirs submitted that the CLEMC's decision was decisive for the applicant's right to a pension, the amount of which was directly dependent on his degree of disability, and for his right to a supplement to his pension, which was also dependent on the CLEMC's determination whether he was in need of another person's assistance. Referring to the cases of Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99), Deumeland v. Germany (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100) and Francesco Lombardo v. Italy (judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249\u2011A), the applicant's heirs submitted that social security rights which were not the result of a discretionary decision by a state authority but were determined on the basis of criteria contained in the law, such as those in issue in the present case, were civil rights within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d6a50424-bc1e-4d72-9713-15c376446bd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government contended that the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been introduced out of time. In their opinion, the six\u2011month time-limit started running on 23 June 2006 (see paragraph 13 above), as that was the date of the final domestic decision concerning the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty. As regards the subsequent compensation proceedings brought by the applicant, the Government maintained that they concerned his civil rights under Article <mask> of the Convention only and were of no relevance for his complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "077092d7-ea97-4986-bf31-421058e20a88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government further stated, with reference to Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 February 2000, that the summoning of parties to a supervisory review hearing remained at the discretion of the relevant court provided the review procedure was not triggered by an application that would be to the applicant's detriment. The Government noted that the application for supervisory review, as well as the prosecutor's pleadings at the hearing, were not to the applicant's detriment. Given that the supervisory review procedure had benefited the applicant by sentencing him to a shorter term of imprisonment as a result of a new legal classification of his actions, the Government were of the view that the Supreme Court's failure to secure the attendance of the applicant and his counsel did not breach Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "69685fce-e082-4869-b11e-991c3bd3fc8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government contended that the domestic courts had examined the evidence of the defence and properly assessed it in the cases of both applicants. In the Government\u2019s view the fact that the domestic courts had emphasised the police officers\u2019 statements could not as such be regarded as non-compliance with the requirement of fairness enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, in the case of the second applicant the courts questioned a defence witness on her motion. Furthermore, the Government argued that the Code of Administrative Offences did not provide for the mandatory participation of a public prosecutor in each case concerning an administrative offence. Their submissions in that respect were similar to those made in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, \u00a7\u00a7 45-48, 20 September 2016)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c69d142b-2562-4531-b6ca-4b6b4c0d13e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant maintained that the proceedings had been unfair in that a large part of the recorded telephone conversations relevant to his defence had been destroyed by the police. It was unlikely that the prosecutor had acquainted himself with any of the recordings before the case was transferred to him for the consideration of charges. In any case, a procedure whereby the prosecuting authority itself attempts to assess the importance of certain evidence to the defence cannot meet the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor could the testimony of a police officer concerning the intercepted material be given much weight in assessing the relevance of the destroyed recordings. The applicant pointed out that he had given specific and acceptable reasons for his requests for access to the recordings not included in the case file. The shortcomings in the legislation in force at the time of the proceedings did not absolve the State from complying with the requirement of fairness of the proceedings embodied in Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "251b823f-78f1-49f7-aece-290264e46bce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government argued that the Council lacked necessary funds for execution of the judgments in the applicants' favour. They further submitted that the judgments of 28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002 remained unenforced, and thus, the applicants' rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were violated. As regards the judgment of 20 June 2001, the Government submitted that it was fully enforced on 8 August 2002."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d1be046e-36a3-4de4-a830-1df6ea109b70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant contended that the charges against him could be considered \u201ccriminal\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that CAO cases were examined by criminal sections of the courts and that in the French legal system offences of this kind were part of the Criminal Code. He further claimed to have been detained by the police for five and a half hours on 18 April 2000, during which time he was interrogated by criminal investigators. The applicant also argued that, beside fines, the Code of Administrative Offences provided for procedural measures such as detention, corporal search, search of property and administrative arrest. If a fine was not paid, the sanction could be commuted to an administrative arrest of ten days for every MDL 18 (the equivalent of EUR 1.59 at the time). Had he not had the means to pay the fine, he would have been imprisoned for twenty days. He stated that his monthly stipend as a student was MDL 50-60, depending on his academic performance, and that therefore the fine imposed on him constituted more than a half of his monthly income."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "35feb577-7527-45aa-8a1a-93112bc15b81", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to provide him with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of his own choosing and to prepare his defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9970f2a7-2011-4fea-9334-bac283db14c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The applicant claimed a total amount of 210,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He claimed EUR 20,000 for the alleged infringement of Article 5 \u00a7 2, EUR 50,000 for the ill-treatment to which he claimed to have been subjected on 18 August 2003, EUR 70,000 for the inhuman conditions of detention, EUR 10,000 for infringement of his right to correspondence, and EUR 60,000 for the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He did not claim any amount in respect of pecuniary damage."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fd08ed46-14b2-456e-a97d-fffd28fea7ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant alleged violation of his rights under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention since the Supreme Court had rejected as inadmissible ratione valoris his appeal on points of law unlike its earlier judgments in the same proceedings in which it had considered on the merits the plaintiff\u2019s appeals on points of law. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint should be analysed only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "46b1c8d6-3a53-48c3-a9f7-66917ca98934", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They alleged that they had been convicted solely on the basis of their statements taken under duress in police custody. They maintained that they were denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings. They submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. Finally, they complained that Turkish law does not give the possibility to cross-examine witnesses, thereby, depriving them of their right to confront the witnesses. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "494fb574-3160-447e-ba26-fda975841195", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government submitted that the proceedings brought by the applicant had been fair. They had been conducted in the usual way, with the participation of medical experts to elucidate points that required special knowledge. The independence and impartiality of those experts had been open to review by the courts, at the request of the parties to the case. That manner of proceeding was fully consistent with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e1ad68a3-0e43-492d-9178-732d972a7b4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government claimed that the applicant had not submitted his bank details to the bailiff service and that he should have enquired about the state of enforcement after May 2001. They acknowledged, however, that a payment to an unauthorised person had been effected through the fault of the Bailiffs Office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow which had not verified the authenticity of Mr K.'s authority form. The Government admitted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "eac7ac8b-f13b-4c17-adfe-efc9dc42f807", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that the \u0130zmir District Court had sought only the opinion of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, a public institution. In his view, that institution was not qualified to provide an opinion on Alevis since it was not specialised in the Alevi faith and had no interest in it. He added that had the court sought the opinion of the Federation of Alevi-Bektashi Associations (a private federation of Alevi associations), its interpretation would have been different from that of the Directorate of Religious Affairs. The court should have sought the opinion of that federation or of religious-affairs specialists. The applicant argued that the domestic courts had therefore conducted an inadequate investigation, rendering the proceedings unfair."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a209fcb2-6714-4ca5-876f-6351e18116d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government did not raise any objection as to the admissibility of the application. However, the Court would like to make a preliminary observation on the issue of applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the legality review proceedings in the present case. Under the Court\u2019s case-law, the legality review request is not an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that applicants are required to exhaust (see Traj\u010de Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 1431/03, 16 September 2008 and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008, in which the public prosecutor rejected the applicants\u2019 applications that the legality review request be submitted to the Supreme Court). In the Bo\u010dvarska judgment the Court considered Article 6 applicable in a situation when the legality review request was accepted to the applicant\u2019s significant disadvantage. In that case the Court found a violation of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement in respect of proceedings in which the legality review request had been used successfully on four occasions (see Bo\u010dvarska, cited above).  In the Gorou judgment (see Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, \u00a7\u00a7 27-36, ECHR 2009\u2011...) the Court found Article 6 applicable to similar proceedings, which ended with a refusal of the public prosecutor to submit an appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation. In the present case, the public prosecutor submitted the legality review request to the Supreme Court which the latter dismissed on the merits. Given the fact that the outcome of the legality review proceedings was directly decisive for the applicant\u2019s \u201ccivil right in question\u201d, there is no obstacle to the applicability of Article 6 to these proceedings after they were launched by the public prosecutor."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d2fe9e11-1778-4b98-98ab-6be60239f7c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants originally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unlawful confiscation of their property. The applicants also complained that the domestic courts had denied them access to court to challenge the unlawful actions of the tax police. They invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The applicants later complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in favour of the first applicant, and again invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2fae24cc-7707-43d8-9564-f42e8ffa574c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant asked the Court to rule on the merits as he remained victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed compensation for pecuniary damages in the amount of DKK 350,000 and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of DKK 110,000. Accordingly, the High Court judgment did not provide adequate redress for the violation of the Convention, rather it should be viewed as an attempt by the Government to correct the errors made by the tax authorities and the prosecution, which resulted in them having to reduce their estimation of the tax evasion from DKK 2,500,000 when the proceedings started to DKK 57,252 when the final indictment was procured during the trial. In any event, the applicant submitted, the so-called compensation failed to provide a proper and adequate redress for the length of the proceedings and the negative impact that the original criminal charge had imposed on the applicant as a bona fide business professional."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "369a1c29-8cba-4a7c-936e-97515c75105c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, referring to various aspects of his trial. He referred to his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearings, and the intensive schedule of the hearings, and alleged that he had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. He further submitted that he had not been able effectively to defend himself owing to a lack of opportunity to consult his legal counsel in confidence during the trial. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d741ef25-9009-4703-a65a-80d15c6a5129", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government considered that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with in the present case, as the applicant had had access to court. They referred to the case of Silickien\u0117 v. Lithuania (no. 20496/02, \u00a7\u00a7 48-49, 10 April 2012) where the Court had found that although the applicant had not been a party to the criminal proceedings, the system in question had not been without safeguards."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "62013b2a-76e5-49f3-be7e-f7b1b957c8ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant submitted that his trial took too long and disagreed that the context of the jury trial was a relevant factor, States being obliged to organise their judicial systems so as to ensure compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the case was not complex and pointed to the fact that the first trial was concluded within thirteen months of the murder as evidence of the straightforward nature of the case."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "22ade866-2aed-4198-8550-d1387bb84e94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant company acknowledged that Article 814 of the COCP did not compel the same judges to examine a request for a retrial. However, it submitted that this provision violated Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as it failed to guarantee the right to a fair trial of the party applying for a retrial (\u201cthe plaintiff\u201d in the relevant Maltese legislation \u2013 see paragraphs 30-32 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3f2ab79e-ff85-4ca0-9c42-e99c6fb06268", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government further submitted that the administrative courts\u2019 decisions finding that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant\u2019s application had not infringed his right of access to a court for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. Pointing out that the State had a certain margin of appreciation in this sphere, they asserted that the 1986 Law did not provide for any appeal against measures relating to the execution of sentences taken in accordance with the law. Once the ordinary courts had passed sentence, the Luxembourg legislature, which had not followed the French example of instituting a post-sentencing judge, sought to ensure that the implementation of that judicial decision was not controlled by the courts, and entrusted this task to the executive. This division of powers pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of public order and the prevention of crime. In that connection the Government stated that, while the 1986 Law was aimed at the gradual reintegration of prisoners into society, the sentence was designed to protect society from an individual who was liable to commit further offences outside prison. There was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved, given that prisoners had the possibility of applying for several periods of prison leave. Lastly, the Government stressed that the 1986 Law provided for other measures benefiting prisoners in the context of the enforcement of sentences, such as the semi\u2011custodial regime."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b56975f9-f32c-4809-b259-8923fdf44580", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34. The Government argued that this complaint should be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae since Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to disciplinary proceedings under either its civil or criminal head. They referred in particular to the Court's case-law in Eskelinen Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, \u00a7 62, ECHR 2007\u2011...), which, they argued, suggested that Article 6 of the Convention merely applied to ordinary labour disputes such as those relating to salaries, allowances or similar entitlements. Disciplinary proceedings must be excluded from the guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 as the relationship between civil servants and the state was not comparable to that between employees and their employers."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8ba50b70-2208-4b90-b55b-496fca6f97e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government submitted that the right of access to court was not absolute and that Article <mask> of the Convention did not prohibit the establishing of restrictions, including court fees. The courts had given the applicant company time to comply with the obligation to pay the court fees, but had had to refuse to consider the appeal when the applicant company failed to pay."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4eb4af21-68f8-4898-a80b-7dfc2d7ce2a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant maintained that the length of proceedings was in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention. She contended that the proceedings had been delayed by the domestic courts as they could have estimated T.G.\u2019s income and, on that basis, fixed an amount of maintenance from the very beginning of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "33c2d015-13f4-4049-a0c4-2134f6072bc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant also complained that the proceedings against him had fallen short of the guarantees of a fair hearing within a reasonable time and that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated by virtue of the Supreme Court's decisions of 31 July 2001 and 30 January 2002. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "daf0fd11-27ca-4bab-8121-c95152c00d79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained of unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged that one of the judges at first instance had not been impartial; that his conviction had been based in part on his and his co-defendants\u2019 statements which had been obtained under duress and in in breach of the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination; that the first-instance court had refused to summon some of the witnesses he had requested it to call; that he had not been provided with adequate time to study the case-file after his conviction; and that he had not been provided with free legal assistance to prepare his appeal against the conviction of 20 December 2005. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that this part of the applicant\u2019s complaints falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "24f4eabc-a503-4b00-bfe1-89f874948d9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings that she had brought before the administrative courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time. She further maintained under the same head that the domestic courts had delivered contradictory decisions in identical cases and that the Twelfth Division of the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to examine her submissions regarding the decision rendered by the General Assembly of Administrative Proceedings Divisions with regard to R.B."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8121d951-7789-4341-92f6-f7ee453d6ade", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court cannot speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had the applicants\u2019 action been examined in full compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. For these reasons, this part of the application should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c1b47b54-ee68-4763-ba2c-32b504a80873", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["326.  The applicant contended that the Cypriot authorities violated his right of access to court under Article <mask> of the Convention by failing to ensure his participation in the inquest proceedings, by failing to grant him free legal aid and by failing to provide him with information on available legal remedies in Cyprus. Article 6 provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5ce7ac51-e054-4012-b5e5-1a92a9b4e8c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant also complained that he had not been able to participate in the supervisory review proceedings, and that the presiding judge was the very judge who had made the protest. In the light of its finding that the quashing of the decision of 13 March 2001 in supervisory review proceedings was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal with these issues."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9b863b54-d6eb-46e6-864b-ce807028d613", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his trial was unfair. Firstly, he alleged that the trial judge\u2019s ruling under Article 4 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (as to the desirability of his giving evidence) was improper and unfair. This was particularly so as the trial judge had erred in refusing to consider Dr. Davies\u2019 evidence regarding his observations of the excluded videotaped interviews. Secondly, he alleged that the trial judge\u2019s direction to the jury in respect of adverse inferences was flawed. The trial judge should have been required to direct the jury that they should not draw any adverse inferences unless they considered that there was a case to answer. Article 6 \u00a7 1 provides as relevant:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "449b2c78-bceb-4fee-97c3-419d07dabdf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that, in two respects, the procedure through which he challenged his provisional detention before the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4, which is the lex specialis for matters of deprivation of liberty (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2005-XII). Article 5 \u00a7 4 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c848c477-ce50-4f46-8cc6-39e4eb4153ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been deprived of the opportunity to present his case effectively. In this connection he complained that he had been given limited access to the security files, as the copies supplied to him had been redacted; that there had been no oral hearing; that the authorities had refused to examine witnesses proposed by him; and that they had not provided sufficient reasons for their decisions. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention about the publication of the Commission\u2019s decision on its website before it had become final. In his submissions of 13 November 2015, the applicant also alleged a lack of impartiality on the part of the State Judicial Council which had declared his position as a judge terminated, given the participation of V.B., a former judge in the Administrative Court, who had presided over the adjudicating panel in the lustration proceedings against him and had been elected as a member of the State Judicial Council three days after the Administrative Court had decided the applicant\u2019s lustration case. Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "763454ed-6003-4739-8a30-90d873770dbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court. They further alleged that the national courts had convicted them on the basis of the statements that they had made to the police and to the investigating judge. The applicants finally maintained that they had been deprived of their right to defend themselves by a lawyer. In this connection, they invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8a4a2b02-6730-4e62-b7cb-973f23f0eba5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that she had been detained in appalling conditions; that she had been compelled through threats, unjustified detention and psychological pressure to make admissions. She also raised a number of other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the trial and post-trial proceedings. Lastly, she alleged under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention that she had been prosecuted and convicted due to her political opinions and activities."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "14f1b965-593c-4164-b49b-69741fa20701", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government, referring to the relevant provisions of the Civil Servants Act concerning the Appeals Commission, asserted that this body qualifies as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the applicant had waived his right to a public oral hearing as he had failed to request such a hearing before the Appeals Commission or the Constitutional Court. His statement that the conduct of an oral and public hearing would have been impossible in the light of the legal situation was incorrect. Although the domestic law governing the proceedings at issue did not explicitly provide for public hearings before the Appeals Commission, an interpretation of the relevant provisions in conformity with the Federal Constitution would nevertheless have obliged the Appeals Commission to hold one if this was necessary under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant's waiver did not appear disproportionate as the relevant facts could be adequately established and determined on the basis of the case-file. The applicant basically acknowledged having made the incriminating statements and described the escalating tensions with the Institute. The Appeals Commission, in any event, merely had to take account of objective facts. Moreover, the exclusion of the public was justified in employment disputes between the authorities and civil servants because of their duty to secrecy about the performance of official activities. This was all the more the case in the present circumstances as the proceedings at issue concerned merely incidents of an intimate nature which happened within the applicant's Institute."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d85308c8-8401-44b3-a7cc-c56c7475afd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government observed that, in order to ascertain whether or not they came within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, it was first necessary to specify which civil rights were supposedly being restricted. In its only existing ruling on the subject, namely the admissibility decision in Musumeci of 17 December 2002 (cited above), the Court had not indicated which civil rights were restricted as a result of placement in an E.I.V. unit. In concluding that Article 6 was applicable, it had confined itself to citing Constitutional Court judgment no. 26 of 1999. However, that judgment in no way concerned the placement of prisoners in different prisons or in different wings within those prisons; it related in particular to the right of all prisoners to receive magazines of a \u201ccertain type\u201d through the post."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c642f02e-ab9c-467e-a5e0-9d1a53f750b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant alleged that he had not been given a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that the courts had disregarded the arguments about and evidence of excessive use of force by the police and had convicted him solely on the basis of police officers\u2019 statements. The applicant further complained under Article 18 of the Convention that the security measures at the demonstration and his ensuing prosecution for criminal offences had been acts of reprisal for his expressing views critical of the authorities. Moreover, it had pursued the aim of discouraging public events led by opposition activists. Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "77075d66-93c8-4713-aba6-74e887f7f4f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed, since the courts had not examined the alleged agent provocateur, whose active involvement had secured their conviction, or the detectives and police officers who had been present at the scene. They also complained that their conviction had been based only on evidence obtained by the agent provocateur; that the courts' decisions had not been reasoned; and that the Supreme Court had denied their right of access to a court by having erroneously declined to examine their appeal on points of law. In connection with this latter complaint, they also invoked Article 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. The Court considers that the applicants' complaints under these latter Articles are in fact a restatement of the complaints under Article 6 and should be examined accordingly. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6a854e2e-4800-41d5-9d82-f36ff9bcb96f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government noted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, as such, which was primarily a matter for regulation under national law. They underlined their obligation under the Convention to apply the criminal law against a murderer. The public interest in having the murderer of an abducted child convicted was of very serious weight. The Government further argued that the case-law of the United States Supreme Court, which went furthest in prohibiting the use of the \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree\u201d, needed careful analysis. In the leading case of Nix v. Williams (decision of 11 June 1984, 467 US 431; see paragraph 73 above), for instance, that court had held that a body found after an improper investigation could be admitted into evidence in circumstances where it would have been found in any event. It was likely in the present case that J.\u2019s corpse, hidden at a place which the applicant had previously visited, would have been found sooner or later."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e43ecaf7-dcfe-4e06-8d1d-aa087dd1fa83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, he maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time and that he had been unable to obtain a fair hearing in those pending proceedings. Moreover, he had been deprived of his right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant to the complaint, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2957c30d-06cd-4e50-bb21-38a484008271", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government asked the Grand Chamber to endorse the Chamber\u2019s finding that there had been no violation of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention. They stated, firstly, that the legislation had been changed in 2005. Furthermore, in their submission, the restriction imposed on the applicant\u2019s access to a lawyer had not infringed his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the case-law of the Court (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275; John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011I; Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, ECHR 2000\u2011VI; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, ECHR 2000\u2011VI; and Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, ECHR 2001\u2011X), they maintained that in assessing whether or not the trial was fair, regard should be had to the entirety of the proceedings. Thus, as the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the proceedings before the \u0130zmir State Security Court and the Court of Cassation, his right to a fair hearing had not been violated. The Government further drew attention to several Turkish cases (see Sara\u00e7 v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Yurtsever v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42086/02, 31 August 2006; U\u00e7ma v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15071/03, 3 October 2006; Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38827/02, 21 November 2006; and Y\u0131ld\u0131z v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 3543/03 and 3557/03, 5 December 2006), in which the Court had declared similar complaints inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on the ground that, since the police statements had not been the only evidence to support the convictions, the lack of legal assistance during police custody had not constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3c388b68-71b6-4081-886b-d9b13f7b5bcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government referred to the Court\u2019s case-law in the case of Y v. Norway (no. 56568/00, 11 February 2003) in support of their statement that none of the three criteria to be taken into account when deciding whether a person was \u201ccharged with a criminal offence\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention were met in the instant case. In this connection, the Government contended that the aim of Article 122 was not punitive but strictly compensatory. It was aimed at restoring the victims of a crime to the economic situation they had enjoyed before its commission and preventing the unjust enrichment of any person having gratuitously benefited from its proceeds while unaware of their criminal origin. The Government referred to the Court\u2019s reasoning in the above-mentioned case (\u00a7 40) to the effect that even if the victim of a crime had opted for the joining of the compensation claim to the criminal trial, as had happened in the instant case, the first claim would still be considered a \u201ccivil\u201d one, except if otherwise established in domestic law, which was not the case in the Spanish legal system. In this connection, they also stated that it could be concluded from that case (\u00a7 41) that a civil obligation to compensate did not amount to a \u201ccriminal charge\u201d even if the coexistence of the objective constitutive elements of a criminal offence was critical for a determination as to civil liability and the person found civilly liable was acquitted of the criminal charges in the same criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a836cdba-4f00-40af-93b9-3c2ce09c34e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the impugned proceedings, because the applicants had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. They further contended that the applicants had been given a fair opportunity to argue their cases before the domestic courts. In particular, the first applicant and his lawyers had been summoned to the appeal hearing in good time, and the first applicant\u2019s request for adjournment had arrived after the hearing."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a79cfd67-66c0-4b36-b46d-bd96a856c86a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant further complained, referring to Articles 6\u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention about unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings in his case. He also alleged that lack of access to the expert report and refusal by the court to call experts and witnesses in his favour amounted to a violation of his defence rights as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant submitted that his efforts to institute criminal proceedings against the experts had no success. Lastly, he invoked Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4c4582d8-13e1-4146-a426-0fca1ce7895e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicant raised a number of complaints alleging breach of his rights. In particular, he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention complaining of overall unfairness of the proceedings against him that ended on 8 April 2002 and of lack of access to court as regards the civil proceedings against a private company. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had not provided him with a legal-aid lawyer to represent him before the Court. Moreover, the applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alleging that he had been deprived of property by the private company. He further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that his freedom of movement had been restricted by the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union he had been granted Russian citizenship against his will. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the domestic authorities\u2019 refusal to conditionally release him on health grounds had been discriminatory and alleged that his infection with hepatitis C had amounted to capital punishment contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 13."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d3501cf1-5a2a-4dc4-9eb0-811fbf96dc6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a8c9f658-8b56-4985-9ce5-2013c3779201", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant submitted that neither the Administrative Court nor the Constitutional Court held a public oral hearing, even though he had asked for one. In this connection the applicant submitted that the essential question, namely, the modification of the area zoning plan, had been examined not by the Administrative Court but by the Constitutional Court. The applicant maintained that there were no special circumstances that justified foregoing a hearing. The applicant also maintained that the Constitutional Court was not a tribunal within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a54dd7f7-d0d8-420d-996e-d332de9abf61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained that he had not had a fair hearing before the domestic courts inasmuch as the said courts dismissed his action seeking the removal of the fence erected by an unknown neighbour on V. Street (thus obstructing his access to his property) without properly examining the evidence submitted to them \u2013 in particular, by relying on the incorrect finding that he had not informed the administrative authorities of their mistake in misidentifying the neighbour about whom he had complained. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4fad5c2c-2cf9-4c94-a825-f2682265c21f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant maintained that the general scope of application intended by Article <mask> of the Convention could not be ignored or reduced. In her submission, the restrictive effect of Article 575 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a civil party's right to appeal to the Court of Cassation was unfair in a democratic country. She complained that the dismissal of her appeal had seriously damaged her interests because, had the Court of Cassation acknowledged the merits of her claim, she could have saved her possessions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "35b2aff6-3573-4aeb-9b27-fa23c0d766b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that that both sets of the proceedings to which she had been a party had been unfair in that the domestic courts had incorrectly assessed the evidence, dismissed her arguments, failed to give reasons for their decisions and to make available to her copies of certain documents, and that the final judgement in her second case had been quashed by way of supervisory review. She also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that the domestic court had not presumed her husband innocent, because it had made reference to the fact that the former had obtained a certain document by abusing his official position."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ea52c161-0d01-4886-8a6c-3d043411738e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government also argued that the procedure set out by Article 2781 of the former Romanian Criminal Procedure Code does not limit the applicant\u2019s right of access to court to such an extent as to breach Article <mask> of the Convention. The aforementioned procedure is different from the ordinary criminal procedure. Its main purpose is exerting control over a prosecutor\u2019s orders to discontinue criminal proceedings; only in certain circumstances does it facilitate the institution of a new round of trial proceedings. The procedure in question has a legitimate aim, namely to allow applicants the legal means to obtain a review by a domestic court of orders issued by prosecutors\u2019 offices. In addition, there is a reasonable proportionality between this aim and the means employed, because the courts are given the opportunity to save time and resources in respect of those cases which do not raise any issues under the substantive or procedural criminal law, therefore allowing them the opportunity to focus on relevant legal matters brought before them."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f0b1d3a7-000e-471b-8274-1af189a918d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since they had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, they invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3e1c1524-2ee9-4f84-a593-abd94ce395ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his trial. He referred to his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearing and the intensive schedule of those hearings, and alleged that he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and that he could not effectively defend himself in person or through legal assistance. He also claimed that his right to examine or have examined witnesses against him had been unduly restricted. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "869f2396-792a-4136-80de-d025b7ce756f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicants\u2019 administrative cases had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that each applicant had been given a fair opportunity to state his case and have the police officers cross-examined. The Government claimed that the hearings had been open to the public, that the applicants had been given sufficient time to prepare their defence and that they were being assisted by lawyers of their choice."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "aa598731-18d5-40a0-ab75-8ab837735059", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government did not forward any formal objections to the admissibility the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7d18e789-9c16-426a-9847-b7308e389888", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government further submitted, referring to the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009), that the Court had previously found that it had been competent to deal with relevant \u201cnew information\u201d in the context of a fresh application. In this connection, the Government submitted that the refusal of the domestic courts to quash a conviction and to order a retrial had not been found by the Court to give rise to a new breach of Article <mask> of the Convention (Lyons and Others and Steck-Risch and Others, both cited above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "81558668-77d5-4ada-82a5-05b7d2e6ce33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained that his trial had been unfair and that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed since neither he nor his lawyer had been granted an opportunity at any stage of the criminal proceedings to examine O. and P., the only direct witnesses to and victims of the offence allegedly committed by him in G\u00f6ttingen in February 2007. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "83398eda-cd83-4616-afb0-32c21575df14", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government acknowledged that the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 18 October 2004 had breached Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, they argued that the applicant company had not been entitled to claim enforcement of the judgments of 23 July 1998, 22 April 1999 and 20 January 2000 which had been made in favour of the SVL company."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a501906a-477d-46f5-8aa9-6cc7b8a747be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging lack of a fair hearing in the proceedings before the Pereslavl District Court on 9 July 2004 and before the Yaroslavl Regional Court on 17 December 2004. In these proceedings he had challenged the refusal of the prosecutor\u2019s office to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment, but the courts did not ensure his or his counsel\u2019s presence at the hearings. Article 6 provides in so far as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c9b467af-0599-4f01-b1aa-6149c54895ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government stated that in their opinion Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the present case. Firstly, referring to the case of Pellegrin v. France, a civil servant working in the financial administration of a government must be considered a \u201ccivil servant exercising specific public activities and acting as an agent of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities\u201d (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII). The Government, taking note of the subsequent Eskelinen case (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007\u2011II), further distinguished that case from the present case in that the present one only concerned a post transfer and thus was not an ordinary employment dispute. They further emphasised that the post transfer had only been executed on account of an extensive general reform of the government financial administration. Applying Article 6 to situations arising from such an administrative reform process would effectively make such a reform impossible in the future. Furthermore, the Government noted that the case in question did not involve proceedings concerning monetary disadvantage, but only the transfer itself. Finally, the Government stated that the Eskelinen case (cited above) would seem to allow for a member State to exclude groups of civil servants entirely from access to a court, which would lead to the undesirable result that, even though in some cases such civil servants would benefit from at least a number of the guarantees of Article 6, a member State might be forced to exclude them from access to a court altogether."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "57f99509-2109-40ef-a9a7-7e6e7651602f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair in that the domestic authorities did not assess the evidence properly. Under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 he complained that his right not to be punished twice had been violated because, even though the penal order was no longer in force, his driving licence had actually been withdrawn."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d24f16df-b88b-42ce-bbbd-5d63eef1c5a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies by not bringing an action in tort (onrechtmatige daad) against the State before the civil courts on the grounds that the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment was unlawful. According to the Government, since the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention occurred at the very last stage of the criminal proceedings in question, no domestic court had had the opportunity to consider the applicant\u2019s claim that his rights under Article 6 had been violated by the Supreme Court\u2019s summary reasoning, which should, therefore, have been argued before the civil courts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9e80b040-8deb-4880-bfff-ced759a49473", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government first noted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had not submitted any allegations concerning Article <mask> of the Convention, even in substance, before the domestic authorities. He should, they argued, have used the remedies available in ordinary law, such as actions deriving from the right to protection of personality, from the Code of Obligations, from criminal law, or from legislation on unfair competition."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b2fea1de-7744-4c17-b7ce-7d718ea8fe2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the Austrian courts\u2019 decisions had made it impossible for her to assert her claims and constituted unjustified interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. Furthermore, she complained under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been discriminated against as a disabled person."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "18923513-6ffb-451b-96e6-464ea15209b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government further maintained that even though the applicant company was not a party to the share surrender proceedings, it was considered a party in the following stages of the proceedings concerning the interim measures. It could have lodged an appeal upon learning of the existence of the interim measure, and these proceedings could have resulted in the quashing of the interim measure. At the appellate stage, the applicant company\u2019s complaint was therefore heard by a court under circumstances that met the standards of Article <mask> of the Convention in all respects."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "53725ddd-c0fe-4613-981b-420b43786aea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage had no causal link to the alleged restriction on the applicant's right of access to a court. They further argued that the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was highly excessive. The Government drew the Court's attention to a number of cases in which violations of the applicants' rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been found. They argued that the amount of compensation in those cases did not exceed EUR 3,000 and asked the Court, if it was to find of a violation in the present case, to apply a similar standard."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1e92d3a4-eacd-41d8-8940-c9e82909d79b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicants maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were denied a fair trial on the ground that the impugned injunction had been ordered in their absence, without any proper examination of the documentary evidence and without any reasoning, and that the ban had remained in force for an excessive period of time. They further claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to challenge the impugned injunction."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f90f5926-0b42-4248-914a-e02390cfa299", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant alleged that the refusal of the Supreme Court to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU upon his request violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that it follows from the Court\u2019s case-law that the Supreme Court had a duty under Article 6 of the Convention to provide reasons for denying his request for a referral to the CJEU by indicating which of the Cilfit grounds (see paragraphs 23-26 above) was applicable, accompanied by an explanation. In the applicant\u2019s view, a mere reference to section 81 of the Judiciary (Organisation) Act, as contended by the Government, could not be accepted as adequate in this regard. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument that it followed from Hansen v. Norway (no. 15319/09, 2 October 2014) that the refusal of a request for a preliminary ruling without providing specific reasons is compatible with Article 6 of the Convention when a legal provision allowing summary reasoning by an appellate court has been applied. He noted that Hansen did not concern a request for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU but a filtering procedure on appeal. Furthermore, according to the applicant, unless the Court unequivocally decided otherwise, the \u201cCilfit obligation\u201d was a special obligation to provide reasons, with its own requirements."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "670ff573-cc61-4a8a-8eeb-fdef5d6b70a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government also objected to the admissibility of the applicants' first complaint, that their right of access to court guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention was violated by the refusal to hold a hearing at which they could challenge the section 4(2) order made by the High Court of Justiciary on 15 February 2005. The Government relied on the Commission's decision in G. Hodgson, D. Woolf Productions Ltd. and National Union of Journalists v. the United Kingdom and Channel Four Television Co. Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 11553/85 and 11658/85, 9 March 1987, Decisions and Reports (DR) 51, p. 136, and argued that there was no \u201ccivil right\u201d to report public court proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e51f3abf-443d-4d98-b51c-f4258394cb11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s complaint fell outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their opinion, it did not concern the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him. In any event, they discerned no violation of the applicant\u2019s rights set out in the said provision. In their opinion, the applicant\u2019s presence at the hearing before the Town Court had not been necessary given that he had taken part in the hearing of his case by the customs officer and had been able to lodge an appeal against the latter\u2019s decision."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f9d52330-9d1c-4a2e-9cb6-b2e7352ba5fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of the domestic proceedings in their cases (the first set \u2013 as regards the first applicant). The first and the fourth applicants additionally relied on Article 13 in this regard. The Court considers that the complaints must be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bed0fd52-9746-4885-ad0a-be04d7c1ba89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant further alleged that, for the sake of a fair trial, a confrontation should have been held between him and the President in the presence of the investigating judge or during the court proceedings. The Court notes that the President is precluded from an obligation to testify by virtue of his protective status defined in the second paragraph of Article 67 of the Constitution. His absence from the trial is thus based on a serious legal ground, provided for by the Constitution, and on objective considerations of protection which pertain to the office of a Head of State, and does not as such breach Article <mask> of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Urechean and Pavlicenco v. Republic of Moldova, nos. 27756/05 and 41219/07, \u00a7 47, 2 December 2014)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b9bd7e27-30b9-4b6c-b073-2c72b9d5fe04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government contested that argument and considered the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant compatible with the \u201creasonable time requirement\u201d set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been quashed twice on appeal, and that the trial court had returned the case file to the prosecutor, which had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s lawyers and the interpreter had failed to appear in court on several occasions, which had also protracted the proceedings. Lastly, they pointed out that the hearing of the case had been adjourned on one occasion in view of the applicant\u2019s counsel\u2019s request to study the material in the case file."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ceb022ca-e1eb-4ffb-9891-d34827d0f5f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant submitted that Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention was breached where a person was refused compensation for pre-trial detention imposed for a reason which implied his or her guilt when there had been no formal finding to that effect and when the claimant had not had the opportunity to exercise the rights secured by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case, the reasoning given in the decisions of the Minister of Justice and the Appeals Board left no doubt that the applicant's claim had been refused on account of his presumed guilt. The forms of words used went well beyond mere suspicions or suppositions. The fact that claimants were required by section 28(1)(b) of the Law of 1973 to adduce evidence of their innocence established a presumption of guilt incompatible with Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In short, there had been a violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0fc98382-6f2e-40d9-b7fb-5d7792a1e086", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government submitted that the case of Sigur\u00fe\u00f3r Arnarsson v. Iceland (cited above) reflected that it does not constitute a categorical breach of Article <mask> of the Convention if a procedure before an appeal court is somewhat more limited than the procedure at first instance and that this also applied in cases where the appeal court could review questions of fact."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d74ba946-525c-407e-bddb-50a388f62b26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no evidence that she represented a threat to national security and that she had not been given an opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment on any such evidence. Furthermore, the authorities had not provided reasons for their decisions. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, \u00a7 124, 20 March 2018; S\u00f6derman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, \u00a7 57, ECHR 2013, and Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, \u00a7 27, 27 April 2010), considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints should be analysed from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. This Article reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4ef42884-2833-4730-a156-20146091d0f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the courts had decided his case arbitrarily; that they had erred in fact and law; that their decisions had not been reasoned; and that he had not been allowed to cross-examine the court-appointed expert. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been deprived of possessions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b24b2151-daad-42f2-9df2-5ee363cd7c11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and their excessive length, the unsatisfactory work of his state-appointed lawyers, and the violation of the presumption of his innocence. He also claimed violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of an alleged search of his apartment by the police."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ad2c7ed1-854a-4a31-848c-d3a206bac6a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that the court proceedings initiated by the applicant had sought to obtain information about the identity of the fence\u2019s owner and to compel the administrative authorities to take against that person the measures provided for by Ordinance no. 43/1997. They considered that the outcome of the proceedings had not had a directly decisive link to the applicant\u2019s civil rights and therefore could not have fallen within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the proceedings initiated by the applicant had not been a pre-requisite for any other set of proceedings that could have been opened against the person who erected the fence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3dce518e-ef7d-4dc3-8e41-3e03a85c4f82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant maintained his complaints. He submitted that after being removed from the courtroom he was unable to participate in the examination of witnesses and the assessment of other evidence, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor had the court appointed a lawyer to represent him during the trial despite his requests. In response to the Government's submissions regarding his victim status, the applicant argued that the measures taken by the Russian authorities did not constitute adequate redress. According to the applicant, such redress should have included monetary compensation since the appeal judgment had not been quashed until three years later. Nor had his rights been restored in full. Merely appointing a lawyer to represent him during the appeal hearing had not been sufficient to restore his rights."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "890f9b00-d915-4585-a33b-6ee464760522", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He further argued that as a result of a trial conducted in breach of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention he was ordered to pay damages to the victim in the amount of AMD 23,063,108 and USD 119,000. Furthermore, because of his deprivation of liberty he lost earnings for the period between May 2003 and April 2007 in the amount of EUR 36,000. The applicant claimed these amounts in respect of pecuniary damage."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c4cc74f3-b0fb-4eac-97c8-a201cf4d4571", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts had principally and essentially based his conviction for participation in a terrorist organisation on evidence that was vitiated and obtained in conditions that were incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. Alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial, he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, of which paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ae01b7a8-200e-46c8-865c-4b9e53a13649", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant acknowledged that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing the proceedings at issue did not allow the court to review the factual basis or the legal characterisation of the offence. However, they allowed the interested party, including the convict, to make submissions to the court. The applicant inferred that the proceedings were not a mere formality but a trial requiring full guarantees under Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that the removal of the reference to his inebriated state from the original judgment called for a discussion on the effect of that measure on his sentence and that he should therefore have been allowed to present his arguments on that issue."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3fc94adf-ebb0-4b5d-9caa-1e75579f5959", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted them and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. In their observations dated 24 November 2003, they further complained about the length of the proceedings. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "88d9f71c-4cbb-483a-8114-5d4feae62ac0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government conceded that the Constitutional Court had found in the present proceedings that the principle of a public hearing was a vital aspect of the right to a fair trial. Thereby, that court closed a gap in the Liechtenstein catalogue of fundamental rights which did not expressly protect that principle. It had further found that the right to a fair trial was also laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention and was not directly covered by a reservation on ratification."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "eebcbc6a-eccc-4a5c-bd52-adef4386ad12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government disputed that any causal link had been demonstrated between the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the one hand and the conclusion reached in the Supreme Court's judgment on the other. In their view, the claim for pecuniary damage should be rejected. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Government were of the opinion that the finding of a violation of the Convention would in itself constitute adequate just satisfaction."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "113ff382-30d7-4638-807d-aeabd723a381", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a breach of their right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, arguing that Judge V.B. could not be impartial because his son had been expelled from the school. They also complained that the entire panel of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice had lacked independence since the arrival of the Communist Party to power and that the Supreme Court of Justice had failed to give sufficient reasons in its judgment. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "efdaa861-5401-410e-898f-a410c00865d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (e) of the Convention of the excessive length and unfairness of the proceedings. In respect of the latter, he complained that he had not been given the right to use Hebrew, the only language which he understood; that the evidence had been admitted in the form of photocopies; that the domestic courts' decisions had not been reasoned; that he had not been informed, in a language which he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusations against him; and that he had not been given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a6481674-bc09-4524-9e4a-195f543fb282", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial court, that he had not been represented by a lawyer during the trial stage until 22 September 2005, that he had been unable to question, confront and examine a key witness, and that at the appeal stage he had not received the written opinions of the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. The applicant also complained that that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law in respect of his complaints under Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "165480aa-ae1a-4f9c-b459-6e9bbef105fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of various irregularities which had rendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair. In particular, he complained that the trial court had unjustifiably based his conviction on the expert reports by Ms T., dated 18 February 2005 and submitted by the prosecution, whilst rejecting the report by Ms V., submitted by the defence. In the applicant\u2019s view, Ms T.\u2019s reports had been unreliable as she, being only a linguist, had not possessed any other specific knowledge, and therefore had not been sufficiently competent to draw such conclusions. The applicant also claimed that the trial record had been incorrect since the testimony of the key witness, Ms T., had been falsified. He furthermore complained that Judge B. had disallowed his applications to have the transcript amended in line with the audio recording of the hearings submitted by him on the sole ground that the recording had not been authorised, and had refused to accept his supplementary appeal pleadings of 17 February 2006. In this connection, the applicant claimed that Judge B. had been biased and hostile throughout the trial. He also alleged that although his appeal pleadings of 17 February 2006 had eventually been included in the case file, the appellate court had not given due consideration to his arguments concerning the incorrect trial record. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedies in respect of his complaints concerning Judge B.\u2019s alleged misconduct."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "921442ff-231e-4d87-8c25-32ddbc39548d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government maintained that the domestic courts had conducted the proceedings in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention and with section 52 of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (see \u201cRelevant domestic law\u201d, paragraph 54 above), as they had promoted and secured the conclusion of interim agreements. Therefore several periods were not attributable to the national courts. Furthermore the Court of Appeal could not be blamed for the three-month delay caused by the applicant\u2019s change of lawyer."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b51f67c6-d021-444a-b366-859757fed2ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["362.  The applicants claimed that almost the entire male population of Ormani\u00e7i had been arbitrarily taken into detention in that, except in the case of those villagers who were taken to \u015e\u0131rnak, there had been no reasonable suspicion that they had been personally involved in any crime, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 1. They further considered that it had been established that there had been a violation of Article 5 on account of the length of time the apprehended villagers had spent in custody before they were brought before any judicial authority; the absence of custody records in G\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fckonak and the inaccuracy of the custody records in \u015e\u0131rnak, together with the lack of any evidence of authorisation from the public prosecutor for the detention of any of the villagers; the length of the unacknowledged custody of those men who were transferred to hospital while still in custody; and the duration of the pre-trial detention of Mehmet Nuri \u00d6zkan and Ali Erbek. The applicants further claimed that, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the domestic authorities had failed to undertake any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attack on Ormani\u00e7i in February 1993 or to institute any proceedings on the basis of the complaints raised before the Eruh public prosecutors in relation to the detention of the villagers in G\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fckonak and \u015e\u0131rnak and their treatment during that time."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6343bba5-6ddc-46a1-9ef2-f0cecec0b12c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government argued that the claim was unsubstantiated and excessive. They further invited the Court, should it decide to make an award of damages in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, not to depart from its previous rulings; they referred to Constantin and Stoian (cited above) and Bulfinsky v. Romania (dec.), no. 28823/04, 1 June 2010)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "433b07ec-40bb-4d0a-aa41-0a6957e62839", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The Government argued that the applicants\u2019 requests were speculative, excessive and not proven. They considered that should the Court find a violation of Article 3, the acknowledgement as such could constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They further invited the Court, should it decide to make an award of damages in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, not to depart from its previous rulings; they referred to Constantin and Stoian, cited above, and Bulfinsky v. Romania, no. 28823/04, 1 June 2010."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4d69640b-ecbc-44e3-860f-77868b6bca3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government finally submitted that on both occasions the applicant herself did not wish to have a lawyer, despite the fact that the police officers explained to her her right to have a lawyer and advised her to avail herself of this right. Moreover, the applicant did not wish to have a lawyer during the entire procedure, including the court hearings. In sum, the applicant\u2019s trials as a whole complied with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6f46c3e7-b13f-4cea-839b-6f31d5d5812c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant also complained that his right to have his family life respected had been breached on account of delays in the proceedings concerning child custody and contact arrangements as well as in the criminal proceedings. He also complained that as a result of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings he could not have had regular contact with A., which had impeded A.\u2019s psychological development and their relationship as father and daughter. In this connection, he further complained that the national authorities had failed to make sufficient efforts to expedite the criminal proceedings in order to determine the applicant\u2019s innocence and, as a result, to ensure unsupervised contact. According to the applicant, the national authorities had also failed to order the interim measures sought in civil proceedings. To this end, the applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 7 of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children\u2019s Rights."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d87a51ae-ace2-418b-abd2-87d89567bc22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government considered that the applicant had suffered no \u201csignificant disadvantage\u201d (see, among others, Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, \u00a7\u00a7 21-23, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, \u00a7\u00a7 37-39, 19 July 2011). The Court accepts that the fines imposed on the applicant were small. The Court observes that the present case raises issues concerning applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the procedure prescribed by the Russian Code of Administrative Offences and the absence of any provision for a right to free legal assistance under the CAO. Both issues arise in a number of similar pending applications before the Court in respect of Russia. Noting the nature of the issues raised in the present case, which also arguably concerns an important matter of principle, as well as the scope of the limitations, the Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the present application with reference to Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, \u00a7 34, 10 July 2012, and also paragraph 40 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a3e4c3a9-7ff2-48cf-8e99-18536e2f585f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that the sums in question were excessive. They argued that the applicants could seek compensation only in respect of a possible violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus any claim in respect of pecuniary damage was unfounded since it was not for the Court to speculate as to whether the applicants would succeed with their claim before the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cd9ee15d-3e24-45cf-85a1-0c73adb47e29", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Malatya State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He claimed that in refusing his request for the examination of the signature on the deposition, and in relying on the statements of witnesses whom he did not confront, the court violated his right to a fair hearing. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "547daa0f-0835-4fc5-83b8-629ba0998736", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted available domestic remedies as regards this part of their application. The Government argued that in their submissions to the Supreme Court the applicants had not requested that the District Court judgment be quashed and the case be referred back for a new trial. Furthermore, they had not claimed that it was necessary to have a new trial before the District Court, even though they had maintained that the procedure before the first instance court had been flawed and in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 70 of the Constitution. Moreover, nowhere in their submissions to the Supreme Court had they argued that the court could not remedy the defects in the lower court\u2019s proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a9c87e7e-2d4e-4aaf-91e1-75d90ce3912f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant further complained of the fact that the civil proceedings in which he had challenged his conditions of detention in the IVS had been conducted in his absence on the ground that the domestic law did not provide for the participation of convicted detainees in civil proceedings. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5b372259-06cf-41df-a653-38a962d1e87f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that he had not been allowed to be defended by counsel of his own choosing, with whom he could have spoken Finnish and whose pleadings he would have been able to fully understand. Describing his level of Swedish as \u201cstreet Swedish\u201d, he maintained that he had been able to communicate with H., the counsel appointed for him, only via an interpreter and that H., as a consequence, had not been able to carry out his duties properly. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides the following:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d7a3b609-dca9-4f13-8d8f-222c411f9038", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. The court hearing held on 18 March 2005 concerned the execution of two sentences imposed earlier on the applicant. Under Russian law, a hearing of this type was not considered to be part of the proceedings concerning determination of the criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. A hearing of this type was of a formal character. The court was not competent to decide the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused, or to establish the circumstances of the case, or to assess evidence, or to verify the lawfulness or well-foundedness of the verdict. It was incumbent on the domestic court to determine only the way in which the applicant was to serve the two criminal sentences imposed on him consecutively in accordance with the \u201carithmetical\u201d rules set out in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d15ba1ac-2ca0-4751-8533-21a431b28b71", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried him. The applicant further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him, which are still pending, was in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3a54d3e1-27ac-4be4-953c-f090c720b6d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They further complained under the same Article that the Court of Cassation, in its decision of 13 November 1984, had made a procedural mistake. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "36d458ca-e7d6-443d-9fe5-2f50656493e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government further referred to an earlier case, against Russia (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, \u00a7\u00a7 40-51, 7 June 2007). In Nurmagomedov the Court had held that the proceedings concerning the bringing of an offender\u2019s sentence in line with the amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation fell outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government considered that the present case bore a close resemblance to Nurmagomedov and it should, accordingly, be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention provisions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1ab680a5-203b-4052-9f3f-d6e223a5382f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, because neither the Constitutional Court nor the Administrative Court dealt with the first applicant\u2019s complaints on the merits. They further complained under the same provision that the Independent Administrative Panel in its decision of 6 April 2009 did not take all factors into account when making its legal assessment. They also relied on Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, without further substantiating their complaint."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "16627abb-2be4-4322-a767-bebff47c9770", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant contested the Government's submissions. He stated that the President of the Regional Court lacked impartiality when lodging his protest against the ruling of 13 March 2001 and subsequently chairing its examination by the Presidium. The applicant also considered that the Presidium's decision of 27 June 2001 was incompatible with the principles of equality of arms and rule of law guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "85dd69a7-6b8f-4792-9d90-3d4a6de00920", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 2 about the authorities\u2019 failure to provide him with an interpreter at a certain stage of the investigation. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings against him. Under the same Article he complained that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached by the length of his pre-trial detention and by the fact that during his pre-trial detention he had been held in a cell together with convicted prisoners. Finally, the applicant complained in substance under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) that one of the hearings on the extension of his pre-trial detention had been held in the presence of a court-appointed lawyer who had not been afforded sufficient time for the preparation of his defence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ad7ad8ad-6aac-49d0-bbc2-b963ecfd925f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial because the initial compensation proceedings before the Van Administrative Court had been dismissed erroneously on the ground that he had not paid some of the court fees, whereas he had duly made all the payments requested by that court. He further complained of the excessive length of the compensation proceedings and claimed, in broad terms, that courts in Turkey were not impartial. The relevant part of Article 6 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f5dcbb18-34d6-4b98-9be5-ba7bcbe253e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government contested the applicability of Article 6 to the dispute raised by the applicant. Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII), they argued that the complaint brought by the applicant was outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, since the proceedings in the domestic courts concerned a dispute between the applicant and his employer, the Ministry of Defence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8c138fb9-c4a1-4a01-acb1-b0f94afdf899", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant company disagreed and argued that the quashing of the judgment of 27 October 1999 had violated its right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The letter of the Prosecutor General's Office of 8 June 2004 had not disclosed any \u201cnew and essential facts or circumstances which were unknown and could not have been known earlier\u201d in the sense of Article 449(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The submissions made by the Prosecutor General's Office in that letter, namely that Oferta Plus had not presented enough evidence concerning the electricity supplied, had already been made by the Ministry of Finance and by the Prosecutor General's Office and had been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice in its judgments of 7 February 2001 and 7 May 2001."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a2107788-3a55-4d25-81e8-c5e7d7aa1b77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government pointed out that no evidence of the alleged pecuniary damage had been adduced and that there was no causal link with the alleged violation. They argued, in particular, that although the applicant\u2019s ex-husband had admittedly stopped paying her maintenance following the declaration of enforceability of the decision annulling the marriage, the applicant had subsequently secured a friendly settlement of the issue (see paragraph 30 above): she had therefore already obtained, at least in part, payment of the maintenance due for the years 1992-99. The Government further maintained that a finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f04485c7-95a3-4c3d-b1a9-8eeea9d0e187", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued that the case was of some complexity as the trial court had had to order an expert examination to determine the degree of the applicant's disability. They also stated that on four occasions the hearings had been adjourned because of the applicant's and his lawyer's failure to appear and once following a request by the applicant. The applicant had made four challenges to the presiding judge, which had further contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Government submitted that even though the applicant was entitled to make use of his right of appeal, he had in fact appealed on five occasions and had thereby prolonged the proceedings for a considerable time. The domestic courts had fixed hearings at reasonable intervals and had not been responsible for any delays. In sum, the Government contended that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "073b3d49-ee2b-48f1-9fb8-039fd57a8687", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["240.  The applicants complained that, in addition to amounting to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, their conviction for \u201corganising mass disorder\u201d following an unfair trial had also constituted an unjustified interference with their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. They submitted that the main motivation behind their conviction was the fact that they were leaders of the opposition who had called for a public protest against the results of the presidential election."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ebba921d-fcd2-44ff-8704-4bea17945fdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained that the five judges of the Constitutional Court who had been called upon to decide on his case had not been impartial for the reasons he had set out in detail before the Constitutional Court and, in particular, because each of the challenged judges had taken part in the decisions on the motions for bias against the remaining four judges. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c378d9eb-4556-45c9-b87e-238fbbce9d47", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant alleged that he had not been given a fair hearing in criminal proceedings, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that the courts had disregarded the arguments and evidence of excessive use of force by the police and had convicted him solely on the basis of the police officers\u2019 statements. Furthermore, the courts had classified the same acts as two separate criminal offences. The applicant further complained under Article 18 of the Convention that the security measures at the demonstration and his ensuing prosecution for criminal offences had been acts of reprisal for his expressing views critical of the authorities. Moreover, it had pursued the aim of discouraging public events led by opposition activists. Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a3cd163d-1232-427f-932d-b1f422d8d6a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Government observed that the applicant had not availed himself of the possibility of withdrawing his request for adoption of the summary procedure, provided for in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of Legislative Decree no. 341 of 2000 (see paragraph 31 above). Under the terms of Article 8 \u00a7 2 the applicant had until 21 February 2001 to exercise his right to withdraw his request, and if he had done so he would have been entitled to an ordinary trial attended by all the safeguards enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cb9508bb-6339-47d2-a7fd-003b492f5f0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government contested that argument. They argued that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his personal presence in court was indispensable for the proper administration of justice. In any event, given the nature of his claims, his presence in court was not required. It was also open to him to assign a representative as provided for by the applicable legislation. Given that the applicant had been convicted of a serious crime and was serving a sentence in a penitentiary establishment with strict conditions of detention, his request for participation in the civil proceedings was merely an attempt to be detained, even if briefly, in less strict conditions than those imposed on him. The domestic judicial authorities had observed all the fair-trial guarantees set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been duly informed of the dates and time of the hearings. He had been provided with copies of the records of hearings and other documents from the case file. The court had advised him of his rights and had facilitated the collection of the evidence needed to substantiate his claims. As a result, the applicant's claims had been granted in part."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b9ec9bae-21f0-47c5-bdcd-c630d029cdcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government, relying on the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer and the judgment award had concerned allowances for his military service. They further argued that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was also inapplicable because the applicant had not had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of the invoked Convention provision as he had had no right to receive \u201cpayments in the amount claimed\u201d. He neither had an \u201cexisting possession\u201d, nor a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d. As to the merits of the complaint, the Government noted that the judgment of 14 April 2003 had been quashed because the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison had incorrectly interpreted and applied substantive law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a7784eb4-3843-4910-a7df-6b8dda807416", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the contested proceedings, because the applicants had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. They further argued that the applicants had not raised the jurisdictional issue before the trial court and/or the appeal court and therefore had not exhausted domestic remedies. The Government also mentioned that the CAO did not provide for mandatory participation of a public prosecutor in each case concerning an administrative offence. Their submissions in that respect were similar to those made in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, \u00a7\u00a7 46-48, 20 September 2016)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2331775f-c17e-4e25-9f3c-66992ea21541", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant could have challenged the K\u00faria\u2019s judgment before the Constitutional Court under Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which guaranteed the right to a fair trial. They referred to decision no. 7/2013 (see paragraph 33 above) in which the Constitutional Court examined, in the light of both Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law and Article <mask> of the Convention, the fairness of a high court\u2019s final judgment, with particular regard to the question of whether the high court had observed its obligation to give appropriate reasons for its decision. In the Government\u2019s view, the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision demonstrated that the applicant could have brought his complaint relating to the unfairness of the proceedings and, in particular, the lack of appropriate reasoning, before the Constitutional Court \u2013 a legal avenue of which he had not availed himself."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1f1c60f8-29bc-496e-a494-c6ebddbfd3d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government argued that none of the applicant\u2019s requests lodged with the office of the Mayor of Bucharest District No. 5 had specifically asked for the identity to be established of the person who erected the fence. Also the applicant\u2019s submissions to the domestic courts of 9 May 2008 had not mentioned the identity of the fence owner. According to the Court\u2019s case-law \u2013 in particular MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, \u00a7 22, 7 December 2010, and Geraguyn Khorhur Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11721/04, 14 April 2009 \u2013 proceedings concerning access to information could not be described as regarding rights which are civil in nature for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention. Unlike in the case of Shapovalov v. Ukraine, no. 45835/05, \u00a7 22, 30 July 2012 \u2013 where the applicant had had a pressing professional need to access the requested information \u2013 in the instant case the information the applicant had been seeking did not lend itself to any immediate use; rather, it could have proved useful in subsequent proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c7275588-3750-4c8f-bc6c-e4930e7f278e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the criminal proceedings, alleging in particular that he had not been given adequate time to study the case and that counsel F. had been removed from the proceedings unlawfully. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "670385fe-5bfc-413d-a47b-8c158f85dcdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that the expropriation of their land had not been in the public interest and that they had suffered an excessive individual burden, in view of the failure to institute compensation proceedings and the subsequent length of the proceedings, together with the fact that Maltese law did not provide for adequate compensation. The relevant provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "27548ace-55f3-4516-b50a-9bb997e599d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of a public hearing before the Constitutional Court. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Republic of Austria, by repeatedly appealing against the decisions of the agricultural authorities, was trying deliberately to delay the exchange of the right to the use of the wood for ownership of the land."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dce0da40-80ff-40e6-8012-eb6093dc4ede", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied the right to a fair trial since the defendant\u2019s observations in reply to his appeals had not been communicated to him, and since the courts had not considered his arguments and had decided solely on the basis of evidence submitted by the defendant. He further complained that they had not provided sufficient reasons for their decisions, that they had been biased and that the proceedings had not complied with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f19a1e1b-543b-4ee2-8cd0-68da55150463", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government observed that, when examining the applicant company\u2019s case, the Supreme Administrative Court had considered that the matter was comparable in principle to criminal charges to which Article <mask> of the Convention applied. Both the Market Court and the Supreme Administrative Court had held an oral hearing in the matter to hear witnesses, and the applicant company had actively used its right to cross-examine those witnesses. The applicant company had not asked the Supreme Administrative Court to hear any witnesses other than those it had heard."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "12d67043-835d-488a-98cb-c9c8e7ad34b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the lustration proceedings had been unfair. He contested their outcome and alleged that the courts had refused to call all his witnesses. The applicant further complained that he had been required to formally undertake that everything which he had learned during the proceedings would be kept confidential. In this respect he submitted that all notes taken from the case file and during the hearings had to be deposited with the court and could not be taken away."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4b485b2f-8418-4d0e-9d90-e6010aabbce8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government pointed out that the applicant's request for legal aid for the purposes of legal assistance in connection with the cassation proceedings had been granted by the appellate court. The State had thereby discharged its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to ensure effective access to a court by acceding to the applicant's request for legal aid."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a5568add-3bde-4042-9426-f68f14ec463d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government further stated, with reference to Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by a Decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 February 2000, that the summoning of parties to a supervisory review hearing remained at the discretion of the relevant court provided the review procedure was not triggered by an application that would be to the applicant\u2019s detriment. The Government noted that the application for supervisory review, as well as the prosecutor\u2019s pleadings at the hearing, were not to the applicant\u2019s detriment. Given that the supervisory review procedure had benefited the applicant, by sentencing him to a lesser term of imprisonment as a result of a new legal classification of his actions, and by releasing him from serving that sentence, the Government were of the view that the Presidium of the Moscow City Court\u2019s failure to secure the attendance of the applicant and his counsel did not breach Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b91ee00c-ff5a-4eb7-8500-e16c88a302e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7660fce7-f680-4736-8da4-232f685c876c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government submitted at the outset that, under domestic law, the CSM was a management and disciplinary body for judges. Although it was not a judicial body, it nevertheless satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. Hence, from the point at which the indictment was drawn up, the procedure before that body complied with the adversarial principle. The judge in question had the right to give evidence; he or she could be represented by a lawyer and could study the indictment and submit arguments in that regard. He or she also had the right to participate in the proceedings by contesting the charges, submitting requests, adducing evidence and raising grounds of nullity. Furthermore, the final decision was accompanied by reasons. The judicial investigator who conducted the investigation did not participate in the decision-making formation of the CSM. Moreover, the decisions of the CSM were open to appeal before the Supreme Court, with the result that the right of access to a court was guaranteed."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d60a8272-6507-445a-878d-247988e3f7da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government submitted that given the particular circumstances of the case and the procedural guarantees provided by the domestic legislation with regard to various types of appeal, the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage. The applicant had had access to two levels of jurisdiction as regulated by the applicable rules of civil procedure. The fact that the second-instance court sat as an ordinary court of appeal had resulted in a more detailed judicial review of the applicant\u2019s case and on more flexible terms for the submission of evidence than in alternative circumstances. In addition, the fact that the appeal on points of law had been examined by a bench of two and not three judges had not had a decisive impact on the fairness of the proceedings, and the substance of the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "47b4645f-e66d-4eb8-a083-7325d0fbe9e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicant company complained about the length and alleged unfairness of the debt recovery proceedings initiated by it against LyNOS (named \u201cthe Lysychansk Oil Refinery\u201d at the time) back in 1993 and continuing through 2004. It submitted, in particular, that the courts had breached the principle of res judicata by reconsidering the amount of the debt due to it after that amount had been established by the final judicial decision of 2 July 1998. It also contended that the courts dealing with the case could not be regarded impartial or independent given the intense pressure from high-ranking State officials. The applicant company relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1b2fc967-e207-4bc0-9857-c6d67ebf0d07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government argued that the applicant's case had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction. Neither the Convention nor domestic law guaranteed a right to have a civil case heard at three levels of jurisdiction. The right to a court was not absolute and could therefore be subject to certain limitations, in so far as they did not impair the very essence of that right. In particular, the criteria of admissibility of appeals to be lodged with the highest courts could be strict and the procedure more formal than that before the lower courts, without the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention being breached thereby. The mere fact that it was necessary for a cassation appeal to be lodged by a qualified representative was not open to criticism."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3df2e96a-d582-4918-aae2-896735ea1def", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to give reasons for their judgments, that they had refused to hear defence witnesses and that they had been denied access to court on account of the imposition of fines at the rectification of judgment stage. They further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the damages awarded to the claimants had been excessive."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c8097736-b6cf-4796-a3c1-4b238fb6bbbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant also submitted other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, she complained about the State's failure to provide her with a car, the length of the proceedings and the allegedly insufficient amount of compensation granted in 1998. Finally, she complained that she had been unable to withdraw those monies from her bank account and that the money had lost its purchasing value due to inflation."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a03fc46c-4b0d-452b-9c79-09682017e9db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant further complained of violations of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this connection, he alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing since the domestic court decisions were arbitrary and without reasoning. He also submitted that the compensation he had been ordered to pay to the plaintiff had amounted to a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c0bc1154-bdd4-4b69-acca-96d65b09a4d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. He also complained that the trial court had convicted him on the basis of his police statements, which he alleged had been obtained by torture. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints should be examined under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f03ff470-8aa8-43e0-904f-7f2d3d1089e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complains under Article <mask> of the Convention that she was not notified of the hearings on 30 October 2001 and 22 April 2003 and therefore did not attend them. She also complains about the length of proceedings in the first land dispute. Finally, she complains in general terms that the courts were biased in favour of the other party and delayed the proceedings."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e6e46adf-ae98-4569-a60a-1094a14b6573", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant submitted that she had been deprived of her right of access to court, as she had not received the plaintiff\u2019s claim or summonses to the hearings. Hence, she had been unaware of the divorce proceedings. As a result, she had been deprived of other procedural rights emanating from the right to fair trial, such as the right to take part in the proceedings, present her arguments and evidence, consult the case file, contest the arguments and evidence of the other party, appeal against the judgment, and so forth. Also her right to an oral hearing and right to equality of arms had been violated. Besides, the conclusion of the Senate of the Supreme Court that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been applicable to the instant case, merely because it had viewed the case as having no prospects of success, had constituted a serious violation of her right to a fair trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "dcb870fc-3892-4bac-b487-ab945993d78c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants further complain under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Administrative Court decisions. Article 6 of the Convention does not require that an appeal court, when rejecting an appeal by reference to the reasoning given by a lower court, accompanies its decision by detailed reasons (see Kabasakal and Atar v. Turkey, nos. 70084/01 and 70085/01, 19 September 2006). Accordingly, the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court has to be interpreted to have fully accepted the reasoning of the judgment of the Bursa First Instance Administrative Court. As such this complaint must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ff6611f9-56cb-4c0f-a877-608baaa67fb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of the quashing of the final judgment in their favour (see paragraph 12 above). The Court reiterates that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a reopening of the proceedings (see Frunze v. Moldova (dec.), no. 42308/02, 14 September 2004). The quashing of the final judgment in this case took place on 26 January 2000. The six-month period started running from that date, while this application was introduced on 7 March 2003, more than three years later."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a4ecf05c-7ee9-461f-bf13-ab89fb8d70c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government finally submitted that the applicant himself did not wish to have a lawyer, despite the fact that the police officers explained to him his right to have a lawyer and advised him to avail himself of this right. Moreover, the applicant did not wish to have a lawyer during the entire procedure, including the court hearing, which he indicated in the record of an administrative offence. In sum, the applicant's trial as a whole complied with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "4375900f-a5ec-482f-9796-f1476452801d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["327.  The applicant highlighted the importance of the right of access to court in a democratic society. Such a right entailed an opportunity for an individual to have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which interfered with his rights. The applicant pointed out that there had been no trial in respect of his daughter\u2019s death. He further complained about the failure of the Cypriot authorities to ensure his effective participation in the inquest proceedings and to provide free legal assistance. Accordingly, he submitted, the Cypriot authorities had violated his right of access to court guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f0580fe7-311b-457e-8e92-448c9d6dd6b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. The Court further refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, \u00d6calan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, \u00a7 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, \u00a7 264, 13 July 2006). The Court notes, in this connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides the basis for the reopening of the proceedings if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 17 above)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6ce05666-6334-4100-a890-6b2cd222bcb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s administrative cases had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity on each occasion to state his case and to have the relevant witnesses called and cross\u2011examined. The Government contested the assertion that the domestic courts had taken on the function of the prosecution. They claimed that the administrative-offence case files had been prepared by the police, who had collected the evidence and had presented charges in writing, whereas the court had resolved the cases as an independent adjudicator. The Government considered that the video materials provided by the applicant were of limited evidentiary value and contended that it was in any event within the competence of the domestic courts to decide on the relevance and admissibility of particular items of evidence."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "684f6c4e-f721-420a-b49e-3e7c019f9ff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that because of his unlawful conviction, he had been obliged to pay an administrative fine and compensation to the victim. The Court cannot speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had the applicant\u2019s case been examined in full compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. For these reasons, this part of the application should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8c692c49-f88b-4725-8746-8d0725a0faf6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unable to participate in the proceedings in which he had been deprived of his membership of company A\u2019s supervisory board. Under Article 13 the applicant also complained that the Ljubljana Higher Court had not considered his appeal on the merits. Bearing in mind that the role of Article 6 in relation to Article 13 is that of a lex specialis, the requirements of Article 13 being absorbed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6 (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, \u00a7 181, ECHR 2016), the Court will examine the applicant\u2019s complaints solely under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, \u00a7 65, 29 November 2016), the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "100038c0-0187-4412-a1fc-7c01935946ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The trial had been adjourned once, to ensure the presence of officers S. and A.; the authorities had made reasonable efforts in this respect but to no avail. The applicant had consented to the reading out of their pre-trial statements. Thus, he had unequivocally waived his right to examine them. This decision had been taken by him without legal advice since he had voluntary declined the services of counsel at an earlier hearing."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "495e3977-0f16-4bf8-bb58-44e217a2a2e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s case had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction. Neither the Convention nor domestic law guaranteed a right to have a civil case heard at three levels of jurisdiction. The right to a court was not absolute and could therefore be subject to certain limitations, in so far as they did not impair the very essence of that right. In particular, the criteria of admissibility of appeals to be lodged with the highest courts could be strict and the procedure more formal than that before the lower courts, without the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention being breached thereby. The mere fact that it was necessary for a cassation appeal to be lodged by a qualified representative was not open to criticism."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "eb99a02d-33c3-4a0e-8ad6-72542acf73ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention numerous breaches of law allegedly committed by the domestic courts in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged that State-appointed lawyers, who had represented him before the trial and appeal courts, had failed to carry out their duties properly. In particular, counsel Sh. (1) had made an affirmative remark about the applicant\u2019s guilt during the preliminary court hearing, (2) had referred to the applicant as \u201ca robber and a drunkard\u201d during the closing arguments, (3) had not visited him in prison and (4) had failed to appeal against the guilty verdict in the applicant\u2019s case. He further complained that he had not been represented during the appeal hearing of 21 July 2005 and that State-appointed counsel R., who had represented him at the appeal hearing of 16 August 2007, had not provided an effective legal assistance. The applicant also alleged that the prosecution had failed to disclose promptly certain evidence to him, that he had been convicted on the basis of inadmissible evidence, that one member of the jury had been appointed in breach of applicable laws and that he had not been provided with adequate facilities to prepare for his defence. Lastly, he submitted that the supervisory-review hearings had not been unfair. The Court will examine the applicant\u2019s grievances from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e8ba0b84-4794-4cdc-8479-77387c66c689", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue, because the applicant, as a judge, exercised State authority and therefore belonged to a group of public servants excluded from the scope of Article 6. Moreover, they submitted that the proceedings did not concern an ordinary labour law dispute, as the fundamental question was whether the applicant\u2019s study visit was to be considered as an official journey or not \u2013 a question which did not constitute a civil law claim."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a5ca62df-7626-4331-9ab4-07c6572205d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued that the charges against the applicant were not \u201ccriminal\u201d but \u201cadministrative\u201d. They emphasised the necessity of keeping administrative offences independent of the criminal justice system, and they considered that a dividing line had been drawn between disciplinary and criminal charges in a manner consistent with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government submitted that the offence was not of a criminal nature since it was punished with a sanction which had an \u201ceducational\u201d and a \u201cpreventive\u201d purpose. The sanction provided by the Code of Administrative Offences for the offence in question varied between MDL 36 and MDL 90 and the minimum fine was imposed on the applicant. According to the Government, the fine constituted approximately ten percent of the average monthly salary in Moldova at the material time and it was not converted into imprisonment. The Government also submitted that the applicant did not run any risk to have his fine converted to imprisonment."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fa74ff06-99bc-4ad0-91c3-0c3c2fee5bd5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained that she had lost her source of income, previously secured by the disability pension, because under the new system, in place as of 2012, she was no longer entitled to that, or a similar, benefit, although her health had not improved; and she submitted that this was a consequence of the amended legislation, which contained conditions she could not possibly fulfil. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5c4f7ddf-4819-4614-b064-c590e729d079", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government submitted that the trial court\u2019s judgment of 24 April 2003 had been set aside because of the unlawful composition of the trial bench. The Russian court had thus acknowledged that there had been violations relating to the trial. That acknowledgment, together with the fair retrial the applicant had received, constituted adequate redress. The applicant had received proper legal advice from counsel K and had unequivocally waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to be tried by a judge. Thus, the applicant was no longer a victim of the initial alleged violations under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the criminal proceedings against him."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "bf14dadf-182f-42f4-8149-0b484ab2b538", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in her favour. She further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. Both provisions, in so far as relevant, are read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "de33325d-1d53-4cb3-aa8b-497b0402652c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained that they had not had access to a court as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the Supreme Administrative Court did not have full jurisdiction over questions of fact and law in respect of the part of the proceedings which concerned their application lodged in 1990. This was so since under Polish law the court was only able to examine the lawfulness of the decision under appeal and could not consider any other aspects of the case, such as questions of facts and of expediency. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ca6d6323-0677-483a-8781-e7f4ebd80807", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the second applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had sustained any non\u2011pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation, that in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, should the Court decide to make an award for the violation found under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government invited it to award compensation on an equitable basis, taking into account the existing socio-economic circumstances in Latvia and the Court\u2019s case-law under which, according to the Government, the amount of compensation should not exceed EUR 3,000."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "ceec39c2-f0ac-4f4b-b30e-82610deb2da9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government underlined that the admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation by national law and that the use of evidence obtained at the pre-trial stage was not in itself incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case, the decision of the first\u2011instance court had been issued following an extensive and exhaustive hearing of evidence and had been upheld by all of the domestic appellate courts. The first-instance court had rightly based its judgment on the statement of J.G., who had been examined by the investigating judge in London and whose statement had been in all key respects identical to his defence before the criminal court in London and consistent with the findings of the final judgment of the Freiburg Regional Court sentencing the fourth member of the criminal group, D.M., for the same criminal offence. The possibility that J.G. had been manipulated should be excluded, as his mental capacity had been verified and several questions and follow-on questions had been put to him."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2c728b4b-78c8-4445-9ce2-3114562a47eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted despite the fact that there was no evidence to support the charges against him. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "954ca7ed-0c9e-49a3-a98d-91b79f9fd417", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that his conviction had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence, in particular his fingerprint found in the cellar, in respect of which no search warrant had been issued; the domestic judgments had been based on the expert reports produced by the Bureau, which could not be considered an impartial expert; and the courts had refused to hear witnesses in his defence and admit as evidence alternative expert reports. The Court considers that these complaints should be examined under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, taken together, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5def5288-8769-445e-a386-84df6318743f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant company complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of its right to defend itself in the proceedings terminated by the final decision of 18 March 2005 (see paragraph 17 above), about the outcome of those proceedings and that the domestic courts had failed to assess the facts correctly, had misinterpreted the domestic law and had not been impartial. Without invoking any Article, it further complained that that judgment had violated its right to update the debt in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Proceedings and to receive the loss of profit or any benefit caused by the fact that the due amounts had not been paid in due time."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d693424e-2d36-4f5c-a23e-e2a366c608b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicants complained that they had been unable to prepare their defence on account of lack of access to the secret surveillance file containing the complete transcripts of their telephone conversations; the secret surveillance file had not adequately been adduced and discussed at the trial in their presence, and the domestic courts had relied mainly on the unlawfully obtained recordings of their telephone conversations to convict them. Moreover, the domestic courts had lacked impartiality and independence, in so far as the third and the fourth applicant had been convicted by military courts and the courts had failed to examine the appeal point raised by the fourth applicant concerning his argument that no criminal investigation had been initiated against him. They all relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1cc6703d-26ad-4093-9906-69a7266b742d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained that the judgment by which her company had been awarded compensation for pecuniary damage had remained unenforced for approximately two years, and that this delay had been due to the State\u2019s inactivity. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which, in their relevant parts, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "9ca6c08c-6c40-4aaa-a105-a78a00d73a47", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant complained that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Van State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further complained under the same head that her right to a public hearing as well as free legal assistance had been infringed. Finally, the applicant claimed that the principle of \u201cequality of arms\u201d had not been respected, since the bill of indictment was not in a language she could understand. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b86fd9e9-9213-45c3-92f7-28fa985104a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant complained that his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been infringed by the use of the confession extracted from him as a result of ill-treatment in police custody, when he had no access to a lawyer. The Court will examine his complaint under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c), which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "087300c1-c491-48d2-a236-de9712842f43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention that, in the criminal proceedings against him, the appellate court had failed to deal with his appeal on the merits because he had not attended the hearing, despite the fact that his counsel had been present and ready to defend him. He claimed that his right of access to court, his right to be heard in court and his right to defend himself through a lawyer had been violated thereby. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "045e2663-5d86-4176-9633-fad09b662b44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submissions as giving misleading, erroneous interpretations of domestic and Convention law. According to the applicant his case required, both under the domestic legislation and under Article <mask> of the Convention, a mandatory oral hearing owing to his need for legal protection and the fact that the credibility of witness statements played a significant role in the determination of the case. According to the applicant the matter did not concern only 308.80 euros (EUR), but altogether a financial liability of EUR 7,374.92. The applicant maintained that the lack of an oral hearing de facto placed the burden of proof on him. He also emphasised the importance of the threat of the punishment and the impact on his business from having to pay unjustified taxes with no legal basis."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "476778d1-bede-45c9-bd20-1414e3505fc0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted on the basis of his statements extracted under torture. Finally, the applicant maintained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b9871053-fb40-458f-8952-547052632615", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings at issue and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was not able to purchase the flat at issue. She also relied on Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, without substantiating those complaints by any relevant arguments."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "181af1f2-df08-4e9d-9e43-e5a78c590435", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing had not been ensured by the court. In particular, the courts had failed to give sufficient reasons for their findings and had not taken the requisite steps to procure and assess the evidence which was relevant to his civil claim. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3d2d2a72-8cc9-4db0-a67a-c205a169f6f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government asked the Court to reject the complaint raised under Article <mask> of the Convention for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that the applicant had failed to raise his complaints before the domestic courts. In the alternative, the Government claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with the six months time-limit because he had not lodged his application within six months of the end of his police custody on 13 July 2002."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "94cca226-1a1d-4c8a-b671-ffc59bf2e2b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government submitted that the judgment of 3 February 2004 had been fully enforced on 21 February 2006. They believed that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as far as the debtor had been reorganised and the applicant had failed to apply to a court in order to define the debtor's legal successor."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "82df24c6-0be6-4452-b3da-465909a7d9aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argued that the search and seizure had indeed been in accordance with the law. Referring to the Court\u2019s finding in Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria (no. 74336/01, \u00a7 65, ECHR 2007\u2011XI) that the search of a lawyer\u2019s premises and his professional and business activities could have an impact on the lawyer\u2019s duty of professional secrecy and consequently on the proper administration of justice as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government maintained that the search had been carried out in a way that had not interfered disproportionately with the applicant\u2019s rights."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "366c9257-5d57-421f-99e8-6ca09ac8ea39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that the criminal proceedings were unfair because the additional security measures had prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury and therefore breached the principle of the presumption of innocence and/or his right to a public hearing; because the prosecution had failed to comply with its continuing duty of disclosure and/or because the law governing disclosure in the United Kingdom did not comply with Article 6 of the Convention; and because the trial judge had erred in allowing the statements of VO to be read to the jury."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d7de0c55-eb99-4322-80bb-f9755cd0a757", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. He further complained in his application form, dated 7 January 1998, that the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal were not served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0856ab91-646d-44d8-b20d-38731d4405ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["198.  The applicant also submitted that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against her had exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is \u201ccharged\u201d within the autonomous and substantive meaning of that term and ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov, cited above, \u00a7 124). In the present case, the applicant was detained and questioned as an accused on 28 February 2000 and her conviction was upheld on appeal and became final on 23 May 2001. Thus the overall length of the proceedings at issue was less than fifteen months, during which period the applicant's case was examined at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court does not find such a length of the proceedings excessive within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "8ffe29c5-5c6c-4dce-b129-eee7be30893f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that she had not been a party to the adoption proceedings, that she had not given her consent to the adoption and that she had never even been informed that such proceedings had been instituted. In this connection, the applicant complained that her child\u2019s guardian N.J. had been an employee of the same Centre that had carried out the adoption proceedings, claiming that she had influenced the initiation of the adoption proceedings, instead of protecting the applicant\u2019s rights. Lastly, she complained that she had been deprived of the right to an effective remedy in that she could not have appealed against the decision on the adoption. She relied in this respect on Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "2c1ccbce-4df3-4d3a-9a73-9b2271bbcc93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government first submitted that under domestic law there was no civil right or claim to be appointed a liquidator, nor the State\u2019s corresponding obligation to appoint someone in this capacity. The commercial courts were granted discretionary powers in this respect. Moreover, whereas it could be accepted that the court, when conducting insolvency proceedings, had been acting as a tribunal within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, the same did not hold true in respect of proceedings in which the applicant was dismissed from his post of a liquidator. In these proceedings the court had performed an act of administrative, not judicial, character. "], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3e4210f6-da0d-43c0-b0d7-ccd90ce7f249", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the imposition of compulsory administration on the applicant bank and to any extension thereof since neither involved the determination by a tribunal of a dispute (\u201ccontestation\u201d) concerning civil rights and obligations. The Prague Municipal Court did not determine such a dispute and neither Mr Moravec nor the applicant bank itself were capable of being parties to the proceedings before that court. To criticise the Municipal Court, as the Commission did in the course of finding a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, for not having used its competence to examine the reasons for which the compulsory administration had been imposed and extended, as if it were determining a dispute between the CNB on the one hand and Mr Moravec and the applicant bank on the other, is to reproach that court for something which formed no part of the proceedings before it. The essential function of the court under Article 200(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, when deciding on matters relating to entries in the Companies Register, is not to determine a dispute concerning civil rights and obligations but to verify whether the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation for making an entry in the Register have been fulfilled. In matters relating to the Companies Register, the court does not deliver a judgment or decision. Since the procedure is exclusively a written procedure and is in private, in the sense that there is no hearing, the final ruling of the court is not published. However, the ruling must be reduced to writing and notified to the party applying for registration, from which moment it becomes binding. While it is true that there exists a possibility of appeal from rulings of the court relating to the Companies Register, if by the ruling the application is granted in all respects, no appeal lies since an appeal can only be lodged by the party in whose favour the court has ruled. Subject to the conditions provided by Article 236 et suiv. of the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal of points of law possible even in respect of proceedings relating to the Companies Register."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f6b46c97-ed77-43ae-8c60-6b5f6e8bda5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair, namely that she, unlike the public prosecutor, had been deprived of the opportunity to be present at the Court of Appeal's session of 16 November 2004. She further complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy; that her conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence, namely on evidence submitted in the form of photocopies; that the expert report of 2004 had been drawn up by the Bureau, which had operated within the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, which was the aggrieved party; that the trial court had refused to hear the claimants and lastly, that the courts had not provided sufficient reasons for their decisions. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "0524f1c3-f2e3-48a6-829a-103f66393425", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had complied with the requirement of fairness set out in Article <mask> of the Convention: they had been carried out in accordance with the domestic law on criminal procedure; the applicant was assisted by counsel of his own choosing; the defence participated actively in the questioning of witnesses and victims; and the applicant had an opportunity to express his own position on the case before the court. As to the partial announcement of the 1990 judgment against the applicant, the Government stressed that this was done by the trial judge at the request of the prosecutor at the stage of the examination of the case file material, and not during the questioning of witnesses and victims as alleged by the applicant, and that the applicant did not raise any objections in this respect. The Government explained that a copy of the 1990 judgment was included in the case file because the applicant\u2019s unspent conviction under this judgment had legal importance for determining the latter\u2019s sentence, as account needed to be taken of the applicant\u2019s recidivism and the type of correctional facility where the applicant was to serve his sentence. The Government further relied on the record of the hearing of 26 July 2004, from which it follows that witness M. and victims T. and P. testified without being subjected to any pressure by the trial judge. The applicant\u2019s applications for the withdrawal of the trial judge were duly considered by the court and dismissed with relevant reasons being given. The Government summed up that the reading out of part of the 1990 judgment could not serve as a reasonable justification of the applicant\u2019s doubts as to the court\u2019s impartiality."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "59a58809-ed2f-4e5c-a049-51bb8af64e88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the awards made by the Ankara Administrative Court in respect of compensation and his lawyer's costs and expenses were insufficient and disproportionate. He finally alleged under Article 14 of the Convention that he had not been appointed to a post in the civil service on account of his political opinions."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "7761ed25-e4a4-4348-846b-169effbca177", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant, referring to his constitutional complaint, submitted that it was apparent from the documents available to the domestic courts that in 1952 he had been in a situation under pressure, which had been used to turn him into an informant against his will. He claimed that if he had been heard in person he would have been able to illustrate his desperate situation as an immature young man who consumed too much alcohol. Better than any file of the Ministry of State Security, he could have explained in person that he had never knowingly passed on information to harm others. Furthermore, the applicant referred to a judgment of the constitutional court of the Land of Brandenburg (Brandenburg Constitutional Court) of 24 January 2014 (VfGBbg 2/13) which set aside lower instance decisions revoking compensation grants on the grounds that a former prisoner had committed to work for the state security service. The constitutional court, also considering Article <mask> of the Convention, found, inter alia, that not holding a hearing, thus denying the claimant an opportunity to explain in person a situation of insupportable pressure because his submissions to that end had not been supported by evidence from the files of the state security service, was in breach of relevant provisions of the Land\u2019s constitution."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "cf637ea3-3136-4d95-b01e-54cf0d896280", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto, that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to examine their civil claims on the merits deprived them of their right of access to court. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "48d18e7c-f1f2-4060-ae00-b24208d25640", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained that the trial judge, R., had not been impartial, that the trial court had relied on the statements of five witnesses given earlier in the course of the investigation without questioning them in person, and that the appellate court had refused to accept his twelve additional statements of appeal. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "e01e9d39-3198-42ad-b1f4-ac231aa4c15a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government, relying on the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer at the material time and the judgment award had concerned allowances for his military service. They further argued that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was also inapplicable because the applicant had not had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of that Convention provision as he had had no right to receive \u201cpayments in the amount claimed\u201d. He had neither an \u201cexisting possession\u201d nor a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d. As to the merits of the complaint, the Government noted that the judgment of 25 July 2003 had been quashed because the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison had incorrectly interpreted and applied substantive law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f6c363b8-c43a-4ed3-9d52-bc39d04cd0b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that she had been incited to commit the crime of accepting a bribe and that the domestic courts had not given sufficient reasons in their decisions. She also complained that her right to be presumed innocent had been breached by the prosecutor in charge of the case, who had stated in an interview that she had accepted a bribe. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "187ab043-43c4-4ca8-8849-45b0e6220f5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government considered that the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation had properly analysed the applicant\u2019s plea under Article <mask> of the Convention, but had dismissed it on the ground that he had never been refused legal assistance. Given that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Court of Cassation had found any breach of his defence rights, it had not been incumbent on those courts to provide redress. According to the Government, even if the Court of Appeal had decided to nullify the first interview, such a decision would have had no effect on his conviction, as the trial court had based the conviction on other elements in the case file. The Court should pursue a flexible approach based on an overall reading of the situation in the light of the whole proceedings in order to satisfy itself that the aims of Article 6 had been secured (see John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011I, and Rupa v. Romania (no. 2), no. 37971/02, 19 July 2011)."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "1e7f458e-c4c1-4e1f-ac80-ff552378e5eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government also argued that there had been no evidence that the applicant had actually paid the awarded costs and expenses to the respondents. The amount of costs and expenses awarded was the sole responsibility of her predecessor, who had committed errors in indicating the value of the subject matter of the dispute. At all events, in the Government\u2019s view, this was a property issue that should be addressed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, not under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed out that the applicant\u2019s predecessor had never asked for exemption from the payment of court fees. He had also had an opportunity to request a return of the erroneously calculated fee in the period of one year from the moment of its payment (until 5 June 2007), but he had never made such a request. In these circumstances, although the first-instance court\u2019s error in its calculation of the costs and expenses of the proceedings was regrettable, the Government did not consider that this was sufficient in itself to find a violation of Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "d5b43151-19fd-49c1-a5e0-1125c5e418a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants stated that even if Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to a decision to postpone enforcement until a final decision on the action under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act was taken, Article 6 of the Convention was applicable to the final decision which ordered the applicants to pay the costs. They stated that the subject-matter of their application to the Court was not the decision to postpone enforcement, but the fact that they had to bear the costs for the debtor's appeal without having been heard or having been able to settle the matter with the debtor."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "066e8f8a-10cd-433b-b81e-34b5c479f917", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant, on the other hand, considered that as the Constitutional Court had set aside the judgment of the Madrid Employment Tribunal, no court had examined the merits of her claim. She referred to the Hornsby case cited above, and submitted that the fact that the Constitutional Court had set aside the judgments of the lower court did not suffice to make the proceedings compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "c17afee8-eb20-4a2d-814b-dc61ced4d2e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant bank complained that its rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in that it had no remedy in respect of the administrative decision of the CNB to place it in compulsory administration or in respect of the subsequent decisions of administrative and judicial organs. It submitted that, during the compulsory administration, its statutory organ should have retained limited competence regarding the acts of the CNB as a public authority, but that it was not notified about the registration of the compulsory administration or of its first extension and that its appeal against the registration of the second extension of the compulsory administration was dismissed as having been introduced by an unauthorised person. The statutory organ of the bank was therefore deprived of any means of redress in breach of the requirements of Article 6."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3ca87bf0-0b2e-4c13-a70e-9e2d2586fa76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The applicants further complained that the refusal to recognise the applicant Church was preventing it from acquiring legal personality, thus depriving it of its right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, so that any complaint relating to its rights, and in particular its property rights, could be determined. In addition, they alleged that the refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities\u2019 stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practise their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "31ed2e04-ced5-407d-b71e-c35e7395ff07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government contended that Article 6 did not apply in the present case. Relying on the Court\u2019s reasoning in its decision in the case of Pitkevich (Pitkevich v. Russia, no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001), they maintained that disputes relating to dismissal from the judiciary fall outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further argued that the applicant was expressly denied access to a court to challenge the President\u2019s decree on her dismissal from office and that this exclusion was justified, based on the State interest in ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "31c0632a-6609-448a-bf3e-9c87f50d3f22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Firstly, they claimed that the applicant should have complained under Articles 73 and 234 of the CCP to the responsible investigator or prosecutor about the alleged planting of drugs by the police. Secondly, the applicant had failed to apply to the first-instance court, under Article 111 \u00a7\u00a7 (g) and (d) of the CCP, to reject the report of his personal search and the ensuing evidence as inadmissible. Thirdly, the applicant had failed, when lodging his appeal on points of law, to separately challenge the decision of the Appeal Court of 6 December 2005 to admit the search report as evidence. Lastly, according to the Government, the applicant could have asked, on the basis of Article 364 of the CCP, for an alternative forensic examination to determine his possible state of drug intoxication, which request he had also failed to make."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6d01efbd-a51a-492d-a608-456d34dfe62c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government maintained that if the offence had been committed after 1 June 2005, that is to say, after the entry into force of the Misdemeanours Act and the recent Code of Criminal Procedure, the fine would have been imposed directly by the relevant official authority, without any court proceedings. They stated that the domestic court had taken the new provisions into account in the applicant\u2019s favour and had sentenced him to an administrative fine, which could not be converted into imprisonment and had not been registered in the criminal records. They argued that the outcome of the proceedings could therefore hardly be considered important for the applicant. They further argued that in the present case the relevant law had been clear and the facts undisputed, leaving little room for judicial discretion. The case file included many witness statements and an official report proving that the applicant\u2019s hotel was being used for prostitution purposes. Moreover, the applicant had been heard by the authorities during the preliminary investigation stage and had been able to submit his written arguments to the court during the course of the proceedings. The Government concluded that the imposition of an administrative fine without the holding of an oral hearing did not contravene Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular taking into account the requirement for efficiency and expediency in the administration of justice."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b4da0bed-3d67-41f1-b5ba-605c0005763f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their conviction had been based on evidence obtained as a result of ill-treatment and in the absence of any real evidence of their guilt. They added that they had not been allowed to see a lawyer for 24 hours following their placement in detention in Moldova, and had been de facto prevented from having such meetings in the period of 4-8 November 2000 and thereafter; and that they had not been allowed to meet in private with their lawyers."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fa2cbd86-4143-482a-b2bc-5f8060d2ba27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, in so far as it concerned the charge involving OZ, he had been convicted of an offence which had been incited by the police and that his conviction was based on evidence from the police officers involved and from OZ, an individual acting on their instructions. Article 6, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f2afbe4f-ec2d-4282-8ea9-c7bd9e6034a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b7bed36b-8669-4ec3-bd46-36537d01498a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant also rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the flaws in the appointment procedure of A.E. had not amounted to a flagrant breach of domestic law and thus the Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of domestic law should not be questioned by the Court. The applicant submitted, firstly, that the Supreme Court\u2019s judgments of 19 December 2017 had confirmed that there had been a flagrant breach of domestic law when A.E. had been appointed as a judge of the Court of Appeal. It had been so flagrant that she would not have been appointed if the Minister of Justice had followed the applicable legal procedure. Secondly, the Supreme Court had concluded that there had been a flagrant breach of domestic law in its previous judgments. Therefore, the court should not have been interpreting domestic law in its judgment against the applicant but rather Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Court\u2019s case-law required that judges be appointed according to foreseeable and lawful procedures and not arbitrarily. When it had been demonstrated that A.E.\u2019s appointment had indeed been unlawful and arbitrary and in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1, such an appointment should always be considered a flagrant breach of any domestic law. Alternatively, domestic law that did not provide remedies against unlawful or arbitrary judicial appointments should not qualify as \u201claw\u201d under the autonomous meaning of that term under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a8b0cac6-1475-47a4-934d-0be3ff0cf92d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant submitted that the present case reflected both subjective and objective bias on the part of the Chief Justice, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Chief Justice had been biased on account of the fact that his brother had been the lawyer of the opposing party during the injunction proceedings. His bias was evident from the incident of 12 October 1992, which left both the other judges on the panel speechless, as well as from the final judgment. The latter judgment found against Mrs M. and ordered the removal from the records of a report drawn up by the judicial assistant which had been in favour of Mrs M. and made reference to her legal counsel\u2019s actions vis-\u00e0-vis the brother of the Chief Justice (see paragraph 20 above). Indeed, since the personal impartiality of a judge was presumed until there was proof to the contrary, the applicant had had no reason to request the judge\u2019s withdrawal until the above events occurred. However, the Chief Justice should have known that he himself would have brought up the issue related to his brother and should therefore have withdrawn of his own motion. Moreover, the applicant opined that the Chief Justice\u2019s behaviour during the incident and the sibling relationship were not separate issues but reflected two sides of the same coin."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3d407004-5f06-4e24-b058-0e2f3effde57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government submitted that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular having regard to the time elapsed after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia. They submitted further that the subject matter of the applicant's cases did not call for particular urgency in deciding them. They referred to the Court's case-law, arguing that the cases that did call for special urgency were those that related to family-law matters or to payment of damages to the victims of road accidents, those that involved the interests of a great number of persons and cases concerning dismissal from work."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "fb3b805f-a9e8-42f0-89e9-e2df4f254ff7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government rejected that argument. In their submission, Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the procedure followed by the applicant to obtain legal aid. They pointed out, firstly, that the relevant procedure, which was governed by the Legal Aid Act of 10 July 1991, enabled any litigant to apply for legal aid in connection with civil or criminal proceedings. Such applications, which were optional, were made before the court proceedings commenced or while they were under way, without in any way affecting their outcome."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "55e94fc4-424b-473d-9569-6f3bc6e1c4e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the remaining two sets of proceedings in cases in which he was involved had been excessively long. In so far as this complaint relates to the civil proceedings in which he sought compensation for damage arising out of another part of the 1961 decision (see paragraphs 34 \u2013 37 above), this part of the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as he failed to have recourse to the complaint about excessive length of judicial proceedings available under the Polish law."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "28391f76-d26b-418f-ad73-45231d32d877", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained that on the first two occasions when he had been questioned by the prosecutor, he had been subjected to ill-treatment and denied the assistance of his own chosen counsel, being allocated against his will a counsel who was already representing one of the co-accused. He further complained that he had not been allowed to question or confront the co-accused who had made incriminatory statements against him during the investigation stage. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "eee877b6-aab2-4c3f-989c-169a69aab9e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the proceedings against the Central Bank and the ARKO as the proceedings did not concern the applicant\u2019s civil rights or obligations. In the Government\u2019s view, the proceedings merely pertained to the enforcement of the judgment issued in the applicant\u2019s favour. They insisted that the complaint should be dismissed as incompatible ratione materiae. In alternative, the Government argued that the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court had quashed the judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour with a view to correcting the judicial error committed by the lower courts."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "f192432e-7b71-43c6-ba9b-b172a0ad3383", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgments given in her civil cases had been erroneous, that the courts had wrongly applied substantive law and that, as a result, her rights had been breached. She further argued that the courts had committed errors in the assessment of evidence and that their reasoning had been illogical and contradictory."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "3b4a8e7f-5e02-419a-9fe7-d21893819575", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government submitted that the fairness of proceedings held by the Supreme Court in the context of a cassation appeal had been examined by the Court in the case of Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002. The Court had declared the case inadmissible, finding that the proceedings complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case no circumstances had obtained which would justify a different conclusion. Moreover, in the present case, after the hearing had been held by the Supreme Court on 23 September 2004, the presiding judge had publicly pronounced its decision dismissing the applicant's cassation appeal and the judge rapporteur orally explained the reasons of that decision, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer. Hence, the applicant had been duly informed of the reasons why his appeal had not been successful."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "46c47b1b-546f-4673-a2e3-b3841d1608cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Vienna Court of Appeal, in its decision of 24 May 2006, had wrongly assessed the evidence before it and in particular the information conveyed by the photograph published in Profil on 12 July 2004. In particular, he alleged that the court had found that the photograph showed the applicant with his left arm around a seminarian and his right hand on the seminarian\u2019s crotch, and not just accidentally in front of it as maintained by him, without giving sufficient reasons for that finding."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "6a93de88-1a0b-4244-876b-599fdffb836d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government of Serbia and Montenegro submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was not incompatible ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention. They noted that the acts had been committed either on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro or on the territory of Italy, while the consequences had been suffered solely in Serbia and Montenegro. In their submission, the first point the Court had to take into consideration was that the aircraft which had bombed the RTS building had taken off in Italy, where the decision to carry out the raid had been taken in coordination with NATO headquarters in Brussels. The acts concerned also included all the physical and logistical preparation of the operation, which had resulted in the deaths of sixteen people. At the time, Italy and the other NATO member States had total control over the use of weapons in Serbian and Montenegrin airspace, but ultimately it was Italy which had had the aerial capacity to bomb the RTS building. These factors clearly showed the link between the events in issue and Italy, even though the consequences were suffered only in Serbia. In the Government of Serbia and Montenegro\u2019s submission, the present case was, therefore, sufficiently distinguishable from Bankovi\u0107 and Others (cited above) as to warrant a different conclusion and one that would avoid a denial of justice. They concluded from the above that the act complained of in the present case was not exclusively extraterritorial."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "767be4c9-a21d-44c4-93e6-68bca13da5a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government argued that the applicant's case had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction. Neither the Convention nor domestic law guaranteed a right to have a civil case heard at three levels of jurisdiction. The right to a court was not absolute and could therefore be subject to certain limitations, in so far as they did not impair the very essence of that right. In particular, the criteria of admissibility of appeals to be lodged with the highest courts could be strict and the procedure more formal than that before the lower courts, without the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention being breached thereby. The mere fact that it was necessary for a cassation appeal to be lodged by a qualified representative was not open to criticism."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a9e0bdb0-49dc-42dd-97d3-f2a2cfd0515b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. He alleged that the domestic courts had violated his right not to incriminate himself and in convicting him had had regard to a confession given under duress. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "6", "id": "b51b7fea-9184-4742-9939-2c2233926291", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government considered that the applicant had relied on Article 13 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. In view of the lack of any reason to believe that Article 6 had been breached in the present case, the Government considered that Article 13 could not be relied on, since the applicant had not had an arguable claim under Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "a3597ab3-25f1-4fd4-97ed-da0be9a675cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant also complained that the proceedings related to the determination of his nationality had been unfair. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention in Russia pending extradition, relying on Article 3. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "5efc8ad0-6cee-4269-a841-d609ed941503", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicants submitted that a \u201creasonable time\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention had been exceeded. They pointed out that the second applicant's tax assessment had been examined by the County Administrative Court on 29 March 2000 and had only recently been finally determined by the courts although he had appealed against the relevant Tax Authority decision already in December 1995. The first applicant's appeals \u2013 which had been lodged before the declaration of bankruptcy \u2013 had been dismissed by the County Administrative Court on 17 July 2000, that is about three and a half years after that declaration. The applicants disputed the Government's contention that the cases had involved complex issues."], "obj_label": "6", "id": "23f7417a-936e-4ab0-b95d-91acd3987034", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the civil proceedings instituted against him had been unfair because the domestic courts had not considered the testimony of his fianc\u00e9e to be credible and had allowed the plaintiff's action. He further submitted that the medical fee claimed by the plaintiff was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the applicant claimed that he had not had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention before the domestic courts because they had wrongly found against him."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "f1132e69-e898-4437-badb-04e6ee0ae542", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that in the decisions of the national courts in the civil proceedings he was treated as having committed a criminal offence. He further complained, under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 5 of the Convention, that his pre-trial detention had exceeded a reasonable time and that he had no right to compensation. Lastly, he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention but without further elaboration."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "9fa42ca4-b826-42a0-b3b3-78f86fa96d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant alleged that the proceedings on 21 February 2001 and the ensuing criminal proceedings before the national courts, taken together, had violated his rights under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and (d), Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. The Court has examined the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, which in the relevant parts reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "a32a7020-4424-4dfd-9931-08389b697bb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "4337316d-b02d-4185-81d4-d2e73313ece7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been convicted of an act which had not constituted a criminal offence when it had been committed. He submitted that offshore banking activities had not been regulated under national law at the material time. He therefore concluded that the acts in dispute could not have given rise to an offence of aggravated fraud and that his conviction had been based on the new Criminal Code, which had entered into force in 2005, after the impugned acts. Article 7 of the Convention reads:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "c99a77a4-6d7e-4725-bf0e-7333fc61778d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government rejected that argument, observing that Article <mask> of the Convention did no more than prohibit any retrospective application of criminal law in relation to \u201cthe time the criminal offence was committed\u201d. They observed that the provisions of the Criminal Code which established penalties for the offences of which the applicant was convicted had not been amended after 2 September 1999, the date when they were committed. They noted in particular that the offences concerned were punishable by life imprisonment with daytime isolation and that the penalty imposed by the national courts had not exceeded that limit."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "70a6bea3-53db-49e7-990f-be624c2e99db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["147.  The Government submitted in the alternative that the applicant's conduct during the attack on Mazie Bati \u201cwas criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations\u201d, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention. In that connection, the Court notes that on virtually every occasion the Convention institutions have examined a case under the second paragraph of Article 7, they have not considered it necessary also to examine it under the first paragraph (De Becker v. Belgium, no. 214/56, Commission decision of 9 June 1958, Yearbook 2, p. 214; X. v. Norway, no. 931/60, Commission decision of 30 May 1961, Collection of Decisions of the European Commission on Human Rights no. 6, p. 41; X. v. Belgium, no. 1028/61, Commission decision of 18 September 1961, Yearbook no. 4, p. 325; and Naletili\u0107 v. Croatia (dec.), no. 51891/99, ECHR 2000\u2011V, as also the decisions of X. v. Belgium (no. 268/57), Touvier and Papon (no. 2) cited above; for more extensive reasoning, see Penart v. Estonia (dec.), no. 14685/04, 24 January 2006, and the Kolk and Kislyiy decision cited above). The Court sees no reason to deviate from that approach in the present case. Since it has examined the case under the first paragraph of Article 7, it does not consider it necessary also to examine it under the second paragraph. In any event, even supposing that that paragraph was applicable in the instant case, the operation of 27 May 1944 cannot be regarded as \u201ccriminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations\u201d."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "70343d8a-45cf-4603-85c4-77da2b1813fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant noted in the first place that, according to the case-law of the Italian courts (Court of Cassation, combined divisions, judgment of 6 March 1992 in the Merletti case), Article 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sets out the penalty to be imposed when the summary procedure has been adopted is \u2013 despite its inclusion in the CCP \u2013 a provision of substantive criminal law. He argued that, unlike the provisions examined by the Grand Chamber in the Kafkaris v. Cyprus case (no. 21906/04, 12 February 2008), that clause did not concern the procedure for execution of sentence but the fixing of the sentence. It should therefore be considered a \u201ccriminal law\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "2b1d7378-9c83-415d-ab9c-ade280b9d854", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government observed that the applicant had been sentenced to twelve years\u2019 imprisonment for an offence committed in 1995. His sentence had indisputably been provided for in the legislation applicable on that date, namely Article 222-37 of the Criminal Code, concerning drug offences, and Article 132-9 of the same Code, concerning recidivism, of which the 1995 offence constituted the second component. The penalty imposed on him, having been applicable at the time when the offence had been committed, had therefore satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "80d14b46-a30b-4b01-830b-3714282a5ae4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicants maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been arrested and the criminal proceedings had been brought against them on account of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence under domestic law. The applicants also complained that the unlawful restrictions placed on their right to freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, the criminal proceedings brought against them and their inability to raise their complaints before the domestic judicial authorities into their allegations constituted a violation of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "72df5311-8c79-449e-b5ad-f902844630b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant considered his conviction contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention as it did not fall into any of the three exceptions laid down therein. His conduct towards the villagers of Mazie Bati did not constitute an offence under either international or national law at the time, nor was it \u201ccriminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations\u201d."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "b1358157-16be-4d14-a4f9-e143555f4006", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards the applicants, both of whom had been convicted of large-scale embezzlement, a criminal offence under Article 160 \u00a7 4 of the Criminal Code. They maintained that the relevant domestic courts had correctly decided on the legal classification of the offence, in accordance with the Supreme Court\u2019s guidelines of 27 December 2007. They also noted that the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law had been rejected at a higher level."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "4206f08f-d10a-436c-b5d1-51823d422c0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been subjected to psychological torture in police custody. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, he further complained that he had been held in police custody for a long time. Under Article 6, the applicant alleged that the State Security Court which had tried and convicted him was not an independent and impartial tribunal. He also complained about the length of the proceedings. Finally, the applicant alleged that his conviction, which was based on his visit to Iran, had been in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "7c870f1c-3438-4a75-8fc6-76f4f65a24fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "bdf030b9-34ec-4231-b76a-72379e92c10a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "9664b39e-1a9a-4b69-8aed-a4bf5da8a286", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been dismissed from his post on the basis of his criminal conviction for having disseminated communist propaganda under the provisions of the former Criminal Code, which had been repealed in 1991, and despite the fact that his criminal record had been erased following the repeal of the Articles in question. The applicant submitted that both the administrative authorities and the courts had failed to take into account the fact that his criminal record had been erased. He further noted that he was a fully qualified teacher and had been able to practise his profession between 1985 and 1999 without any problems. The applicant maintained that he had been prevented from practising his profession and had sustained psychological damage."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "13c628c6-d582-4c25-823c-e5edbf2c9049", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["166.  The applicant submitted that the commutation of the death penalty into life imprisonment without parole infringed Article <mask> of the Convention, such commutation having resulted from a legislative amendment made subsequently to his conviction (under Law no. 4771, which came into force on 9 August 2002). Prior to this amendment, persons sentenced to the death penalty whose execution had not been approved by the National Assembly had remained in prison for a maximum term of thirty-six years."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "ba908996-292d-4a15-803f-117884481e4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant pointed out that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as the essential elements of the crime in the present case had not been fulfilled. The applicant had been charged with having concealed property which Mr A. had obtained by a criminal act, namely property which Mr A. had failed to declare. In Finland only a failure to declare property was criminalised, not the failure to surrender property to a bankruptcy estate. From the legality point of view, it was difficult to interpret the term \u201cnot to declare property\u201d in a way that would lead to \u201cacquiring property\u201d. If Mr A. was no longer under a duty to declare property, to what property illegally acquired did the applicant\u2019s indictment refer? Mr A did not acquire any property as the real estate concerned was already in his possession. The essential elements of the crime with which the applicant was charged were thus not fulfilled."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "8b2f3bd6-e007-4259-b79e-201d8c1d3215", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["194.  The applicant maintained that because of a close association between the enactment of the 2005 Amendment and the criminal case against him, no comparison could be made with the case of Co\u00ebme and Others v. Belgium. Furthermore, the Court\u2019s findings in that judgment with regard to the extension of limitation periods were only relevant in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention and not with respect to the assessment of a complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "2e5a924f-d3a2-411d-abb0-123948a13786", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention guaranteed not only the non-retrospectiveness of the criminal law but also the principle \u2013 set forth explicitly in Article 15 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Article 49 of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental rights and by Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights (see paragraphs 35-37 above) \u2013 that, in the event of a difference between the law in force at the time of the commission of an offence and later laws, the law to be applied was the law more favourable to the accused. That meant that Article 7 was breached whenever courts imposed a heavier penalty than the one prescribed by the law in force at any time between the commission of the offence and the delivery of judgment. The applicant referred on that point to the dissenting opinion of Judge Popovi\u0107 annexed to the Achour v. France judgment ([GC], no 67335/01, ECHR 2006-..)."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "c562d36b-7c0a-4d9a-b86d-26f3090ce19f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained that the Criminal Code had been applied retroactively in his case, pointing out that he had been convicted of a continuous offence of abusing a person living under the same roof which, according to the courts, encompassed his conduct even before that offence had been introduced into the law. He also alleged that the courts had not duly examined whether his actions prior to that date would have amounted to a criminal offence under the old law. He relied in that regard on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "e0185616-cb3f-4b13-88ab-c645cc6c54b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conduct leading to her conviction did not constitute a criminal offence under national law as S.K. had voluntarily transferred the money to her account. From that moment on the money had no longer formed a part of his, and subsequently his estate\u2019s, possessions. She had, therefore, not been obliged to report the money in the estate inventory. She further complained that the unlawful conviction even constituted a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, as the presumption of innocence had not been respected by the courts."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "26142301-3478-4f0e-9aba-7425d47217f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant submitted, in particular, that, while increasing the sentences applicable to recidivists was justified by the greater danger they posed on account of their persistence despite warnings from the courts, the concept of recidivism was considered above all to be a means of ensuring exemplary conduct on the part of those who had committed an offence of some seriousness, through a form of probation resulting from the risk of receiving an increased penalty in the event of them reoffending. The rules on recidivism were therefore intended to contribute to reforming convicted persons; that aim, which formed one of the main trends in modern crime policies, accordingly had some bearing on the determination of issues concerning the application of successive laws. In a democratic society the requirements of protecting the social order had to be reconciled with the aim of reforming offenders. He observed that Article <mask> of the Convention related to the requirement of legal certainty."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "5a082bd4-fc03-4d5b-9274-408cd7ace912", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government submitted that the interpretation of the notion of \u201cofficial document\u201d was consistent throughout both criminal codes and that the courts had rightly applied Article 325 of the new CC. There was therefore no issue of legal certainty under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government submitted a number of examples of domestic practice in support of their position."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "dd96e317-3438-4ce3-9617-28f9b138d818", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He had failed to complain either expressly or in substance about a breach of his right not to have a heavier penalty imposed on him than the one applicable at the time of his offence in his constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court. In that complaint, he had only raised a breach of his constitutional right to liberty."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "f2476e45-ee88-43d4-be13-9d97c8167848", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant further pointed out that even if there existed a legal basis in Finnish law for the applicant\u2019s conviction, the quality of that law was not in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Finnish system, the dismissal of a charge did not automatically mean that claims for damages arising from the same facts should also be dismissed. In the present case the Supreme Court, when dismissing the charges against Mr A., also dismissed the compensation claims. This meant that the Supreme Court itself regarded Mr A.\u2019s right not to incriminate himself as a ground of justification and not a ground of excuse. This highlighted the poor quality of the law: this law was at the time, and still is today, very much unforeseeable as regards situations like the applicant\u2019s."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "cb140c57-bbba-4260-b4ba-5b1e8658168b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["202.  The applicant complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been convicted in the absence of criminal intent, as one of the constituent elements of the offence of espionage, and that he should instead have been acquitted. Thus, he had not realised that he was dealing with information containing State secrets, since he had received that information from open publications. Questions had not been put to the jury as to whether he transmitted information containing State secrets and whether he collected it from closed or open sources; the jury therefore found that he had transferred non-classified information to foreign intelligence \u2013 acts which were not embraced by the corpus delicti of espionage. Furthermore, it had not been established by the jury verdict that he had had criminal intent to damage the national security of the Russian Federation by abetting foreign intelligence services. Hence, the presiding judge should have acquitted him on the basis of such a verdict by the jury. The applicant concluded that the presiding judge had manipulated the questions to the jury, having disregarded the request by the defence to change their formulation, and had changed the constituent elements of the offence of espionage to his detriment. The applicant further disagreed with the application of domestic law in his case. He argued that the Official Secrets Act defining the list of classified information, which had in any event been rather vague, had not been applicable to him since he had never had admission or access to State secrets by virtue of his office; that the list of classified information had also been defined by presidential decree no. 1203 of 30 November 1995, although under Article 29 of the Constitution such a list was to be defined in a federal law; and that the expert assessment of the secrecy of the transmitted information of 18 July 2002 had been carried out on the basis of unpublished Ministry of Defence decrees nos. 055 and 015 of 10 August 1996 and 25 March 2002 respectively, to which he had not had access. The applicant considered that this situation had contributed to his arbitrary conviction by the presiding judge. The applicant further complained that all of the above had also led to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention provide:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "e386afa3-f3f6-444b-a201-e706f6445370", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government submitted that any possible interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of peaceful assembly had been prescribed by law. The applicants had been convicted under Article 283 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, prescribing punishment for serious breaches of public order. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgment in Galstyan (cited above, \u00a7 107) and taking into account the diversity inherent in public-order offences, the Government considered that the domestic legal norm had been formulated with sufficient precision (see also the arguments developed by the Government under Article <mask> of the Convention \u2013 paragraphs 188-91 below)."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "31845f29-1682-4dff-a44b-6f429b0a0b48", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["238.  The Government observed that, in the Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others judgment (merits, cited above), the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that confiscation was not a foreseeable consequence of the applicant companies\u2019 conduct (they had been acquitted as the courts had not found them liable for the offence in question) and that the confiscation measure imposed on them had not therefore been provided for by law for the purposes of Article 7 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "c06e57f2-3a23-484d-97be-aeb55e2e8839", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that it had not been clear from the Penal Code provision applied that their conduct might be punishable, as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. The convictions of A. and B. had been public information that could not have fallen within the scope of private life. Furthermore, even though a conviction for invasion of private life allegedly required that intent be shown, the Appeal Court had failed to state how this requirement had been fulfilled."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "e0bb63df-4bef-4a08-b731-8854cd852d31", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government pointed out that in the judgment of Vasiliauskas (cited above, \u00a7 159) the Court did not deny the right of the State to take action against the perpetrators of the repressions committed during the Soviet occupation regime. What led the Court to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that case was the domestic courts\u2019 reference to the Lithuanian partisans as a separate political group, which had been excluded from the definition of acts of genocide at the relevant time (the 1950s) and the lack of reasoning of the domestic courts that the Lithuanian partisans constituted a significant part of a protected group, namely the Lithuanian national group. The domestic courts were criticised for not explaining what the notion of \u201crepresentatives\u201d entailed, and for not providing much of a historical or factual account of how the Lithuanian partisans were representative of the Lithuanian nation (see Vasiliauskas, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 159 and 179-86). The judgment of the Court showed that the lack of arguments of the Lithuanian courts in that specific case had been of the utmost importance."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "0cb183ae-bff1-4e4b-8867-5dba3c4165d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and that he had not had any domestic remedy whereby he could challenge the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention that his defence lawyer had not had adequate time to prepare his additional defence submissions. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been convicted for carrying out lawful acts in his capacity as president of the local branch of a political party, and that criminal law had been extensively construed to his detriment by analogy."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "84d34ef6-1a40-4ac5-aa4a-6f14fe5138a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government argued that neither during the administrative offence proceedings nor in his constitutional complaint had the applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, in his constitutional complaint the applicant had alleged violations of his constitutional rights to equality before the law and a fair hearing, which rights corresponded to those guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "295010fd-a555-4e23-9189-4d9df4ac933f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "0ea98557-2ba0-450c-8d47-fc32c3070f1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that it had not been clear from the Penal Code provision applied that their conduct would have been punishable as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. Moreover, the conviction of B. could not have fallen within the scope of private life as a conviction for assault could never be a private issue, especially as B.'s case file had not been declared secret. Furthermore, no intent had been shown."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "14475961-275f-4023-91d1-deff94e597e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court, which had also infringed his right to an effective remedy. He further maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that he had been denied a public hearing due to the lack of reference to the principal public prosecutor\u2019s name in the court decisions. The applicant contended that his expulsion from the military academy had amounted to a punishment without a law, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he maintained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been expelled from the military academy by reason of his father\u2019s affiliations with a certain trade union, which amounted to discrimination."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "d5366e7c-8d15-476f-b55d-24d9f99c8c66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicants complained that the legal provision on the basis of which they had been convicted of embezzlement had not been applicable to their acts. They claimed that the authorities extended the interpretation of the offence to such broad and ambiguous terms that it did not satisfy the requirements of foreseeability. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "22214640-5e64-43a8-a97b-642742ec9d8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant noted that Article 132-9 of the new Criminal Code had doubled the period between the two components of recidivism and that in order to apply these new, harsher, provisions to him, the Court of Cassation had laid down a rule which, albeit simple, was extremely questionable in the light of Article <mask> of the Convention, not least because it placed sole emphasis on the second component. The applicant considered that the first component of recidivism, which had been totally ignored by the Court of Cassation, was nevertheless an essential aspect of the process. He complained, firstly, that the Court of Cassation had applied harsher legal provisions of which he could not have been aware on the date of his initial conviction and, secondly, that the retrospective application of the new Criminal Code had brought back into being the possibility of recidivism even though its first component had quite simply ceased to exist."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "d8f06e4a-7d8d-43df-b37a-91d6242b571b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicant submitted that the circumstances that had led to the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had also breached the principles of fair trial. In February 2000 he had opted for the summary procedure, and in doing so had waived a number of procedural safeguards, because he knew, on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time, that in the event of his conviction he would be punished by thirty years' imprisonment and not a life sentence. However, the CCP had been amended unfavourably, and in exchange for his waiver he had not been granted a reduction of his sentence (the only advantage being that he had avoided daytime isolation). But adoption of the summary procedure implied a \u201cpublic-law contract\u201d between the defendant and the State; once entered into, that \u201ccontract\u201d could not be rescinded or varied unilaterally."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "7ef958f9-1141-43e0-ba7f-4ee2a0256b2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts examining the charges against him had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had acquired the counterfeit bank notes after 26 March 2005, namely at a time when acquiring such notes had been an offence. He relied generally on Article 6 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "d4ada369-a280-44f2-8a39-284c0c56eb2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicants complain about the legality and proportionality of pecuniary and non-pecuniary penalties. According to Article 187 ter of the TUF, the pecuniary sanctions applicable to the administrative offence of market manipulation could reach five million euros[28], and be increased up to three times or even ten times the proceeds of the offence or the profit therefrom, taking into consideration the personal situation of the guilty party, the scale of the proceeds of the offence or the profit therefrom, or the effects on the market. While the punishment of administrative offences on the basis of the proceeds of the offence or the profit therefrom, without any fixed upper limit for the pecuniary sanction, raises per se an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention in its limb of the principle of nullum poena sine legge stricta, the extremely wide range of the increased pecuniary penalty foreseen by Article 187 ter no. 5 of the TUF is even more problematic[29]. Be that as it may, the concrete sanctions imposed are neither lawful nor proportionate."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "c2ae360e-2e65-4c62-bd13-79a6da081d34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicants raised certain additional complaints with reference to Article 6 and Article <mask> of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols regarding that part of their applications. It follows that that part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "63cfbeb1-4205-4ca8-8642-ed3dfd287187", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government pointed out that the Supreme Court had confirmed in its judgment of 22 October 2009 that attributing the aggravated receiving offence to the applicant did not violate the legality principle laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention. It was clear that, after a person was declared bankrupt, that person could no longer possess any property lawfully. The applicant must have considered it possible that, at the material time, concealing and obliterating the origin of property possessed by a bankrupt person could lead to prosecution and conviction."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "eb16e3a5-368c-4079-a7e9-78da88e7ea5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant complained that his conviction under Article 99 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code had been retroactive and therefore amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also pointed out that the crime of genocide, as described in that provision of the Criminal Code, did not have a basis in the wording of that offence as laid down in public international law. The Lithuanian courts\u2019 interpretation of the concept of genocide in his case had been too broad."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "1455ee15-a389-4344-b51e-b29fd356ed6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had retrospectively applied and extensively construed the State Secrets Act in his case. He further complained under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his freedom of expression. The applicant claimed that he had been subjected to an overly broad and politically motivated criminal persecution as a reprisal for his critical publications. In particular, he had never transferred any information containing State secrets to Mr T.O., a Japanese journalist. Nevertheless, he had been convicted for his alleged intention to transfer his handwritten notes, which had been found to contain State secrets, to Mr T.O., the only basis for such a finding being the fact that he had previously legitimately communicated information to the Japanese journalist on several occasions. The applicant further complained that in so far as his handwritten notes had been found to have contained the actual names of military formations and units and the activities of radio electronic warfare units, this information had been publicly accessible from a number of public sources, including internet sites, and that he had been unable to foresee that this information had constituted State secrets, as this finding had been based on the unpublished \u2013 and therefore inaccessible \u2013 Decree no. 055 of the Ministry of Defence. The respective Convention provisions, in their relevant parts, provide:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "36248824-7d13-4a4e-b02d-f1a5bd98afff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, according to legal opinions produced by him, the first set of proceedings should have been discontinued, as no offence had been committed. The applicant also complained that he had not been able to initiate criminal proceedings against a prosecutor for allegedly withholding information pertaining to his release. He also complained that his private correspondence had been monitored and that his case had received wide media coverage in Poland."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "69911b12-2af9-45f2-b4cc-7ff23c3657fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. Although the applicant's company lacked any bookkeeping as from 5 May 1993, this state of affairs continued after the entry into force of Article 148-4 of the Criminal Code on 20 July 1993. Moreover, the applicant had the obligation to keep proper accounting records also prior to that date, according to the Government decree of 6 July 1990."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "ea44a59a-a10b-4a61-8ca1-ee14f9006a0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been the victim of the retrospective application of a criminal statute. He submitted, in particular, that the acts of which he was accused did not, at the time of their commission, constitute an offence under either domestic or international law, while the exception set out in the second paragraph of Article 7 could not apply in his case because the alleged offences manifestly did not come within its scope. Article 7 of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "182a42ff-593f-4e55-bde0-e6e206dae3c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["144.  The Government submitted that an award of compensation by the Court to a person convicted of acts as murderous as those committed by the applicant \u2013 who had been found guilty in judicial proceedings that met all the requirements of a fair trial \u2013 would be difficult to understand. They argued that in the Kafkaris judgment (cited above), \u201chaving regard to all the circumstances of the case\u201d, the Court had considered that the finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "c122bdfb-ad18-400d-b7eb-fa6d025e9131", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued that the compulsory hospitalisation and the measures ordered pursuant to Articles 706-135 and 706-136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not constitute penalties within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because they did not follow a criminal conviction. The declaration of criminal insanity and the finding by the judicial authority responsible for pre-trial investigation that there was sufficient evidence that the individual had committed the offences as charged did not amount to an assessment of guilt; only the material attribution of the acts to the person charged had thereby been ascertained. In the Government\u2019s submission, this is what distinguished the measures at issue from the system of preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) under German law, as examined by the Court in M. v. Germany [(no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009)]."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "2ba1a592-2e0e-46e3-b618-cc2eab87f6b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants complained that the law had been applied retroactively to their disadvantage, as they had been found guilty of bribery in accordance with the wording of a criminal provision that had not yet been in force at the time of the facts. They pointed out that the present case had been the first criminal proceedings for corruption in the small Republic of San Marino. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "dbc8fbb1-4669-43ed-975e-d64d866bd014", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "c86502dc-7a6a-4c8e-8dda-e7467f7a6ba6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government took the view that the measures imposed on the applicant pursuant to sections 706-135 and 706-136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not constitute \u201cpenalties\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the application should be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "9a969b00-d219-4095-b03b-82bf63086c9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted in reply that the institutional therapeutic measure had been ordered following a review of the judgment to the applicant\u2019s detriment. In such circumstances, Article 65 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code referred to the rules applicable to the reopening of proceedings, namely \u2013 prior to the entry into force of the unified Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 January 2011 \u2013 the relevant provisions of the cantonal Codes of Criminal Procedure. They inferred from this that paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (1), of the transitional provisions of the 13 December 2002 amendment to the Criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 65 \u00a7 2 of the same Code, \u201cthus provided for the retrospective application of a specific ground for reopening proceedings\u201d. The case of a review to the convicted person\u2019s detriment was governed by Article 189 \u00a7 1 (e) of the former Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Basle Urban. In accordance with that provision, criminal proceedings that had been concluded by means of an \u201cenforceable\u201d judgment were to be reopened where, among other situations, circumstances or evidence unknown to the trial court appeared likely to result in an acquitted person\u2019s conviction or to give rise to a more severe punishment for a convicted person. The Government further submitted that the substantive law in force at the time had provided for institutional therapeutic measures, in particular under Article 43 \u00a7 1, second sub-paragraph, of the former Criminal Code, and noted that that provision allowed the indefinite detention of a convicted person who, \u201con account of his mental state\u201d, \u201cpose[d] a severe threat to public safety\u201d, on condition that \u201csuch a measure [was] necessary to prevent a danger to others\u201d. Accordingly, by deciding to impose an institutional therapeutic measure, the Court of Appeal had not ordered a heavier penalty than the one that would already have been possible and acceptable at the time of the criminal courts\u2019 decisions. In conclusion, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, regardless of whether such a measure, like the indefinite detention provided for in Article 65 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code, constituted a \u201cpenalty\u201d within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "efbe6b25-d612-41bd-96f5-80fc17c96472", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["8.  The applicant\u2019s conviction was therefore based upon legal provisions that were not in force in 1953 and, most importantly, could not have been in force at the relevant time, given that Lithuania was under occupation. Such provisions were applied retroactively. It follows that this would constitute a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention unless it can be established that his conviction was based upon international law as it stood at the relevant time. The applicant\u2019s conviction, in our view, must therefore be examined from that perspective."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "759c2f6f-2c47-4d94-946d-37eaba7b46a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been convicted in criminal proceedings of acts that had been lawful at the material time. They argued that the authorities had extended the interpretation of the criminal law applied in their case in such broad and ambiguous terms that it did not satisfy the requirements of foreseeability. Article 7 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "08062134-a5ec-4c8e-9705-5b4de90fc9f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant maintained that in his case the courts should have applied the most favourable wording of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, which was that which had been in place between 29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000, when the death penalty had already been abolished and life imprisonment had not yet been introduced. Failure to do so, in his opinion, violated Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "085e83db-6910-4d84-a33a-388dd827ec49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "601ef93b-a399-4414-9623-28f033fce62a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government contested the assertion that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They stated that the acts imputed to the applicants had constituted criminal offences at the material time. They referred to a ruling by the Constitutional Court of 27 May 2008, no. 8-P, which stated that the law providing for criminal liability could not be interpreted broadly when being enforced and would not apply to acts it did not directly prohibit, or by analogy, and could not be applied retroactively."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "625f376f-0a68-4acd-8d6f-2289286cd4be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants argued, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that Finnish law contained no provision which defined reporting of a public trial as a punishable offence. At the time of the publication of the articles, it had been unforeseeable and surprising to the applicants that penal sanctions could be imposed on them for having published public information that had been freely available to everybody and to which anyone could have had access on the basis of Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of Finland. The published information remained even today freely available. The interference with the applicants' freedom of expression had thus not been foreseeable or \u201cprescribed by law\u201d."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "6aeedcaf-1de4-488c-aaa6-11863666e5a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant challenged the applicability of the Customs Code provisions to the confiscation procedure and claimed, accordingly, that the confiscation could not be imposed on him outside a two-month statutory limitation provided for in section 38 of the Code on Administrative Offences. The Court, however, in view of its relevant findings under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 33 above), does not share this view."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "b7664eff-386b-4354-a1c7-b9e41ad525ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s conviction under Article 325 of the new CC was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, falsification of documents was an offence prohibited by Article 213 of the former CC at the time when the applicant committed the crime. As could be seen from its wording, the document conferring an entitlement or absolving from liability was not confined to state or societal enterprises, institutions or organisations, as various documents of legal significance could be falsified by an individual or a representative of a legal entity. Hence, Article 213 clearly defined the crime, and its provisions were in compliance with the standards of foreseeability and accessibility as required by the Convention. Furthermore, the judicial practice on interpretation and application of Article 213 did not exclude individuals having no links with the state or societal institutions from being convicted under that Article. Accordingly, the offence of which the applicant was convicted corresponded to the corpus delicti of Article 213 of the former CC. In substantiation of their claims, the Government submitted two judgments delivered by the domestic courts at the time when the former CC was still in force, by which individuals had been convicted under Article 213."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "ab9e1541-1276-486f-baf8-4c90a3ffebad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant further complained that Article 325 of the new CC under which he was convicted lacked legal certainty as opposed to its predecessor in the former CC, namely Article 213 which contained the words \u201cState and societal organisations\u201d. Therefore, the interpretation and application of Article 325 to his case went beyond what could be reasonably foreseen by him. In this respect, he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "7", "id": "cc89df1d-4903-4615-88e0-d483960f3af0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The applicant complained that the professional regulations of 12 July 2007 did not define with sufficient clarity the obligations imposed on lawyers, subject to disciplinary action, in so far as they used such vague and general terms as \u201creport suspicions\u201d and \u201cdue diligence\u201d. He alleged that this was in breach of the principle of legal certainty, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "e330455f-2575-4130-85d3-0a285eea482e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant submitted that he could not be held responsible under Article 148-4 of the Criminal Code for the period prior to its entry into force on 20 July 1993. The application by the courts of the concept of a continuing offence allowed them to evade the prohibition of retrospective application of criminal law in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "20f8438a-f79c-48eb-ac05-eed495b0e6a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "495c4631-7a45-4ae8-a04c-96b229ca26d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The applicant submitted that when he had been sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment on 10 March 1989 by the Limassol Assize Court, under the Prison Regulations applicable at the time, \u201clife imprisonment\u201d had been tantamount to imprisonment for a period of twenty years. As a result of the repeal of the Regulations, the amendment of the relevant legislative provisions and the retroactive application of the provisions thus amended, he had been subjected to an unforeseeable prolongation of his term of imprisonment from a definite twenty-year sentence to an indeterminate term for the remainder of his life, with no prospect of remission, and to a change in the conditions of his detention. Thus, a heavier penalty had been imposed than that applicable at the time he had committed the offence of which he had been convicted, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "88bc42fc-017f-4cd0-9d4e-dfb55617b50b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government said that the applicant had been sentenced to both a custodial sentence and a customs fine, the latter being a hybrid penalty. Imprisonment in default only took effect if the convicted person failed to pay all or part of the fine. Its role was thus purely subsidiary. Moreover, in Jamil, cited above (see \u201cRelevant domestic law and practice\u201d), the Court expressly stated that its decision in that case applied only in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention to the specific problem of the retrospective application of the criminal statute; indeed that had been the only complaint before it. Consequently, the judgment in Jamil could not be construed as implying that imprisonment in default constituted a \u201cpenalty\u201d within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, subject to all the rules in the Criminal Code applicable to prison sentences."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "5f549162-3051-486f-a258-df5871db01d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention that they had not had a right to compensation in respect of the length of their detention in police custody and pending trial.  They further alleged under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 that the \u0130zmir State Security Court had not been an independent and impartial tribunal in that it had relied on unlawful evidence, such as the illegal recording of their telephone conversations and statements which had been taken from them under duress, added to the case file by the public prosecutor, and that it had convicted them without awaiting the judgment of the Ayd\u0131n Criminal Court. They submitted under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention that their detention in Ayd\u0131n prison had deprived them of the opportunity to contact their lawyer easily and that the State Security Court had not given them the opportunity to comment on the illegal telephone recordings submitted by the prosecution. The applicants further alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that their conviction had been unlawful as it had been based on insufficient evidence."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "daab57a4-ceb1-4f91-9e43-a894526b9566", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant raised a number of other complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention: (a)  that she had been sanctioned for actions which had not formed part of her duties as a liquidator (in this respect the applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention); (b)  that the Supreme Administrative Court had upheld the decision of the Minister of Justice to strike the applicant off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators on grounds differing from those given by the Minister; and (c)  that the Supreme Administrative Court had erred in the interpretation and application of the law governing judicial review of administrative decisions such as the one issued by the Minister of Justice."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "52a58d28-033f-4930-b21a-68af899b82c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant, once more relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, also complained that the Hannover Regional Court had not taken a formal decision on her request for a subsequent hearing, as foreseen in section 33(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that at the relevant time her acts were not yet punishable as money laundering."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "8ba569f1-ab6f-476d-b6a0-dd340ac2fa21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that it had not been clear from the Penal Code provision applied that their conduct would be punishable as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. Moreover, the convictions of A. and B. had been public information that could not have fallen within the scope of private life. Even though a conviction for invasion of private life allegedly required that intent be shown, the Appeal Court had failed to state how this requirement had been fulfilled."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "194aa090-1811-4b50-afcb-4b83d42bc083", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant observed that social and political groups were added to the Lithuanian definition of genocide by the Criminal Code amendments of 21 April 1998. In the light of Article <mask> of the Convention, he claimed that criminal liability for genocide in respect of those two groups was thus not applicable at one particular point in time but was applicable at another, although the facts potentially giving rise to an issue were the same. In his specific case, he contended, the Lithuanian State had applied the criminal law retroactively, despite the fact that from 1992 to 1998 the State itself regarded the applicant\u2019s actions as not constituting the crime of genocide. Even acknowledging that the crime of genocide could be prosecuted retroactively, he submitted that it was difficult to accept that criminal liability for such a crime depended on the State\u2019s ability to amend the legislation or to find new characteristics of the crime which were relevant only for Lithuania. The applicant pointed to the fact that Lithuania itself prohibits the retroactive application of criminal law."], "obj_label": "7", "id": "97ad3d42-cb76-428c-bc66-9cdb402da347", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant complained that the failure of the Russian authorities to enforce the judgment of the R\u00ee\u0219cani District Court of Chisinau of 28 October 2009, whereby he had been awarded a residence order in respect of his son, A.P., had violated his right to family life under Article <mask> of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fca72d6a-1d46-467d-bb57-699a923b3061", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained that the Hungarian authorities had failed to take timely and adequate measures to ensure that he was reunited with his daughter following her abduction. In particular, he argued that they had not made sufficient attempts to locate K.S. and the child. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "89934c5f-989e-40a5-a8ec-41047d0d2e97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicants complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that their eviction from the land where they had been settled for a long time constituted a violation of their right to respect for their private and family life and their home. They further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in combination with Article 14 of the Convention, and on Article 18 of the Convention taken together with Article 8. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 8, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f06692d2-4e17-4c21-ab24-9ec3a37a8b11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to family life had been violated by the Swedish authorities and courts by taking the children into public care, and keeping them there, as well as by refusing to allow the parents to have any contact with their children for prolonged periods of time, contrary to the best interest of the children, and to the detriment of the family unity. Article 8 reads insofar as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9ef55e5d-31fa-4d7c-8a3e-132fafff662d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government denied that the judgments given in the applicant\u2019s case had been arbitrary or otherwise unlawful. Limitation periods aimed at ensuring the principle of legal certainty, under which prosecutions were no longer possible upon the passage of time. Having regard to the arguments that an effective remedy \u2212 a civil action for damages \u2212 had been available to the applicant, the Government concluded that the State had not violated the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f89d8dbf-84a8-46b3-838b-eaaa933a0e46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant argued that the customs officials\u2019 actions had amounted to \u201cinterference by a public authority\u201d with both his \u201cprivate life\u201d and his \u201ccorrespondence\u201d within the autonomous meanings arising from Article <mask> of the Convention. That \u201cinterference\u201d had been unlawful because there had been no criminal investigation in respect of him and no court order, in breach of Article 23 of the Constitution, Article 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 1995 (see paragraphs 25, 40 and 41 above). The domestic courts had failed to make any substantive findings on the matter of legality and had carried out no proportionality assessment in respect of the impugned \u201cinterference\u201d. It could not be reasonably accepted that the contested measures had been lawfully authorised by the Customs Code (namely Article 372) since that only concerned an \u201cinspection\u201d of \u201cvehicles, cargo and goods\u201d (see paragraph 28 above). The situation complained of had not fallen in any of the above categories. In particular, the electronic data on the applicant\u2019s laptop was not \u201cgoods\u201d within the ordinary meaning of that term under the Civil Code or the Customs Code."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7e1d0d4b-b89b-4472-8625-5608d2135b7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which includes protection of a person\u2019s physical and psychological well-being. By not protecting them from domestic violence, the authorities had failed to discharge their positive obligations under that provision. They also submitted that they had not had effective remedies at their disposal in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c61dd1fb-e4b3-4a74-821f-f1c842346488", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant submitted that the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act, read in conjunction with section 235(1)(2) of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code, and the decisions of the domestic courts had infringed her right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b1b83763-259d-48cc-b805-ee0640909431", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant also submitted that although she had requested access to information about her origins once she had become an adult, a person\u2019s vital interest in obtaining the information necessary to uncover the truth about an important aspect of his or her personal identity, which was an integral part of the right to private life safeguarded by Article <mask> of the Convention, was a subjective and highly personal right and therefore not subject to statutory limitation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3de2b5d4-6834-4f4f-b67a-53b4abc95a88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["3.  The applicant's existence was skilfully and organically disrupted by the Austrian authorities' defiance of their responsibilities under Article <mask> of the Convention - which, as the majority agreed, in the present case imposed on them a duty to ensure the enforcement of the final return order issued in his favour in terms of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  The applicant and his wife had established the matrimonial residence in Michigan, USA.  The wife's relocation to Austria, together with the illicitly appropriated child, coerced the applicant into instituting legal proceedings in Austria, which necessitated his presence there to ensure their diligent and successful prosecution. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "304d9bc7-0a0f-4d14-8354-84fb0193d7fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant argued that the provision of a widow's pension to a surviving spouse was clearly intended to promote family life. He maintained that a widow's pension was paid to, among others, a widow who had dependent children at the date of her husband's death once she was no longer in receipt of child benefits. He submitted that the provision of the pension to a surviving spouse was intended to recognise and promote the family relationship between spouses and that entitlement to it affected the way in which married partners arranged their financial affairs. He thus submitted that his complaint as regards future non-entitlement to a widow's pension fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c2c37006-a41a-422c-91e3-1e59fed145ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government submitted that any interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been lawful and necessary. The refusals to allow them to use the experimental product had been reasoned, made by an independent authority, and based on legal provisions which were fully in line with European Union law. It could therefore be presumed that they were compliant with the Convention. Those provisions, which took into account the need to strike a balance between the public interest and personal autonomy, sought to protect the health and life of those concerned by preventing abuses and the risks accompanying the use of untested products. For that purpose they had laid down certain conditions, which in the applicants\u2019 cases had not been met. That regulatory arrangement could not be described as a blanket prohibition on the \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9ab8b2e7-ca33-4fd2-95c1-98b6f97d41d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The Government admitted that the removal of the applicant from office had constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the measure had been justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the dismissal had been carried out on the basis of domestic law which had been sufficiently foreseeable and accessible. In addition, the measure had been necessary in the circumstances of the case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "31f95933-4ed9-4c97-95fe-e55be68c205d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant relied on the findings of the Court in its judgments in the cases of Loizidou v. Turkey ((preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310), Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits), judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011VI), Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001\u2011IV), Demades v. Turkey (no. 16219/90, \u00a7 46, 31 July 2003), and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (no. 16163/90, \u00a7 31, 31 July 2003). Furthermore, in her earlier observations on the admissibility of the application, she had distinguished her case from that of Loizidou v. Turkey (merits, cited above) in so far as Article <mask> of the Convention was concerned, since her complaint related to an interference with her right to respect for the home in which she lived with her husband and children and of which she was the owner. This was irrespective of whether the area in which her home was situated was the same as that where she grew up and her family had its roots."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a0a4e488-68e5-4f6f-8700-77eb98bcb545", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant alleged a violation of her right to home under Article <mask> of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in Article 8 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6907c496-6c47-4597-acd4-ff0e4302c209", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the adoption of the applicant's daughter by S.A. had been carried out in accordance with pertinent provisions of the Family Code. The applicant had not been involved in the upbringing of his daughter; he had, of his own will, moved far away from her. Thus, he had himself created the circumstances under which his consent for adoption had not been necessary. S.A. had been supporting and taking care of the applicant's daughter for about three years by the time the court rendered its judgment allowing adoption. A close relationship had developed between S.A. and A., the latter thinking of S.A. as her own father. The severance of these ties would have led to a violation of their right to respect for family life, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The adoption had been in the best interest of the child. In the Government's submission the courts had legitimately given priority to the child's interests over the interests of the applicant."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9f590195-0312-43b0-a978-7f412569951e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant submits that there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as, in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Regional Court was disproportionate. The Regional Court should have resorted to a less drastic measure, such as helping her with the children\u2019s education. Meanwhile she has given birth to two more children, a daughter born in December 1996 and a son born in July 1998. She was and is taking adequate care of these children and the competent Youth Welfare Office, a different one, has found no reason to intervene. The applicant also submits that the Regional Court relied on fresh evidence of which she had not been informed and, thus, had no opportunity to react thereto."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7fcff77a-bde1-413a-ae36-9a09710f9e38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained that the investigations carried out by the child welfare services, despite a first such investigation showing that his former wife's allegations were groundless, had constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for private and family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. He moreover complained that, because of dismissal of his case by the Norwegian courts, and hence their refusal to review the merits of his case, he had been denied access to a court and an effective remedy, in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, respectively."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e058cb92-242a-4718-8995-54c78604f742", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the lawfulness of the decision and the necessity to revoke the applicant\u2019s residence permit had been duly examined by the domestic courts, which had found that the measure had been imposed by the proper authority and that the relevant procedure had been complied with. The interference had been lawful, had had a legitimate aim and had been necessary and proportionate; the public interests had been duly balanced against the private interests of the applicant. The Government illustrated the proportionality of the interference, referring to the case of Lupsa v. Romania (no. 10337/04, \u00a7 10, ECHR 2006\u2011VII), and stating that the five-year re-entry ban which could have been imposed on the applicant did not appear unreasonable in comparison with the ten-year ban imposed on the applicant in Lupsa on similar grounds."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c591b0b5-f129-4df2-be33-c4de29a96cc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant did not complain about the effectiveness of the criminal investigation carried out by the Swedish authorities. The Court has not found any evidence that the manner in which the investigating authorities and the public prosecution carried out their tasks was ineffective in safeguarding the applicant\u2019s physical integrity, or that they failed to comply with their positive obligation to conduct an effective prosecution in order to ensure adequate protection of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "06759d16-9776-4546-8a4c-575306bd5e3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant submitted that the decision not to grant him a new temporary residence permit and the resulting expulsion order infringed Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he claimed that that decision was based solely on the allegation that he posed a \u201cthreat to national security\u201d contained in the file provided by the State Security Department and classified as \u201csecret\u201d. However, he was never informed of the contents of that file. He argued that he was genuinely integrated into life in Lithuania, where he had a business and had registered a non-governmental organisation Ibrahimas ir draugai (\u201cIbrahimas and friends\u201d), the aim of which was to foster the cultural traditions of Azeris residing in Lithuania. The applicant stressed that from 1993 he had lived in Lithuania with SG, a Lithuanian citizen, whom he had married in 2001 and with whom he had two children, both of whom were also Lithuanian citizens and still underage. He was the main source of income in the household and his expulsion deprived them of financial support."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e1f7646d-d096-45b5-8cdc-a7bdebbf51c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.   The applicant complained that in taking the decision, the Bologna Youth Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and competence under the Hague Convention and accordingly had interfered with his right to respect for his private and family life \u2013 an interference which had neither been justified nor necessary under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant further complained of a violation of Article 6, in so far as he had not been given the opportunity to challenge the statements made by his wife\u2019s attorney at the hearing on 18 June 2007 and the expert report ordered by the Bologna Youth Court, and in as much as his subsequent submissions had not been taken into account. Moreover, he had not been able to fully participate in the hearing as the relevant documents had only been made available at the hearing and only in the Italian language. Article 8, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "45a7febc-dbb7-4d8f-9684-da90f4c5d17b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants argued that the Austrian courts had not properly examined their request for the granting of visiting rights because, on the basis of Article 148 (4) of the Civil Code, the courts had concentrated on the issue of whether the applicants had standing in the proceedings or a right to appeal and had dismissed their request merely on the ground that the refusal of visiting rights would not endanger the well-being of F. That was not the kind of weighing of interests required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "159f1329-660c-4a4c-bc71-e6bc99b1cc25", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["190.  The applicant submitted that his life sentence without parole, in conjunction with the social isolation imposed on him, constituted a violation of Article 3 or Article <mask> of the Convention. He also stated that a life sentence which took no account of the prisoner\u2019s possible good conduct or rehabilitation, associated with a strict prison regime, attained the level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention to constitute inhuman punishment."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3943b764-7886-4a69-8519-a7c0aad59679", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention was not at issue in the case because the statements had not affected A\u2019s reputation to a sufficient degree. The statements were not defamatory or innuendoes against A. There was nothing presented in the news item to the effect that A had been guilty of a financial crime or other actions punishable by law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4c45b818-6292-494e-8bf6-86e661c84c59", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that during the events of 29 May 2000: (i) she had been ill-treated and humiliated by police, in breach of Article 3; (ii) she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty between 9.00 a.m. and 1 p.m. on that day, which constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1; and (iii) her right to respect for her home under Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b726766e-1abb-4bd5-8963-196323123605", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claim did not fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention because the impugned advertisement only mentioned his forenames, which were common and could not on their own have suggested any connection with him. Only the applicant\u2019s scuffles in 1998 and 2000, which had attracted extensive media coverage \u2013 and for which he himself been responsible \u2013 had brought him to the attention of the public at large and could thus have linked him with the advertisement. Previously, the general public and the media had shown interest in him solely in his capacity as the husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco. The Government asserted that the only option available to the applicant was to seek an injunction, under Article 8 of the Convention, against any further public reference to the incidents in question; and the Hamburg Regional Court had granted the applicant\u2019s application for an injunction prohibiting any further distribution of the advertisement. The Government took the view that although Article 8 protected an individual\u2019s reputation, it did not confer any right to compensation in the form of a notional licence where the individual\u2019s reputation had been damaged by his own behaviour."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c4a92505-87b8-4bbc-bb6b-5787f4f99867", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants' family life, as it was open to them to settle in Greece where the first applicant is currently residing. In any event, they considered that if there was interference, it met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they contended that the national courts had exercised full judicial review and had duly examined the grounds relied on by the executive in relation to the first applicant's expulsion."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "11bc35af-3d8d-4e76-b912-d570f8b2eeeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant submitted that since arriving in Belgium in 2007 she had given birth to three children. The children had never lived in Nigeria and the two oldest were now attending school in Belgium. She argued that, owing to the standard of education in Belgium, her children had a future there which was not possible in Nigeria. Moreover, the children\u2019s father, who was also a Nigerian national, was in Belgium and, although he did not have a residence permit, had recently moved in with the applicant and the children. He had thus been able to develop a relationship with his children; he took care of them and took them to school regularly. In the applicant\u2019s submission, Belgium was the only country where she could live a normal family life compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention with her partner and their children."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "42dc6022-a6ef-4afa-9a70-51d1199544fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant opposed that argument, maintaining that the circumstances of his case fell within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. He stressed that the Government had again failed to argue the case on the basis of the facts giving rise to his application. Instead, they referred to the other proceedings, which had had no relation to his complaint about discrimination in the sphere of his private life. In the proceedings complained of the courts had not considered the circumstances examined in other cases but had focused on only one issue, i.e. the fact that he had remained in a homosexual relationship with T.B. In their opinion, this had been sufficient to exclude him from succession to a tenancy, regardless of whether or not he had met other statutory conditions. Compliance with those other conditions, as the courts had held, had not needed to be examined."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "318d813b-fd30-4577-b405-355d0546883c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant disagreed. She noted that the application concerned the interests of her entire family. However, she had wished to be considered the applicant, since she was the owner of the house. In addition, it had been expressly on her behalf that Mrs Grishchenko had instituted the domestic civil proceedings claiming compensation and resettlement. The applicant further alleged that she had not been obliged to lodge a claim against the Highways Agency, as in her opinion the Executive Committee had been responsible for K. Street\u2019s maintenance. Moreover, it had been the Executive Committee who had allowed through traffic on K. Street in the first place. Further, it had not organised regular monitoring of this part of the road by traffic police, or by environmental and sanitary authorities, to ensure the enforcement of anti-pollution and safety measures. The substance of her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention had therefore been duly stated before the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "10874285-506b-4a91-af2b-01ec6746aa78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that conversations with his lawyer were conducted through a glass partition and were overheard or possibly even recorded and that the authorities had failed to provide proper conditions for private discussions with his lawyer. Although his complaint was not communicated, the Government nevertheless submitted comments on it. In his observations, the applicant referred to this complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The Government, having been given the possibility to comment on this change, did not submit any further comments in respect of this complaint. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I, \u00a7 44), considers that it is more appropriate to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "269b5f0f-7bdc-4407-a894-44ec34a8a451", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They maintained that, in accordance with the positive obligation enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, the authorities had taken all possible steps at their disposal to reunite the applicant with his daughter. They observed that approximately 500,000 Albanian nationals lived in Greece and that half of them resided there illegally. The Government could not therefore be held responsible for the failure of the applicant to give precise details of his daughter\u2019s whereabouts and to request an urgent measure to be taken before F.M. left Albania taking the child with her. The Government maintained that since no precise address had been given for the child and her mother in Greece, the use of the instruments foreseen in the bilateral agreement between Albania and Greece had been ineffective (see paragraph 33 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6ad60aa6-0460-4a6f-9f37-b14e1b6090b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that his right to respect for his family life had been infringed as a result of the non-enforcement of the final judgments granting him visiting rights in respect of T.M.P., his minor son, with the possibility to take him abroad. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention as well as Article 2 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8740707c-81ac-4a11-baaf-c2adfee148e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant alleged that she had been deprived of all contact with her daughter and separated from her without valid reason. She maintained that the administrative authorities had decided to place her daughter in pre\u2011adoption care before the domestic courts had even ruled on whether she had been abandoned. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "293dc296-0564-4d3b-9978-f6e2ad2cca97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government submitted that the publication of such information ensured greater transparency, public access to documents in the applicant\u2019s file and public scrutiny of the Commission\u2019s decision-making. The Court does not consider that either purpose can be subsumed under any of the aims listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, it does not see how making a non-final Commission decision publicly accessible can be reconciled with the general aims of lustration that the Court has accepted as legitimate (see paragraph 74 above). In that connection, it is to be noted that the applicant was seventy-seven years old when the Commission delivered its decision and held no public office. Furthermore, it was not alleged, in the domestic proceedings or before the Court, that he was a candidate for any such office at the time. The Court finds noteworthy that the Venice Commission in its amicus curiae brief on the 2012 Lustration Act also expressed the view that the publication of Lustration Commission findings prior to their review by a court was irreconcilable with Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 41 above). The Constitutional Court extended such an approach, albeit regarding necessity, to the publication of lustration results after they had become final (see paragraph 40 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "23d188ec-d0cf-47fe-a6aa-7065451edb3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired. He also alleged that his correspondence had been limited to certain identified people."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f32f7df5-00d5-4aef-9461-3b4fe410c01a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicants submitted that the first applicant remained a victim of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, despite ultimately, after long and protracted efforts, having undergone an abortion. The applicants had never claimed that the first applicant\u2019s rights had been violated because she had not been allowed access to an abortion. The core of her complaint was that the State\u2019s actions and systemic failures in connection with the circumstances concerning the determination of her access to abortion, seen as a whole, as well as the clandestine nature of the abortion, had resulted in a violation of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9f5da3cd-682f-41db-87bc-718796144690", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that the Romanian authorities, namely courts and administrative bodies, had failed to ensure the swift return of his daughter after his wife had retained the child in Romania without his consent. In so doing, the authorities had failed to secure his parental rights with respect to his daughter, in violation of his right to respect for his family life enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0173b85a-df69-46e8-9e85-f7ebc97f0d49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The Government accepted that the applicant could claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to his consultations with his appropriate adult from 4 May 2010 to 8 May 2010 (consultations with the appropriate adult were not affected by the court\u2019s direction on 6 May 2010 that the applicant\u2019s consultations with his solicitor and medical advisor should not be subject to surveillance)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7ab60962-d521-4d9c-90b5-c60985497d6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued that in 2004 the applicant and her son had abandoned flat A and had moved into flat B. The applicant\u2019s former residence could therefore not be considered her \u201chome\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government contested, in essence, the applicability of the impugned provision to the facts of the case and alleged that the present complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "412f9ee2-adb6-4acd-9b59-eecdcb387600", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts\u2019 decision to refuse him information about the child\u2019s personal circumstances violated his right under Article <mask> of the Convention to respect for his private and family life. He further submitted that the domestic courts\u2019 failure to investigate sufficiently the relevant facts concerning his relationship with his daughter, in particular his paternity, violated Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 alone."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cce7d616-0ece-4882-a8ad-5429df85f7e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants maintained that the reversal of the award of damages in respect of their dismissal from the Police Force because they had allegedly committed acts of torture, and despite their acquittal of the same charges by a court of law, was plainly incompatible with the respondent State's obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The reversal of the award had undermined the protection of their moral and psychological integrity and reputation, being encompassed in the protection guaranteed by Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8533c284-03f5-46bd-9258-bbe00f246b01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government accepted that there had been interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that such interference had been lawful and justified. In particular, the secret surveillance orders had been based on Article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been issued and supervised by an investigating judge pursuant to reasoned and substantiated requests from the competent State Attorney\u2019s Office, which the investigating judge had accepted as such. Moreover, such interference had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating and prosecuting the crime of currency counterfeiting and had been proportionate to the circumstances and the gravity of the offence at issue and the applicant\u2019s criminal activity."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ac29ce06-6a20-412e-a62e-cf41906ead00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant further complained in substance under Article 6 that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In that respect he submitted that the proceedings had been based only on the testimonies of one of the co-accused. Invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, he also complained that his correspondence had been censored by the prison authorities. Finally, the applicant alleged that his right to respect for family life had been violated because, throughout his detention, he had spoken on the telephone with his wife and children only three times."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "086ef091-00ad-4d7b-a3d5-52bd722222ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to respect for their private and family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that the measure ordering the second applicant\u2019s return to hospital a few hours after his birth had been neither lawful nor necessary. They also complained that the interim measure, which had had the effect of a decision on the merits in the present case, had been applied in violation of the principles of fairness enshrined in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, the court had not examined whether the statutory conditions for application of the measure in question had been satisfied and neither the first applicant nor her partner had in any way been included in the decision\u2011making process."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "595f2b4e-8100-447a-909e-bd2f2f18d20b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complained that the State had failed to secure her family\u2019s right to respect for their private life as a result of the derisory sum of non-pecuniary damages awarded to her late husband, even though the domestic courts had found that a serious violation of his privacy had been committed by the newspaper Lietuvos Rytas. She also argued that the national legislation did not provide an effective remedy from the point of view of Article <mask> of the Convention as it limited the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages for a so-called \u201cunintentional\u201d breach of privacy by the mass media. The applicant relied on Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "47a9e21e-037a-46b9-aa4f-cf57e95eada7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government considered the sum claimed by the applicant to be excessive. Firstly, they pointed out that the application related only to the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention; the applicant had relied on Article 5 only in her claim for just satisfaction. Secondly, the Government maintained that the anxiety suffered by the applicant had resulted from her own conduct rather than from the measures taken in the case by the Latvian authorities. Thirdly, they pointed out that the order for Mrs Shevanova\u2019s deportation had never been enforced, that she continued to reside in Latvia and that she could regularise her stay at any time, as had been made clear to her. In the circumstances, the Government considered that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient redress for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant might have sustained; in support of that argument, they cited several judgments of the Court and several decisions by the Latvian courts."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b2bfff42-8024-4f8e-8843-6fda570138aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government accepted that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that such interference had been lawful and justified. Referring to the Court\u2019s findings in the Dragojevi\u0107 case (cited above), the Government argued that the investigating judge\u2019s orders contained detailed reasoning regarding the existence of \u201cgrounds for suspicion\u201d in respect of a criminal offence, as well as reasoning as to why an effective inquiry could not otherwise be achieved. The interference had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating and prosecuting the crime of drug trafficking, and had been proportionate to the circumstances, the gravity of the offence at issue and the applicants\u2019 criminal activity."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6d0dd8e5-6169-4e78-8654-90aaf96267d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government submitted that in respect of the first applicant, a search performed in his office may have constituted an interference within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the client applicants, the Government noted that correspondence with a lawyer falls under the protection of Article 8. However, the Government contested that there were any interference with the client applicants' rights. The Government argued that the applicants had not sufficiently substantiated their allegation that the retained copy of the fourth hard disk contained material which was unrelated to the offence under investigation. Furthermore, even if the disk did contain any material irrelevant to the investigated offence, that material could not have been used by the police. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b0fc456b-bea6-4a09-a0ac-ee465e2c8168", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["145.  The applicants claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The third applicant and the applicant companies each claimed 16,500 euros (EUR) with respect to the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and EUR 10,000 with respect to the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first and the second applicants left the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to be decided by the Court. The fourth applicant left the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage claimed in respect of the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to be decided by the Court."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a9efb7f5-6d17-41e0-8240-d0cf3a7c7a7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government contested the allegation of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Reference was made to sections 7(1), 10(1) and 11(3) of the Aliens\u2019 Domicile and Residence Act as well as to Article 16 \u00a7 3 of the ordinance implementing the Act, all of which had been duly published and which provided a sufficient legal basis for the interference. According to these provisions, the residence permit of the foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen would not be renewed if there was a ground for expulsion. The Swiss authorities were called upon to examine the proportionality of the measure. Given the offences which the applicant had committed in Switzerland, there could be no doubt that the refusal not to renew the residence permit was called for in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e3a03834-7d28-4758-85bf-062abbb1a149", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["3.  The applicant\u2019s expulsion order received comprehensive and exhaustive examination by the domestic courts in Norway, where Article 8 was also examined. The decision of the Directorate of Immigration was reviewed by the Immigration Appeals Board (\u00a7\u00a7 14, 15 and 19), by the Oslo City Court (\u00a7 20), by the Borgarting High Court (\u00a7\u00a7 20 and 21) and by the Supreme Court (\u00a7\u00a7 22 et sequens). At all these levels the domestic courts took into account and examined all the submissions advanced by the parties for and against the deportation order. We find it difficult to understand how and why, given the considerable margin of appreciation given to States in connection with immigration policy, and the fact that the domestic courts are best suited to appreciate the particular local exigencies on the one hand and the actual situation of the persons affected by the authorities\u2019 decision on the other hand[1], the Court found it necessary in this case to interfere in the final decision of the Supreme Court and go against it. In our view, the Supreme Court\u2019s decision was based on relevant and sufficient reasons and considerations. It is true that the Borgarting High Court quashed the Board\u2019s decision of the 23 February 2007. However it is clear that this is due to the fact that Norwegian law (section 29(2) of the Immigration Act 1988, see \u00a7 26) required a twofold and separate assessment of the proportionality or otherwise of the deportation measure \u2013 one vis-\u00e0-vis the foreign national to be deported, and another vis-\u00e0-vis \u201cthe closest members\u201d of his/her family. This dichotomy is artificial in the light of what must necessarily be a unitary concept of family life in Article 8. In any case, although the Borgarting High Court found that the measure would not be disproportionate as regards the applicant but that it would be disproportionate as regards the children, it nonetheless \u201cassumed that the decision of the 23 February 2007 was not incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention.\u201d (\u00a7 20)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9ad51251-312d-46ac-b3c6-16ef095649e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants complained that they had been held incommunicado during their time in police custody and claimed that they had not been able to contact their families for more than seven days. They submitted that, as a result, they had not been able to exercise their rights under Article 128 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, of which the relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5dd82dcd-f810-41a3-933b-30937904e0ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["206.  The Government insisted that there had been no breach of the applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued that there was no evidence that the damage to the applicants\u2019 homes and possessions could have been avoided if the Pionerskaya river channel had been cleaned up or an emergency warning system at the Pionerskoye reservoir had been in place. They referred to court decisions taken in the applicants\u2019 civil cases at the domestic level, stating that the alleged losses had been suffered as a result of a natural disaster, in the form of exceptionally heavy rain. The Government also stated that the relevant domestic legislation imposed no obligation on the State to refund the market value of damaged property, and that given the large number of residents affected by the flood of 7 August 2001, the financial aid accorded by the State could scarcely have been more generous; however, the authorities had distributed what financial support they could to all those affected by the flood, directly, automatically and irrespective of whether they produced proof of any actual pecuniary damage."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bd39658b-9da2-47a5-afec-950550da0448", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that medical documents concerning him (operation report of 2 April 1994) had been produced and used before the court, without his consent and without a medical expert having been appointed for such purpose. He alleged that this had entailed a breach of professional confidentiality and serious and unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, of which the relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "507df562-fc31-4d3a-a4d3-397d6270b15e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government did not accept that the Andorran courts had unduly prevented the applicant from having contact with his children. They argued that the State had complied with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. It stressed that all domestic decisions had been based on the best interests of the children, both judges and public prosecutors having had regard to the children\u2019s psychological and emotional situation. In this regard, the different judges and courts that had been called upon to decide matters had ordered that a number of psychological examinations be carried out. Those examinations had always suggested that the care and custody of the children ought to be granted to their mother and that a further psychological examination or treatment of the children ought to be performed before their father should be granted physical contact with them."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a1e2e25b-f448-4345-b966-f7df9865238e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. The Regional Court\u2019s refusal to recognise the applicant\u2019s right to occupy the room previously occupied by his partner had been in accordance with the law, and had pursued the legitimate aim of protection of public interests, namely the rights of the municipal authority. It had been necessary in a democratic society, since the vacant room had to be reallocated to persons in need of housing."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "46fb0d59-5c62-49f2-bd3c-1e209e24c81f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The Government argued that the domestic courts had been justified in their decision not to grant the applicants access to R. They pointed out that Article 67 of the Russian Family Code had established an exhaustive list of individuals entitled to have access to a child (see paragraph 66 above). Since the applicants had had neither blood ties with R., nor \u2013 after the first applicant\u2019s guardianship had been cancelled \u2013 legal ties with him, there had been no grounds in national law to grant them access to R. The Government also pointed out that \u2013 as had been established by the domestic courts \u2013 R.\u2019s medical condition had made it impossible to ascertain whether he had had any attachment to the applicants, and that therefore their argument to that end had been without foundation. They insisted therefore that, by refusing the applicants contact with R., the domestic authorities had not breached their right to respect for their family life under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8cddd11e-ec63-4e8b-9688-a45ffbd1df82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant companies did not dispute that employees, contracting parties, lawyers and other affected third parties must exhaust national remedies before they could enjoy an independent right to submit a complaint before the Court. However, this did not mean that the Court was prevented from considering the interests in question in its assessment of the applicant companies\u2019 protection under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bbd46961-600f-44e3-af9e-89d841a782b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had refused to provide redress to him. The relevant law permitted the District Court to issue, of its own initiative, an injunction allowing the applicant temporarily to meet his son. By failing to issue such an injunction the District Court had disregarded the positive obligations incumbent upon the respondent State under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "95318a89-f6a3-4c7a-a442-de36c9f5d166", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant complained that the State had failed to take appropriate actions to reunite her with her son and that the lengthy non\u2011enforcement of the writ of execution had breached her right to family life. She relied upon Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint of the authorities\u2019 failure to comply with their positive obligation to secure her right to respect for her family life is at the heart of the case and thus will examine the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Mihailova v. Bulgaria, no. 35978/02, \u00a7 107, 12 January 2006, and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, \u00a7 50, 10 January 2012)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a143d997-f230-4f13-8e00-245fc04229ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce the Centre\u2019s decisions regarding their right to have contact with M.M. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see S\u00f6derman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, \u00a7 57, ECHR 2013 Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, \u00a7 27, 27 April 2010), the Court finds it appropriate to examine these complaints only under Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the State\u2019s positive obligation in the sphere of family life. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dbe003b4-4929-40ba-83c3-a63f4f20eddd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that \u201cdomestic authorities dealing with the applicant's case undertook all possible actions in order to preserve the proper development of the applicant's relations with his children\u201d. The enforcement of a court order requiring the return of the applicant's children was hindered by M.C. who hid the children. In conclusion, the Government submitted that the facts of the case did not disclose a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and asked the Court to declare the case inadmissible as manifestly ill\u2011founded."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1e39afb2-f438-42bc-a7f6-06877ecc3170", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicants complained that the existence of the Certificate of Approval scheme and its application to them disproportionately interfered with their right to respect for their private and family life. They further complained that they were discriminated against in securing the enjoyment of this right. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention read alone and together with Article 14."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a3df88dc-ea51-4215-8541-6be9111b166a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained under Article 14 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the ground of gender in that he had been denied the right to take over a tenancy after the death of A.Z. He challenged in particular the domestic court\u2019s position that his relationship with A.Z. had amounted merely to an \u201ceconomic community\u201d and not to a \u201clong-lasting life community\u201d. This amounted also to a violation of his right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40f67e4f-c3cc-4589-a3d4-a543cea252fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant argued that a positive obligation could arise under Article <mask> of the Convention even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves. In the present case, he contended, the respondent State had an obligation to enable him to apply for an injunction by requiring that he be notified prior to publication of an article which interfered with his private life. The applicant emphasised that in his case details of the most intimate parts of his private life were published on the front page, and in several inside pages, of a newspaper with an estimated readership of approximately ten million people in the United Kingdom. Highly intrusive images made by means of secret recordings were also posted on the newspaper\u2019s website and inevitably reproduced elsewhere on the internet. The applicant considered that the judgment of Eady J made it clear that had he had an opportunity to apply for an injunction, an injunction would have been granted (see paragraphs 17-18 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9add6814-c767-4301-aeed-9f0273a7db8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the proceedings had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He also invoked Articles 3, 6 \u00a7 3 (c), 7 and 13 of the Convention without further explanation and at the time of submission of his just satisfaction awards."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "27a0b0aa-f755-407a-aee0-312383b94633", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained about a violation of her right to respect for her home raising, in particular, the following arguments: the search of 15 March 2002 had been unjustified; it had been based on a warrant with a wrong address and which was not amenable to appeal; the search had wrongly been conducted in the entire property; it had been performed with brutality; and the police officers had planted drugs and arms. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in the relevant part, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8ac927b3-67e9-47d3-acc2-52aba95dbdaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["1.  The applicant alleges that the prohibition under Italian law on donating embryos conceived through medically assisted reproduction to scientific research is incompatible with her right to respect for private life. The Court has ruled that her ability to exercise a conscious and considered choice regarding \u201cthe fate of her embryos\u201d concerns an intimate aspect of her personal life and, accordingly, relates to her right to \u201cself-determination\u201d (see paragraph 159 of the present judgment). On this basis, it concludes that Article <mask> of the Convention is applicable. It proceeds to find no violation because, inter alia, the ban was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d to protect the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bc697ca7-46c4-46bf-a63e-db80449a06d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant, citing the case-law of the Court, pointed out that under Article <mask> of the Convention the national authorities had been required to take adequate steps to ensure that his right to the return of his child was respected and that he could visit P. regularly. He complained that, since 1998, M.P. had intentionally and continuously evaded the Slovenian authorities, not attending hearings and other meetings at the Centre and obstructing his access to P. According to the applicant, M.P.\u2019s behaviour amounted to child abduction under the Hague Convention and the domestic criminal law, and thus required the authorities to act of their own motion."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "180a1ffb-168e-4427-9b70-be44b11ed3a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government objected that the applicant had not exhausted all effective remedies. In particular, he had not claimed compensation in separate civil proceedings, despite the fact that he had been entitled to do so. Such a possibility had been open to him pending the criminal proceedings and after they had been stayed. In the latter case, he could have claimed damages in the civil courts until 2 December 2007 (see paragraph 22 above). Domestic practice supported that opportunity (see paragraphs 43 and 44 above). The applicant had been required to exhaust the civil remedy given the fact that the criminal avenue of redress had been ineffective in his case. In this connection they noted the fact that the applicant had not known the identity of the author. They further stated that the two available avenues of redress, both criminal and civil, had been open, at the relevant time, to a victim of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, since in both cases the domestic courts could order a measure rectifying the eventual damage to the victim\u2019s reputation. Those remedies could have been used simultaneously or independently."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e7d98163-dc45-4457-af93-ae900f0bc93e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained that during the first ten years of his post\u2011conviction detention in the special-regime correctional colony his ability to receive visits from his wife and other family members had been severely curtailed. The applicant was dissatisfied, in particular, with the lack of conjugal visits during his detention in the special-regime correctional colony. In his submissions of 12 May 2014 the applicant also complained that during his pre-trial detention between November 1994 and October 1995 his wife and family members had not been allowed to visit him in remand prison. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d8343eac-96ad-4794-8245-119cf907b36b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant company submitted that neither Articles 22 and 144 of the Constitution, nor Article <mask> of the Convention, nor Articles 584 and 1035 of the Judicial Code (nor Articles 18 and 19 of the same Code in the case of proceedings on the merits), nor Article 1382 of the Civil Code constituted a law within the meaning of the Convention authorising the courts to take a preventive measure entailing restrictions."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8a031e4e-1978-440c-94b5-fc52591c74eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicant next contended that the interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the temporary occupation of his estate by the consolidated police units had not been justified. He argued that the Government's reference to \u201ca situation of war or public emergency which threatens the life of the nation\u201d was unconvincing as a state of emergency had never been declared either nationwide or within the area of the counter-terrorist operation and that in any event the Russian authorities had never availed themselves of their right under Article 15 of the Convention to derogate from their obligations under the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eff5e635-184e-4180-959e-ee44736e352b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The Government argued, as their main submission, that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the circumstances of the applicants, who could not claim that there was \u201cfamily life\u201d meriting protection under that provision. They submitted that, although the applicants had been acknowledged as the adoptive parents of Florentina and Mariana in final judicial decisions, that fact alone should not be regarded as bringing their cases within the scope of Article 8, seeing that no family life had ever existed in practice. They observed in that connection that the applicants had never met their adopted daughters in their capacity as parents and had never enjoyed genuine family relations with them."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bc130bda-3b64-478e-8bda-eadcd1fd53f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submitted that the search warrant had been in compliance with the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention. The decision to carry out a search had been based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicants might have committed tax evasion between 2002 and 2006. Moreover, the search warrant had been subjected to prior judicial control and contained reasons justifying its issuance. Accordingly, the applicants had enjoyed sufficient safeguards against abuse."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d3cbb6fa-476e-48df-9167-3c95d4c3a8ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant is an Uzbek national of Russian origin who has been living in Russia since 2003. Admittedly, not all settled migrants, no matter how long they have been residing in the country from which they are to be expelled, necessarily enjoy \u201cfamily life\u201d there within the meaning of Article 8 (see Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, \u00a7 63, ECHR 2008). However, the concept of \u201cfamily life\u201d must at any rate include the relationships that arise from a lawful and genuine marriage (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, \u00a7 62), such as that contracted by the applicant with his Russian spouse and in which their child was born. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the facts of the case fall \u201cwithin the ambit\u201d of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "84e5b029-8a26-49d1-831e-998b6262c509", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant complained that the Austrian courts had violated his right to respect for his family life in that they had not taken all the necessary measures that could reasonably be expected to ensure the swift return of his children. In particular, he argued that they had not made sufficient attempts to locate C.B. and the children and had not applied any other coercive measures under section 110 taken in conjunction with section 79(2) of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "22d001d8-ed31-4b79-803c-94b0b37de83a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submitted that the interference, if any, in the applicant\u2019s right to reputation, was not of such severity to attract the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Minister\u2019s statements were made in the context of a public debate surrounding the question of medical management of the penal system, and the applicant participated therein by responding to the Minister\u2019s accusations publicly. They reiterated the findings of the domestic courts that the applicant was to be regarded as a public figure due to her activities in the penal institutions in view of which the limits of permissible criticism towards her were wider."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ec47e0dd-e8f1-4943-acd2-c33cfb300772", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants complained of discrimination based on their sex and sexual orientation because of their permanent exclusion from the legal institution of a registered partnership. Maintaining the arguments they had already raised in the domestic proceedings (see paragraph 9 above), they argued that marriage was not a suitable alternative for them because of the differences between the legal frameworks governing marriage and the registered partnership. In their view, Article <mask> of the Convention did not oblige the Contracting States to introduce a registered partnership as such; however, if a State decided to do so, it was barred from excluding couples from this new partnership institution solely on the basis of their sex and sexual orientation. Moreover, the applicants argued that the Court\u2019s conclusions in the case of Schalk and Kopf, which had concerned the opposite situation (namely a same-sex couple being denied access to marriage), could not be applied in the present case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "44b20e0f-f915-4981-8938-ae61b6762b7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant also complained that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached because her child\u2019s health condition had been the subject of an open dispute before the domestic courts during the pension proceedings. Moreover, the applicant claimed that her son had been examined in person by a court-appointed medical expert, which had caused him considerable stress. Lastly, the applicant complained that the report produced by the expert had been transferred to the Rzesz\u00f3w Social Security Board."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "25ff67e7-f484-4cdc-9395-5d22dd0ed3ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government, in their additional observations of 23 March 2004 following the Court\u2019s decision as to the admissibility of the application on 8 January 2004, contended for the first time that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that it had been open to her, pursuant to Article 46 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Russian Constitution and section 4 of the Russian law \u201cOn appeals to a court against acts and decisions violating citizens\u2019 rights\u201d, to lodge a complaint with a court about the unlawful acts of the police officers who had enforced her eviction on 4 September 1998. However, the applicant had not used this remedy. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ab0b4644-0ca3-40e0-94d1-fb1f3043741e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that conversations with his lawyer were conducted through a glass wall and were overheard or possibly even recorded and that the authorities had failed to provide proper conditions for private discussions with his lawyer. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I, \u00a7 44), decided to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention and to obtain the parties' submissions thereon."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cf2f15cf-336e-468e-bb45-6bc22df0d333", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained that Article 1600 of the Civil Code as construed by the Berlin Court of Appeal had discriminated against him in his capacity as a biological father compared to the mother, the legal father and the child. He further complained that the legal parents and the child were allowed to request biological testing of descent outside paternity proceedings, whereas the alleged biological father had no such right. He relied on Article 14, read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention; the former provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eb0ceff9-8e35-44e5-9540-702fbb5237d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant alleged that the proceedings before Baden District Court, which ended with the decision of 17 February 2006, had, in a number of ways, breached his right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed in particular that the court had clearly exceeded the six-week time-limit for reaching a decision on the child's return, as provided for by Article 11, second paragraph, of the Hague Convention, especially because it had merged the proceedings concerning the child's return with the divorce proceedings. He further claimed that the domestic courts had obliged him to prove, contrary to the clear wording of Article 13, first paragraph, of the Hague Convention, that he had not consented to the child's retention in Switzerland. He thus relied on Article 8 of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6afed285-a5a2-4b72-a2ea-2ecc81dfd110", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government contested that the applicant\u2019s exclusion from Russia had violated his right to respect for his family life. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the decision to exclude him had been taken within the competence of the Federal Security Service and had been dictated by the need to protect Russia\u2019s national security. The relevant procedure had also been complied with. They stated in general terms that \u201cin refusing to grant the appeal, the courts had information which served as the basis for the decision [to exclude the applicant]\u201d. They further stressed that the applicant\u2019s exclusion for five years was not disproportionate as such a ban appeared reasonable in comparison with the one of ten years imposed on the applicant in Lupsa v. Romania (no. 10337/04, ECHR 2006\u2011VII). Furthermore, referring to the cases of Samsonnikov v. Estonia (no. 52178/10, 3 July 2012) and Senchishak v. Finland (no. 5049/12, 18 November 2014), the Government argued that the applicant was not a long-term migrant as he had not grown up in Russia. Therefore his move to Kazakhstan had not represented an extreme hardship for him."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e426ef67-3a87-4581-a1c6-aa07e324eed4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted that Article 14 was not applicable in the present case. In their view, in S. v. the United Kingdom (no. 11716/85, Commission decision of 14 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 274) and R\u00f6\u00f6sli v. Germany (no. 28318/95, Commission decision of 15 May 1996), the Commission had indicated that the protection of the family was a legitimate aim capable of justifying a difference in treatment and that a stable homosexual relationship between two men did not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Commission had also found that the deportation of an alien who was in a same-sex relationship with a person in the host State did not amount to an interference with the right guaranteed by that provision (see X and Y v. the United Kingdom, no. 9369/81, Commission decision of 3 May 1983, DR 32, p. 223; W.J. and D.P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 12513/86, Commission decision of 13 July 1987; and C. and L.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 14753/89, Commission decision of 9 October 1989)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "68ffe002-9307-4c58-8906-a6863b385e94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that in examining Mr Raza\u2019s application for judicial review the Supreme Administrative Court had fully and objectively analysed the factual and legal grounds for the expulsion order, and had given convincing reasons why the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention was justified in the circumstances. Its decision was well\u2011founded and lawful."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1908d0a1-43f0-4860-a11f-49bb421eb81f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government agreed that the search and seizure of the applicant's office constituted an interference within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case the police had been asked in 2008 to investigate an economic crime that had allegedly been committed a few years earlier. The applicant, who represented the suspect's spouse C., had refused to give a witness statement and therefore she had been heard in her office on 7 October 2009. In the course of this hearing it had become apparent that the applicant had in her possession materials relevant to the investigation. She had refused to hand these materials over to the police, invoking the obligation of professional secrecy of lawyers. The police had contacted C. who had given her consent to the delivery of the materials in question to the police."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f024a80a-9bc9-4dd9-8531-f1ae50db686f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to rely expressly on Article <mask> of the Convention in his application to the Court. The Government also stressed that the investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations had been effective, as the police and the State Attorney\u2019s Office had reacted promptly and had acted according to law. Namely, a couple of hours after the alleged attack the police had interviewed the applicant and five days later had instituted the minor offence proceedings. The police had also informed the applicant of the course of the investigation. Following a request by the State Attorney\u2019s Office, the police had undertaken further interviews and had obtained relevant medical documentation. The State Attorney\u2019s Office had gathered all relevant information and had lodged an indictment. The abandonment of the prosecution of I.\u0160. by the State Attorney\u2019s Office had been sufficiently reasoned and had not been arbitrary. The decision to abandon the prosecution had been vindicated when the Dubrovnik County Court had upheld the first-instance judgment by which I.\u0160. had been acquitted. The State Attorney\u2019s Office had also prosecuted I.\u0160. for the offence of making serious threats. However, the criminal investigation had not shown that any offence warranting public prosecution had been committed. The Government stressed that there was no obligation under the Convention for criminal proceedings to result in a conviction."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b644f838-02e3-4b7d-b518-315e8cf6a4b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies regarding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, taken on its own. They observed that he had not invoked any Convention Articles in his appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. He had simply stated, referring to the case of Zaunegger (cited above), that every father should be able to apply to the domestic courts for shared parental authority, even if the mother is opposed to it, as this is in the children\u2019s best interests. Considering that in Zaunegger the Court had found a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, the Federal Supreme Court had examined the compatibility of the Appeal Court\u2019s decision with those provisions taken together. As the Court had not examined Article 8 taken on its own and the applicant had not invoked that Convention Article, the Federal Supreme Court had not done so either."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "af5258bc-216c-4747-9efb-61909c353aeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants also submitted that the Convention prohibits States from attaching further negative effects to prior human-rights violations also where those violations have not been challenged, so the fact that they had not challenged their convictions before the Court was therefore irrelevant. Sexual autonomy and prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation were general principles of European law, and the Government were therefore under an obligation to provide sound reasons to justify the necessity of continuing the negative consequences of their convictions under article 209 of the Criminal Code. Since they had failed to do so, there had been a breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b8e43fbc-a6e0-4608-96ea-40d39d396270", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.   The applicants submitted that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the disclosure of information concerning the first applicant\u2019s pregnancy and their situation to priest K.P. and to the general public. They complained about the press release about the case issued by the management of the Lublin hospital, communication of information to the hospital in Warsaw concerning the first applicant\u2019s identity, her situation and her and her mother\u2019s wish to have the pregnancy terminated, and the disclosure of the applicants\u2019 identity and whereabouts to the general public and the ensuing harassment by various third parties."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8da08113-817e-4753-886c-42d03976e38a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government argued that the \u201cfamily life\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, between the applicants and R. had only existed as long as the first applicant had officially remained R.\u2019s guardian. They furthermore stressed that during that period R. had not lost ties with his natural parents, who, as the domestic courts had established, had not failed in their parental duties, and had provided financial support to him. In such circumstances, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant\u2019s complaints in respect of any infringement of their \u201cfamily life\u201d were incompatible ratione materiae with Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5e5fe3f3-9f89-42f4-8f3a-00c887ab299d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decisions to order the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. They further pointed out that the eviction order had not been enforced and that the applicants continued to reside in the flat."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6c507eab-621e-4ea6-ba80-4ff1409f3c57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government further acknowledged that, at times, video surveillance of the applicants\u2019 cells had been performed by female operators of CCTV cameras. They argued that this had been standard practice compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they pointed out that, under the relevant regulations regarding the recruitment of staff of law-enforcement agencies, any Russian national, irrespective of, among other things, his or her gender, who met specific requirements and was capable of performing the relevant professional duties, could be employed as an officer of such agencies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "64018702-017d-4dbd-ac9e-a3e7e2531412", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant contended that his secret surveillance had been unlawful because it had not been based on orders containing proper reasoning by the investigating judge, as required under the relevant domestic law and the case-law of the Constitutional Court. Referring to the Court\u2019s findings in the Dragojevi\u0107 case (cited above), he also argued that the domestic authorities had failed to demonstrate that the interference with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence had been justified and necessary, as required under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6482d735-a850-4ef7-acf6-31ff94ec0100", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant\u2019s remaining complaints regarding the lack of protective measures afforded to her in the criminal proceedings raise certain questions about the scope of the State\u2019s obligation to protect victims of crime appearing as witnesses in criminal proceedings. In the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court takes the view that these issues should be considered under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4094af3b-ae8f-4eca-9aab-4dadcdc5148e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant submitted that the facts of her case should be examined under the concepts of private and family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she stressed that it clearly followed from the Court\u2019s case-law that a stable de facto relationship between same-sex couples should be considered as family life under that provision. In her case, she was in a stable relationship with D.B. with whom she maintained a relationship by constant visits for the periods of three months in which she was allowed to stay in Croatia without a residence permit."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2d4a80e7-207c-4d13-8886-c80a33fca83e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant alleged that, during his detention in the Netherlands Antilles, the prison authorities interfered in his exchange of correspondence with his lawyers, the European Commission of Human Rights, Mr Gebhardt who represented him in the proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights, the prosecution authorities of the Netherlands Antilles, the British Consul and private persons. He claimed that his correspondence was opened and read by the prison authorities and that he was prevented from establishing contacts outside prison because of the extremely limited facilities available to him to write letters or telephone. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads in so far as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "19f257ec-b524-4932-8f87-b3ab43eabc81", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained of the censorship of the correspondence with his family members. He further complained that he had been allowed visits from family members once a month and that during the visits he had been separated from his relatives by a glass partition and talked to them through an interphone. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads in so far as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "747837ad-3ec9-42bb-b8bb-42332b711900", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government, having to reply only to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, did not deny that the impugned court decisions ordering the child's return to her father constituted interference with the child's right to respect for her family life. They were of the opinion, however, that this interference fulfilled the conditions of Article 8 \u00a7 2."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "53ab584b-a705-4337-983b-ad0c4e2a92eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant submitted that he had been treated differently due to his religious convictions in respect of the enjoyment of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention from other persons seeking access rights to their children following divorce or separation. In particular, he submitted that the domestic authorities\u2019 decision withdrawing his access rights in respect of his son on the basis of his religious beliefs had amounted to an unjustifiable interference with his right to respect for family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5a54eba7-1764-4d02-ac27-1ac50f23b608", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant argued that Article 8 was clearly engaged by the covert surveillance of consultations with his legal advisor. Although he accepted that the purposes identified in the legislation permitting covert surveillance amounted to a legitimate aim, he maintained that the relevant legal framework failed both the \u201cquality of law\u201d and \u201cnecessity\u201d tests under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9fe130f9-7342-4343-b38d-90fc7edc97bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant companies, disputing the Government\u2019s contention, maintained that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been fulfilled. The core issue in the domestic proceedings had been whether the tax authorities had had the necessary statutory authority to carry out the contested measures thereby coercing them to surrender the relevant backup tape for inspection at the tax office. That issue was now the subject of their complaint to the Court. Referring to their written pleadings before the Supreme Court (see paragraphs 31-37 above) and also to certain parts of the High Court\u2019s reasoning (see paragraph 30 above), they stressed that they had clearly raised before the national courts the matter they were now pursuing under the Convention. As could be seen from their domestic pleadings, the applicant companies had expressly invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and had clearly argued the substance of their complaint before the national courts, which thus had had the opportunity, both in fact and in law, to assess the matter under this Article."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "de761152-4bb9-44f7-8358-52ce630b7ef5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["158.  The applicants complained that the searches of their premises violated their right to respect for their private lives and homes because: (i) the warrants permitted entry and search \u201con one occasion\u201d only which could not be equated with continuous occupation; (ii) the warrants were drawn too widely, thereby permitting search for, and seizure of, almost any item of property. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a513c5a4-9dbe-41c2-a801-2fed0bd24099", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant company argued that the images recorded by the use of a hidden camera concerned the behaviour of a public figure who had been at the time a member of the Hellenic Parliament and chairman of the inter-party committee on the widespread use of electronic gambling. Therefore his participation in gambling games had been a matter of public interest in the light of A.C.\u2019s public role and could have affected his duties as a member of parliament and as chairman of the parliamentary committee on electronic gambling. Viewers had had the right to learn the truth about an elected deputy. In any event, electronic gambling had been a matter of general interest in Greece at the time as many citizens had been financially destroyed owing to their participation in similar games. That had been the reason why the two television shows had prepared the broadcasts in question. In view of the above, the broadcasting of videos that had been filmed by the use of a hidden camera had been necessary, and A.C.\u2019s right to private life had been outweighed by the applicant company\u2019s right to impart information concerning a matter of public interest. Both the National Radio and Television Council (which had imposed the administrative sanctions) and the Supreme Administrative Court (which had dismissed the application for annulment) had failed in the present case to strike a fair balance between the applicant company\u2019s right under Article 10 and A.C.\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dfe1452d-75c6-4890-a1ad-3f98c1ca2054", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants contended that there was no opportunity before the County Court to test the proportionality of the interference with their Article 8 rights because the gateway (b) defence (see paragraph 20 above) was insufficiently broad to permit the issue of proportionality to be considered by the county court and because, in any event, the facts relevant to the issue of proportionality were not determined by the court. The only defences available in a case such as the applicants' were that the relevant law was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention or that the decision of the public authority to recover possession was one that no reasonable person would consider justifiable, which set a higher threshold than that required under the Article 8 \u00a7 2 test of proportionality."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bc6badb7-ca51-458d-9c31-72f3e7335733", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the Swedish courts\u2019 protracted custody proceedings, including their handling of his request under the Hague Convention, and the Tax Authority\u2019s decision to remove N. from the population register, constituted a violation of his and his daughter\u2019s right to family life as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention. He also relied on Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "21917abf-a800-4241-a656-8717044d85ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that, to the extent that the drafting of the report was to be regarded as an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, it had been in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the material time. Furthermore, it had been necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety and the prevention of disorder."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2868ff4d-71ae-4be5-97d6-cfb4ade2af17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant maintained that the domestic courts\u2019 decision not to grant him compensation and legal costs violated his right under Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that he should not have to accept being called a rapist without having been convicted of such a crime. In the applicant\u2019s opinion, the domestic courts\u2019 conclusions meant that anyone could call him a rapist in speech or in writing without him being able to defend himself."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "36d20f82-6ed4-4d15-981b-d35b883f17ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government emphasised that even supposing that there had been interference, the German legal system guaranteed sufficient protection. They observed that the present application did not concern the applicant\u2019s right to seek an injunction against the advertisement (Unterlassungsansruch), which the Regional Court had recognised and which had therefore not been the subject of the impugned proceedings. The question was not whether but how the German courts should have intervened. On that point the Government took the view that the possibility provided for in German law of applying for an injunction provided adequate protection against advertising. The applicant had not in fact made any attempt to seek protection against the advertisement, but rather had hoped to derive a pecuniary advantage, even though Article <mask> of the Convention did not provide for any such compensation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5e0a3fb4-1efc-445f-8ac8-e3b7b1238519", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant complained that during his detention he had been deprived of personal contact with his family. He complained that the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 4 July 2008 refusing a visit by his wife and sons had been arbitrary and that the domestic law had not indicated with reasonable clarity the scope of the prosecutor\u2019s discretion. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which provides as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "99ccaee0-8845-47f9-983b-53f7456dd83d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decisions to order the applicant\u2019s eviction had constituted an inference with her rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. They further pointed out that the applicant had resided in the flat for only eleven months. Such a brief period could not have resulted in the applicant establishing close ties with the flat as her home. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicant had a place to live."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d2d43394-345c-47ca-9d99-68b525355b96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d81ee4c0-d886-4320-bb7b-eb93386ab801", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained that the adoption of K.O.S. had adversely affected her family life and had completely blocked her attempt to become his legal tutor. Allegedly, this interference with her right to respect for her family life had been unlawful, disproportionate and arbitrary. The applicant also stated that it had not been in the child\u2019s interests, as his links with the applicant, his half-sister and his grandparents had been essentially severed by the impugned adoption. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "daaac04a-2152-4304-a517-7fc068110473", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint did not fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention because the impugned advertisement only mentioned his forename, which was very common and could not on its own have suggested any connection with him. Only the allusion to the circumstances surrounding the publication of the applicant\u2019s book \u2013 which, indeed, were attributable to him \u2013 had linked the advertisement to the applicant. The Government asserted that the only option available to the applicant was to seek an injunction, under Article 8 of the Convention, against any further public reference to the incidents in question. However, the company had agreed to the applicant\u2019s request to refrain from further publication of the advertisement. The Government took the view that although Article 8 protected an individual\u2019s reputation, it did not confer any right to compensation in the form of a notional licence where the individual\u2019s reputation had been damaged by his own behaviour."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dcd912ae-c09a-4be2-a2cd-f22f167e24de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant claimed that in substance she had also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention with regard to the restrictions on her liberty, her immobilisation and the medical treatment she had received against her will during her stays in Dr Heines\u2019s clinic both from 1977 to 1979 and in 1981. She argued that these facts should also be examined under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "604bc917-d43d-4fbb-a2f6-1eb22d77bfd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. While they accepted that matters such as dignity and personal autonomy fell within the ambit of Article 8, they argued that the care provided to the applicant during the relevant period had respected her dignity and private life even if it was not the care package that she had wanted. However, the Government accepted that if the Court were to find that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 8, that interference would have constituted a violation from 21 November 2008 to 4 November 2009 because it was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d as required by the second paragraph of that Article."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0e8244d8-60ac-4a9e-81e0-8ded8eb598c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government admitted that the refusal to return of the child to the USA had constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the child, and had been necessary in the circumstances. As regards the length of proceedings, the Government pointed out that the applicant had contributed to it significantly as he had failed to provide the courts with the information relevant to his case and had changed his position on the facts during the course of the proceedings, which had complicated the overall examination of the case by the courts."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "33d8e058-2b02-490a-84bd-8939c0f40a90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government admitted that the applicant\u2019s eviction had constituted an inference with her right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. Lastly, the Government submitted that the flat had not been recovered by the State and the applicant continued to reside there."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8e558200-9e4a-4e6e-9c44-9715fda1690c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant further contended that the relationship he enjoyed with his children belonged to the sphere of family life protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he contested the Government\u2019s argument that the interference with his family life had been lawful under Article 13 \u00a7 2 of the Hague Convention. Moreover, by refusing to return his children to the U.S., the Romanian courts had forced him to become a party to divorce\u2011and\u2011custody proceedings in two different countries and had ignored the proceedings pending before the American courts. Furthermore, he had been unable to exercise his parental rights because of the geographical distance."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "88a002b7-6554-4330-b267-911d99752eaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant submitted that his dismissal by his employer had been based on a breach of his right to respect for his private life and correspondence and that, by not revoking that measure, the domestic courts had failed to comply with their obligation to protect the right in question. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1a87f750-5d01-4092-9cfa-344a86ff2bf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government accepted that the residence prohibition interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life. In the Government\u2019s view, the measure at issue was justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention as being in accordance with the law, namely the relevant provisions of the 1992 and 1997 Aliens Act. In this respect they submitted that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Section 38 \u00a7 1 (4) of the 1997 Aliens Act, as he clearly had not grown up in Austria from an early age onwards since he had left Austria when he was only seven months old and did not return until he was ten. This had also been pointed out in the reasoning of the domestic authorities\u2019 decisions of 25 March and 27 April 1998 which dismissed his application for lifting the residence prohibition. The measure also pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the penalty, the Government argued that the measure had been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the Austrian authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "05bb27b8-681e-46b0-9173-31374af1ef76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["158.  The applicant also stated that the impugned refusals affected her adversely as she felt Austrian and did not want to have Bulgarian identity papers. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court cannot accept that the alleged emotional distress resulting from the applicant\u2019s being \u201cforced\u201d to remain Bulgarian citizen amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her private life as protected by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e9e84bcf-4d8b-4281-bfe1-8d1940d565ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government further considered that the applicant could not plead that a decision on the application was in the public interest, because the Court had already clarified the relevant issues regarding Article <mask> of the Convention in its Pretty judgment (cited above), and Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention was not applicable to a case in which the immediate victim of a measure taken by the State had died before lodging an application with the Court."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b9f7374e-ea42-4fcd-b7a2-d800cad2f430", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicants claimed that the intrusion by the Russian military into their house on 10 December 2002 and the ensuing search had been unlawful and had infringed their right to respect for their home, private and family life, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants further complained that the seizure of their belongings during the search on 10 December 2002 had not been justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Those Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a5feaadf-34af-4933-9a8d-d50b1c09f0ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the withdrawal of night-time care disproportionately interfered with her right to respect for her private life. In the alternative, she complained that by withdrawing the service the respondent State was in breach of its positive obligation to provide her with a service which enabled her to live with dignity. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "562232c3-4402-423a-bde3-7e9bfbae814f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government argued before the Court that Chapter 25 of the CCP constituted an effective remedy in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant, in turn, insisted that the suggested remedy was ineffective and that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 29 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1bd921f3-600f-496b-9999-f0d67fdcdb45", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government accepted that the exercise of the right to enter the applicant\u2019s home by the investigating officer had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered however that the interference had been justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention: the investigator had acted in accordance with Articles 178 and 179 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, which laid down the scope and manner of exercise of the power conferred on the investigator to inspect the scene of the crime; that his actions pursued the legitimate aim of investigating the incident of forgery of an official document; and that they were necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "819ee732-cfd1-4c25-ad53-40977598deab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant also complained that (i) the decisions to order her to undergo a psychiatric examination and to arrest her, (ii) her detention for a total period of eighty-three days, and (iii) the restriction on her right to see members of her family to one visit every month while in detention, were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f67bf1f2-36c8-418d-be90-775656a9472b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["428.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, given that they had been at an advanced stage of the adoption procedure and a bond had already been formed between the prospective adoptive parents and the children, the introduction and application to them of the ban on the adoption of Russian children by nationals of the United States provided by Law no. 272-FZ constituted an unlawful and disproportionate interference with their family life. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "359058b3-a92a-4449-a656-b17b790710af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government concluded, in view of the above, that the present case was different from Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007) where the Court had refused to apply the \u201creasonable likelihood\u201d test because of the absence of any safeguards against unlawful interception in Bulgaria. Given that Russian law provided for adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse in the sphere of interception of communications, including available remedies, in the Government\u2019s opinion the applicant could not claim an interference as a result of the mere existence of legislation permitting secret surveillance. In the absence of a \u201creasonable likelihood\u201d that his telephone communications had been intercepted, he could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "89dd6168-4a3a-42ad-baba-ba4543cee94a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government referred to the Court\u2019s conclusions in Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above, and acknowledged that before 2008 the first applicant had had no domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in 2009 the SSMA had been amended and a special parliamentary commission had been created whose task was to oversee the services authorised to use covert surveillance measures. The Government observed that the commission was empowered, under certain conditions, to notify individuals of unlawful surveillance measures used in respect of them. Finally, they stated that the new point 7 of section 2(1) of the SMRDA introduced in March 2009 had made it possible to seek damages in respect of unlawful interception of communications."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "87897763-91ba-436b-ab39-a873c3a7a9d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that his privacy had not been respected during the strip search in the stairwell, because the doors leading to the stairwell had transparent glass windows. His search could therefore have been seen by other prisoners who had been waiting behind the door to be let into the building. It was impossible to conduct strip searches privately in the stairwell; such searches should have been carried out in specially designated rooms located on each floor of the building."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d5997d83-b069-4241-ac10-5dfa998525c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["147.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had never raised any of the specific allegations in the present complaint before any domestic authority and had never relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, or provisions of domestic law of the same or a similar nature, in his applications to the domestic authorities. The Government noted that, under Article 449 of the CCrP, it was open to the applicant to complain to the domestic courts about any actions of the prosecuting or investigating authorities that violated his rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a5caa7d6-c83b-4a9c-a4ee-4b22a47a6618", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government highlighted the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in the present case. That margin depended on the nature of the activities in question and the aim pursued by the restrictions. In its recent case-law, the Court had moreover left the State a broad margin of appreciation in cases concerning Article <mask> of the Convention (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, \u00a7 66, 9 April 2009, and Armonien\u0117 v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, \u00a7 38, 25 November 2008). Generally speaking, the margin enjoyed by the States was broader where there was no European consensus. In the Government\u2019s submission, whilst there was admittedly a trend towards harmonisation of the legal systems in Europe, differences nevertheless remained, as evidenced by the failure of the negotiations for the adoption of a regulation of the European Union on conflict-of-law rules regarding non-contractual obligations (Regulation EC No. 864/2007 of 11 July 2007 \u2013 Rome II Regulation). The margin of appreciation was also broad where the national authorities had to strike a balance between competing private and public interests or Convention rights (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, \u00a7 78, ECHR 2007\u2011V, and Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, \u00a7 77, ECHR 2007\u2011I). Moreover, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union apparently took the same approach (cases of Schmidberger of 12 June 2003, C-112/00, and Omega of 14 October 2004, C-36/02)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "335d7887-c3f6-45a8-9e93-80034ff09337", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the enforcement order issued in the administrative proceedings instituted in 1988 had never been carried out. He further complained that the courts had taken no action about the length of the civil proceedings he instituted in April 2002 in the Split Municipal Court seeking the eviction of Z.G. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to respect for his home had been infringed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "db0a9cf7-b003-4c25-9e0a-1c010e956635", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government maintained that Article 8 was not applicable to the case since the issue at stake was only the personal comfort of the applicant, who had wanted to give birth at home, which could not be part of her right to respect for her private life. There was no scientific proof that giving birth in a medical facility could in any way damage the physical or psychological integrity of a mother or child and thus the legislation concerning home birth as such could not be the subject of an examination by the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b2ae7f9f-2e1e-42a1-8435-1d0d027833af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government further submitted that the interference in issue had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. Not only had the legal provisions on which the domestic courts had based their decisions been accessible, but the Court of Cassation\u2019s position had been entirely foreseeable. Its case-law concerning preventive and restrictive measures affecting the exercise of freedom of expression had been well established since the judgment of 9 December 1981 (see paragraph 39 above) and had been applied on many subsequent occasions. In addition, the Belgian Parliament had had occasion to enact a number of measures entailing general bans on expression, for example through Articles 383 and 378 bis of the Criminal Code. A reading of Article 144 of the Constitution and Article 18, second paragraph, Article 19, second paragraph, and Articles 584 and 1039 of the Judicial Code, taken together, suggested that preventive measures affecting the exercise of freedom of expression could be taken by the urgent-applications judge on an interim basis, in the event of an emergency, to prevent the infringement of a civil right protected by the Constitution and the Convention, after the judge had weighed up the interests at stake, such measures being limited to cases involving flagrant violations of the rights of others. Lastly, the Court of Cassation had taken the view that only the provisions of the Judicial Code and Article 144 of the Constitution counted as the \u201claw\u201d forming the basis for the interference in issue, and not Article <mask> of the Convention, which could serve solely as the legitimate aim that could be pursued by an interference with freedom of expression but not as the law on which the interference was based."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e9ab8072-c053-42dd-bafb-c73cb1a9b26f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government agreed that the search and seizure at the applicant's home constituted an interference within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Because of the urgency of the matter, the search had been conducted on the basis of an order given orally by an officer with power of arrest only a few hours after the arrival in Finland of persons suspected of illegally entering the country. It had been necessary to conduct the search immediately to verify whether there had been other such persons in the applicant's home, and to ensure that no evidence of an offence had been destroyed. Therefore, in the Government's view, there had been a justified reason, as required by Chapter 5, section 5, subsection 2, of the Coercive Measures Act, to conduct the search at 10 p.m. The search had been performed for the purposes of the prevention of crime and it had therefore pursued a legitimate aim. It had not been possible to inform the applicant about the possibility to be present during the search as neither her telephone number nor that of her counsel had been known to the officers. The applicant had, however, been immediately informed about the search by a hand-written note left in her apartment, mentioning, inter alia, the contact details of the officers who had carried out the search. The written search warrant and the records of the seizure had been communicated to the applicant as soon as she had been located for the purposes of questioning, namely a day and a half after the search. The search and seizure had thus been carried out in accordance with the law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bfbb41b0-5d4a-4e98-9b90-ea9a877abff0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government accepted that the domestic authorities had been unable to organise a meeting between the applicant and his daughter until February 2017. However, they had taken all the necessary steps that could have reasonably been required to secure the applicant\u2019s contact with the child. There had been no omissions or delays in the conduct of the enforcement proceedings, which had been handled with due regard to the best interests of the child and the family as a whole. The Government noted that the unresolved conflict between the applicant and the child\u2019s mother had rendered the judgment\u2019s enforcement very difficult: A.D. had been absent from home at the time scheduled for meetings because the child had been unwilling to see the applicant; had strongly opposed the applicant\u2019s presence while the bailiff was carrying out enforcement actions; had hidden the child; and had complained that the bailiff\u2019s actions had put too much pressure on her. She had made it clear to the bailiffs that no meetings between the applicant and the child would take place. The Government accordingly concluded that the State had complied with their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to ensure the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life and that there had been no violation of that Convention provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e68de228-b41f-49f3-a2c9-75da6bc13e5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicants contended that the secret surveillance carried out in respect of them had been unlawful because it had not been based on orders by the investigating judge containing proper reasoning. They also argued that the domestic authorities had failed to demonstrate that the interference with their right to respect for their private life and correspondence had been justified and necessary, as required under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "849a6cdf-adb8-4359-91e0-a13d6bef9eb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 arguments and argued that the restrictions provided for in the domestic regulations were necessary to maintain order and were completely reasonable. According to the Government, the applicants had been able to receive visits twice a week for two hours and use the telephone for at least ten minutes twice a week. The Government further submitted that the applicants Mr Klan\u0161ek and Mr Duki\u0107 made no complaints as regards their visiting arrangements. The applicant Mr \u0160trucl had not indicated any person whom he had wished to call or have written correspondence with. However, he had received and sent a number of letters, like the other two applicants, which was confirmed by the prison records of incoming and outgoing letters submitted to the Court. According to the Government, the applicants\u2019 allegations that the situation as regards visits, use of the telephone and correspondence had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention were unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2e6e0e55-263a-4866-8892-f026659d5412", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. The Court notes, however, that the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts, rendering this complaint premature. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "974c0351-bf12-48ed-9309-7ca3fa0d2075", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in the absence of a registered marriage between the applicant and Ms A. An unregistered partnership (\u201ccommon-law marriage\u201d) is not recognised and does not confer any specific rights under Russian law, in particular as regards mutual pecuniary obligations of spouses, succession or benefits. The applicant failed to display the requisite diligence in seeking to obtain permission to stay in Russia, to formalise his relationship with Ms A. and to establish his paternity in respect of her daughter. He was found liable for violations of residence regulations for foreign nationals. Thus, it does not appear that the applicant was particularly concerned with the normal exercise of his \u201cfamily life\u201d in Russia. Despite this, the national courts had given a thorough examination to the related grievances."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dbe170c8-7530-4f38-9844-b3c86c3dace4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government took the view that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions had not interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. They noted, at the outset, that it had not been proved that the applicant was indeed the biological father of the child M. Even assuming biological kinship, this would not be sufficient to attract the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case, M. lived together with her mother and her legal father in a stable family unit. No factual family relationship existed between the applicant and the child M. The Government stressed that the marriage between the applicant and Ms D. had ended six months before the child\u2019s birth. The applicant had neither been present at the child\u2019s birth, nor had he lodged a request to be granted contact rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d56815d9-3d26-47df-a2fb-39cdaa7c6964", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government admitted that the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. As regards Ms Lunina (application, no. 7359/14), the Government noted that she had not resided in the flat. Instead she had rented it to a third party and resided with her family in a different place."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "db9fc039-9fd2-4d55-bfd1-aa6a2a2e6b05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained that his employer had arbitrarily collected, retained, and used sensitive, obsolete and irrelevant data concerning his mental health in considering his application for promotion, and had unlawfully and unfairly disclosed this data to the applicant\u2019s colleagues and to a civil court during a public hearing. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c14b7952-deeb-40ce-b213-30c0ffc4ea39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained of an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention due to the refusal of the Netherlands Government to grant her a residence permit, based primarily on an old conviction of a narcotics offence committed in Germany. In so far as relevant, Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "715b6495-1b6f-46cd-a334-d683247b137d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government accepted that the impossibility for the applicant to have his father\u2019s paternity established after the expiry of the five-year time-limit had constituted an interference with his private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned measures had had a basis in Finnish legislation, namely in section 7, subsection 2, of the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "59c82d19-32ba-4fbf-bbbd-8c2f134ac69a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government then submitted that, while acknowledging that the States enjoyed a margin of appreciation regarding the protection of the traditional family, in 2010 the Court had started examining under Article <mask> of the Convention forms of cohabitation between same-sex couples (see, inter alia, Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, 2 March 2010). In the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010) the Court had acknowledged that same-sex couples could rely on their right to respect for family life, but pointed out that the Convention did not guarantee them the right to marry. It had also observed that where a State chose to provide same-sex couples with an alternative means of recognition, it enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred (see, inter alia, Gas and Dubois v. France, no. 25951/07, \u00a7 66, ECHR 2012)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b71787c9-20e6-4a74-8831-0389bf287fbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that the respondent State had failed to discharge its positive obligation to ensure respect for his private and family life, and in particular in that it had not provided him with any legal means to challenge the declaration of paternity after he discovered in 2004 that he was not I.'s biological father. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "210e312c-88f9-4a24-bb47-067fa9ef40bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicants further submitted that although male and female life prisoners had been in a similar situation (namely serving a sentence in a correctional colony for a particularly serious crime), they had been treated differently as regards their entitlement to long visits from family members. Such a difference in treatment, which had existed until 2014, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not had any reasonable justification, in breach of Article 14, read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ed80b230-da19-4d10-a705-04f57037a888", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicants alleged that the search carried out in their houses on 14 January 2003 was illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for home. Under the same heading they complained that the disappearance of their relatives after their detention by the State authorities caused them distress and anguish which had amounted to a violation of their right to family life. It thus disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4450d75f-57d8-49a0-9d35-a8beaf9793fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants complained that their right to respect for their family life, protected by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been infringed, in so far as the courts ordering the return of the second and third applicants to Italy had failed to take into account the grave risk that they would be subject to physical or psychological harm at the hands of their father. For the same reasons, the applicants considered that, in failing to protect the children against the risk of abuse, the authorities had breached their positive obligations enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d1a07c9e-704c-4c08-9128-5e4b42c3e793", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government did not contest that the flat in question had been the applicant\u2019s \u201chome\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that her eviction from that flat had amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her home. The Court accepts that that interference was in accordance with law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, namely A. The central question in this case is therefore whether the interference was proportionate to the aim pursued and thus \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a74a7a7a-c5b2-4059-a00a-fe6a18f10c04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government agreed that the refusal to grant the applicant prison leave in order for him to attend his father\u2019s funeral had interfered with his right to family life, as guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. This interference had, nonetheless, been based on law and had pursued the aim of furthering the interests of public safety, preventing crime and protecting the rights or freedoms of others. According to the Government, this restriction had been based on an individual assessment, as after an inmate had served a certain proportion of the sentence, a special body could decide to transfer him to a lower-security prison. It also drew the Court\u2019s attention to the opinion of the Ombudsperson emphasising the dangerous nature of the inmates to whom this restriction applied (see paragraph 14 above). Furthermore, in the light of the cases of Laduna v. Slovakia (no. 31827/02, ECHR 2011) and Dickson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007\u2011V) a wide margin of appreciation applied in questions of prisoners, penal policy and social strategy and, according to Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015), the gravity of a sentence could be tied, a least to some extent, to a type of a prison regime. Hence, the Government considered that this interference had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim, thereby being justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6f7befa2-7f3e-4610-a95c-f79393744dca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government highlighted the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in the present case. That margin depended on the nature of the activities in question and the aim pursued by the restrictions. In its recent case-law, the Court had moreover left the State a broad margin of appreciation in cases concerning Article <mask> of the Convention. (Armonien\u0117 v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, \u00a7 38, 25 November 2008, and A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, \u00a7 66, 9 April 2009). Generally speaking, the margin enjoyed by the States was broader where there was no European consensus. In the Government\u2019s submission, whilst there was admittedly a trend towards harmonisation of the legal systems in Europe, differences nevertheless remained, as evidenced by the failure of the negotiations for the adoption of a regulation of the European Union on conflict-of-law rules regarding non-contractual obligations (Regulation EC No. 864/2007 of 11 July 2007 \u2013 Rome II Regulation). The margin of appreciation was also broad where the national authorities had to strike a balance between competing private and public interests or Convention rights (Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, \u00a7 77, ECHR 2007\u2011I, and Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, \u00a7 78 ECHR 2007\u2011XIII). Moreover, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union apparently took the same approach (cases of Omega of 14 October 2004, C\u201136/02, and Schmidberger of 12 June 2003, C-112/00)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7ed90706-e3a6-4339-ad99-dd4f3a67d770", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicants complained that the Migration Court of Appeal\u2019s decision not to grant the first, second and fourth applicants residence permits was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that although the third applicant was to be considered legally an adult, his health and development were at such a stage that he still had a right to respect for family life with his parents."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "095fba0f-f38a-4d31-b62c-e3879da4e63f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government also referred to the case of Guichard v. France ((dec.), no. 56838/00, 2 September 2003) where the removal of the child by the mother had not been considered to be \u201cwrongful\u201d within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and where the Court had found that Article <mask> of the Convention had not therefore imposed positive obligations on the French authorities to secure the return of the child."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0d76c150-5199-4336-bbdc-ad1bef8e3119", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained about the content of the programme broadcast on 24 June 1997 and the courts\u2019 dismissal of his claim for damages. He considered that the making of a video recording without his consent during a meeting organised without his knowledge by the journalists and the transmission of that video recording had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3b81a7f4-733b-4cd8-a4d8-06e29f3f7982", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government did not contest that the domestic court decisions establishing the girls\u2019 place of residence with their father constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Notwithstanding this, the decisions had basis in domestic law, namely Article 3.174 of the Civil Code, and pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 the best interests of the children, one of the most important factors according to the Court\u2019s case-law (the Government referred to Pascal v. Romania, no. 805/09, \u00a7 72, 17 April 2012; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, \u00a7 96, ECHR 2013). The interference also was necessary and proportionate."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1a5822bf-455b-481a-ba29-df532014ffb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicants alleged that the search carried out in the house of the first applicant family on 10 December 2002 was unlawful and constituted a violation of their right to respect of their home. They further complained that the disappearance of their close relatives after their detention by the State authorities caused them distress and anguish which had amounted to a violation of their right to family life. They referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f2b5dc42-375f-4d10-ad90-4b35f617a7ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["152.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had been no interference with his rights. He had not complained that his communications had been intercepted. The gist of his complaint before the domestic courts and the Court was that communications service providers had installed special equipment enabling the authorities to perform operational-search activities. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the case of Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006) confirmed that installation of interception equipment, or even its financing, by private companies was not in itself contrary to the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "33172c6c-b22f-40b5-8ef5-74a18e447fd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant also complained that Z. had unlawfully moved into the house which she had constructed and that the authorities had failed to evict and prosecute Z. for the alleged fraud. She also complained about the supervisory review proceedings of 13 September 2001, arguing that they breached her rights to respect for home under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "705bf529-5a85-4e67-bca0-deace66743e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention could not be interpreted as stipulating the right to give birth at home and the corresponding obligation of the State to provide related healthcare services. In their view, the right to choose the circumstances of giving birth, although acknowledged by the Court in Ternovszky v. Hungary (no. 67545/09, \u00a7 22, 14 December 2010), to a greater extent was linked not to the right to choose a particular place (such as one\u2019s home) for giving birth but with the right to choose the method of delivery, the right to refuse unnecessary medical interventions, the right to choose particular medical personnel (doctors or midwives) to assist during delivery, the right for the father to be present in the delivery room, and the right to stay with a newborn after the delivery. Moreover, the right to give birth at home was not explicitly recognised under the Lithuanian legal system. The Government thus considered that the complaint was inadmissible ratione materiae."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "48744cc1-5a7c-4e88-9424-d8aa48c31c52", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant argued that the disclosure of the above-mentioned information constituted interference by the State authorities, the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and the Baku City Prosecutor\u2019s Office, with her right to private and family life. She argued that the interference had not been in accordance with the law: the domestic legislation actually prohibited disclosing information relating to a person\u2019s private life (see paragraphs 64 and 67 above). Furthermore, in any event, the interference had not pursued any of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention, and had not been necessary."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "149e64ef-8adc-4bdd-9250-f47b9d7a2919", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicants highlighted the similarities and differences between their case and previous cases in which the Court had dealt with similar issues under Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that they were not trying to derive from that provision a right to die, but on the contrary a right to try to prolong life and avert death. The refusals to allow them access to an experimental medicinal product which might help them do so amounted to interference with their rights under that Article. The manner in which a person chose to live, even if that choice could entail harmful consequences, was part of that person\u2019s private life. The refusals had been of a blanket nature, not taking into account the specifics of each case. They had been based on inadequate legal provisions which did not permit an individualised assessment, and did not correspond to a pressing social need. They had not been intended to protect the applicants\u2019 lives, because all of them were terminally ill and, without recourse to some new medicinal product, had only a short span of life left. In that connection, it had to be borne in mind that the exception sought would simply have given the applicants a chance to prolong their lives, and would not have shielded anyone else from criminal liability. It might have helped them avert suffering and death, as had happened with some patients in other countries."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "03abc703-c7e4-4945-951f-bf711353f16b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, which had been based on Article 823 \u00a7 1 in conjunction with Article 1004 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code, had been necessary to safeguard Dr St.\u2019s personality rights, as enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. By calling abortions unlawful the applicant had created the false impression that Dr St. had been operating outside of the legal framework in performing such procedures. Unlike the leaflet in the case of Annen (cited above) the leaflets in the present case did not point out that abortions are permitted in Germany under the terms of Article 218a of the Criminal Code and therefore not subject to criminal liability. Moreover, given the applicant\u2019s goal of forced \u201cpavement counselling\u201d, the applicant had severely disturbed the relationship of trust between doctor and patient. The Court had already rejected an earlier application by the same applicant against a desist order against similar conduct (see Annen v. Germany (dec.), nos. 2373/07 2396/07, 30 March 2010). In the present case, the domestic courts had relied on the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, which had been the subject matter of the earlier inadmissibility decision of the Court, and concluded that the circumstances had been comparable and had not warranted deviating from the existing case-law. When coming to that conclusion the domestic courts had paid attention to the fact that Dr St. had taken a public position in the abortion debate."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cfef856e-c7eb-440e-8a58-51d29bbe47dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant\u2019s complaint concerned the respondent States\u2019 alleged failure to secure contact with her estranged daughter. It is not disputed that these matters pertain to \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that this provision is applicable. On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the primary interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life may not be attributed to either of the respondent States but rather to the actions of the child\u2019s grandparents, third parties, who had retained the child in Bulgaria (see R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, \u00a7\u00a7 56-57, 21 July 2015; L\u00f3pez Gui\u00f3 v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, \u00a7 85, 3 June 2014). It therefore remains to be ascertained whether there were any positive obligations on the part of the respondent States with a view to securing the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life and, if so, whether any such positive obligations have been complied with by the respondent States."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "24b645fa-6ae0-4732-980f-b38050809d07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant maintained that the case should be examined under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Relying on the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of M.C. v. Bulgaria (no. 39272/98, ECHR 2003\u2011XII), and Aydin v. Turkey (25 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI,) she argued that the act of rape reached the level of cruelty necessary for the application of Article 3. She further argued that such an act violated the right to personal integrity protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the applicant\u2019s view, States were under an obligation to ensure effective protection against acts of rape, even in relations between private individuals, through the adoption of criminal-law provisions which would ensure adequate punishment for acts of rape and the obligation to conduct a thorough, independent and effective investigation and criminal prosecution."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "578bcde0-4e7e-44d8-81b5-87178c198a01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained of a breach of his right to respect for his family life under Article <mask> of the Convention because of the dismissal of his Hague Convention request. The applicant elaborated on this complaint, indicating that the unfavourable outcome of the impugned proceedings resulted from the misapplication of the Hague Convention and from various alleged shortcomings in the decision-making process. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d9f7c2a7-b327-45d3-9fcd-349a3978e0e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the system operated as follows: (i) prisoners would submit their correspondence in two copies; (ii) the second copy would then be stamped and dated, in response to their own requests, and returned to them; and (iii) the first copy would be placed in an envelope and forwarded to the designated address. Prisoner\u2019s correspondence was thus neither opened nor read by the prison authorities."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "857715d0-8fff-4cd6-9124-c7b78a90b0ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant specified that he was not complaining regarding the issuance of the ban prohibiting his return to Austria. His complaint to the Court solely concerned the withdrawal of his subsidiary protection status and his subsequent expulsion to Kosovo, which, in his view, had violated his right to respect for his private and family life as set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d3255695-0073-4bee-bd14-6297f3771074", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government filed comments on the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s updated claims for just satisfaction on 30 June 2008 and 15 October 2008. They pointed out that the present application was part of a cluster of similar cases raising a number of problematic issues and maintained that the claims for just satisfaction were not ready for examination. The Government had in fact encountered serious problems in identifying the properties and their present owners. The information provided by the applicants in this regard was not based on reliable evidence. As concerns specifically the present application, the Government noted that the decision on the admissibility contained no specification of the property. In the application form the property at issue was described as \u201cfields\u201d; notwithstanding that, the applicant had also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, owing to the lapse of time since the lodging of the applications, new situations might have arisen: the properties could have been transferred, donated or inherited within the legal system of southern Cyprus. These facts would not have been known to the respondent Government and could be certified only by the Greek Cypriot authorities, who, since 1974, had reconstructed the registers and records of all properties in northern Cyprus. Applicants should be required to provide search certificates issued by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus. Moreover, in cases where the original applicant had passed away or the property had changed hands, questions might arise as to whether the new owners had a legal interest in the property and whether they were entitled to pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damages."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8942ef8b-815c-4c78-93fe-442277e2a397", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["208.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their property had been destroyed in the federal attack on Urus-Martan on 19 October 1999. The third applicant also complained that her right to respect for her home secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed as a result of that attack. The respective Convention provisions state as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cb6c907d-6fb9-4fc0-bbff-2ab8f7c14b0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained that whenever he was outside a prison he wore hand-cuffs joined by chains with fetters. He further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest. Invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant also complained that his extended detention had put a severe strain on his family life. Finally, invoking the same Article, the applicant complained about the censorship of his correspondence with the Court, the Ombudsman and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ef6877b5-b1b5-4a11-845c-3aedfdfeb571", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that there had been no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention because, at the material time, the applicant had been the owner of another flat in Lipetsk. The applicant replied that she lived, together with her husband and children, in the flat she had purchased from E.M.T., while the other flat, to which the Government referred, was occupied by her mother."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6cf6ca55-bd3c-4e52-b938-a220818eaa8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government submitted that there was no causal link between the amount claimed in respect of the domestic proceedings and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant had not produced any documentary evidence of the costs and expenses incurred before the Greek courts and the overall amount claimed was excessive. The Government further stated that the legal fees for the proceedings before the Court were excessive and that the agreement between the applicant and her lawyer was not binding on the Court. They contended that a total sum not exceeding EUR 6,000 would be appropriate in respect of legal costs."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d7fce2f4-0ffe-4726-ba07-6548c251c58b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained that the domestic authorities violated her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention in that they did not enforce the 2001 judicial order granting her the custody of her minor daughter and eventually transferred the custody to the father. The applicant also complained that her daughter had suffered anguish and psychological trauma as a result of the interventions of the authorities and the protracted judicial proceedings. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6d9fb7e3-135c-4b4c-97f9-4ef270e2cac9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government of the Russian Federation also stated that the judgment of 2 October 2012 had been given in violation of Article 167 of the Family Code of Ukraine (see paragraphs 36 above), and with no regard having been made to the opinion of the child\u2019s relatives, including the applicant and his half-sister, which had led to the elimination of the child\u2019s biological affinity with them and his existing family contacts. Essentially, there had been no adequate consideration of the child\u2019s best interests, and the Ukrainian courts had provided no sufficient reasons to demonstrate that it had been in the child\u2019s best interests to be adopted by a couple who had no family or personal link with him and who had met him only once, rather than to be taken into care by his relatives with whom the child had had emotional contact. Thus, the impugned interference had also not been necessary within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "22529f55-0687-49aa-aba2-50549b910ffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government emphasised that even supposing that there had been interference, the German legal system guaranteed sufficient protection. They observed that the present application did not concern the applicant\u2019s right to seek an injunction against the advertisement (Unterlassungsansruch), which the company had recognised and which had therefore not been the subject of any proceedings in the domestic courts. The question was not whether but how the German courts should have intervened. On that point the Government took the view that the possibility provided for in German law of applying for an injunction provided adequate protection against advertising. The applicant had not in fact made any attempt to seek protection against the advertisement, but rather had hoped to derive a pecuniary advantage, even though Article <mask> of the Convention did not provide for any such compensation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ae083c4f-ba87-47b6-b512-4e54d9d666bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the legislation authorising secret surveillance in Bulgaria did not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse and barred the authorities from giving out any information as to whether a person had been subjected to such surveillance. He further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his first and second requests for information as to whether he had been subjected to secret surveillance had been rejected."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c980c6b0-18ef-4036-936b-2f57dca3a0c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, but considered that the interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. A number of Articles in the CCP clearly described the possibility of conducting searches and the manner of authorising and carrying them out. The searches were necessary in order to help an ongoing criminal investigation and were based on information in the file allowing a reasonable assumption that objects or documents important for the investigation could be found at the applicant\u2019s office or apartment. The applicant and his lawyer had made no objections to the manner in which the search had been conducted, noting only that the search had been unlawful. The search was brief and nothing was taken from the office, with only one mobile telephone taken from the apartment."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c3cac9e6-8832-470e-9870-af95dbff8538", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicants submitted that Mrs Y.B.'s flat had been their only home and that prior to their eviction they had occupied it lawfully for some ten years. The retrospective annulment of their tenancy registration and their eviction had constituted a serious, unlawful and disproportionate interference with their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, when concluding the tenancy agreement and registering it with the competent authorities, they could not have anticipated that they would be qualified as \u201carbitrary occupants\u201d ten years later. In their opinion, in authorising the tenancy, the flat owner had been of sound mind and the competent authorities at the material time had duly registered their tenancy without questioning this fact. Furthermore, in 1995-1996, when the owner had acted on her own behalf in a court dispute and attended hearings, the courts had never questioned her legal capacity to do so."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ea7fd021-b33a-43c4-938e-f78e068a58e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government conceded that at the material time some of the applicant\u2019s confidential correspondence would have been restricted in accordance with the domestic law (Article 15 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention and Article 41 of the Prison Code; paragraph 60 above). However, such restrictions had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention (cf. the aforementioned Peers v. Greece; Vala\u0161inas v. Lithuania; Puzinas v. Lithuania, no. 44800/98, 14 March 2002). Nevertheless, the applicant\u2019s correspondence to the Court and State institutions, including the national courts, had not been censored. Moreover, when the applicant had complained of delays in the dispatch and receipt of correspondence, he had failed to provide the domestic courts with the details of the letters concerned. However, on an examination of the relevant prison records, it had been established that the applicant\u2019s correspondence had been handled in a timely fashion, in accordance with the law. The Government therefore concluded that the applicant\u2019s complaint was of a purely abstract nature."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c55220d4-3d8a-43bd-88f3-0f51a60ad86e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant did not submit a claim for pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage, she submitted that as a result of a violation of her right under Article <mask> of the Convention, she had suffered from anguish and distress caused by the disruption to her family life with her husband and child and by the lack of information concerning the alleged threat she posed to Russia\u2019s national security. The applicant left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court and requested that, given that she was an American living in Prague, any award be paid directly to her bank account outside the Russian Federation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b4d97271-0ff7-44bc-8eda-f21a335e4724", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to freedom of correspondence had not been respected since the domestic law governing telephone tapping did not contain sufficient guarantees against abuse by the national authorities. They did not claim to have been victims of any specific interception of their telephone communications. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8993393b-bc11-42ff-8439-4f9a2a4bc7ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained that because lawyers were under obligation to report suspicious operations, as a lawyer he was required, subject to disciplinary action, to report people who came to him for advice. He considered this to be incompatible with the principles of lawyer-client privilege and professional confidentiality. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7a8171bd-d55f-4e17-ad12-ab8f39914265", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicants submitted that they had victim status and that there had therefore been interference with their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Even though they did not all possess licences to practise issued by the Ministry of Justice, they all represented applicants before the European Court of Human Rights. They were all members of the Lawyers for Human Rights organisation, which was considered by the Government as a subversive organisation acting against the interests of the State. The Lawyers for Human Rights organisation represented many persons who met the criteria for the application of the interception measures referred to by the Government both in domestic proceedings and in proceedings before the Court. The applicants gave the example of such persons as P. Popovici, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, P. Stici and M. Ursu, who were accused of having killed the son of the Speaker of the Parliament, and C. Becciev and E. Duca, both accused of very serious crimes. They also referred to many persons who had disputes with the leaders of the ruling Communist Party as well as two persons who had brought proceedings against the Secret Services of Moldova. The applicants submitted that, even though not all the members of their organisation worked on serious cases, all members used the telephones of the organisation and therefore risked interception."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40173bed-a54d-4632-bdfc-c041bf2162d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant further argued that in holding that the pecuniary components were only protected by ordinary law, the Federal Court of Justice had disregarded the fact that Article <mask> of the Convention conferred on an individual the right to decide in person to whom and to what extent he or she wished to disclose personal information to others. The distinction drawn by the Federal Court of Justice between the pecuniary and non-pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights was in any case artificial because that right was indivisible."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e2d2708f-6337-40c5-89e8-44413a0bd8e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["210.  The Government acknowledged that during the applicant\u2019s detention his right to family visits had been limited and that the restrictions imposed had amounted to an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in their view, the measures applied were in accordance with the law, namely Article 217 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, and necessary for the purposes of that provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "609dc89b-b7f4-4ab3-988a-106244ef5b78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied access to environmental information. The Court observes that this complaint was not included in the initial application but was raised in the applicants\u2019 observations of 26 November 2007 and refers to correspondence with the relevant authorities from 26 September 2007 onwards, more than two years after they had lodged their application. Consequently, the Court considers that this complaint was not specified or elaborated early enough to allow for an exchange of observations between the parties on the subject. It finds that, in the circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to examine the matter separately at this stage in the proceedings (see Nuray \u015een v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 25354/94, \u00a7 200, 30 March 2004)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "afcce7bd-ab79-42b1-8b64-861275251678", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, following his decision to move to the North of Finland in order to live with his former foster parents, the powers of his mentor had been enlarged to encompass matters pertaining to his person. His wishes had not been respected and it had been impossible to have his mentor replaced in matters concerning his place of residence and his education, even though he had lost confidence in her. All these measures violated his right to respect for private and family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b795c66f-bcca-4395-810b-432517e118e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant asserted that the restrictions placed on his personal contact with his family amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that neither his wife nor his son were witnesses in the proceedings in question, that the authorities have never explained the reasons for the refusal of contact, that they had failed to take his age into account and that the restrictions placed had not been indispensable to the proper conduct of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3034b7ad-a8a9-4801-9d10-e1e3a7c4020d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom had violated its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken alone and taken together with Article 13, by failing to impose a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance in order to allow him the opportunity to seek an interim injunction and thus prevent publication of material which violated his right to respect for his private life. The Government contested that argument"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "41ca511f-7346-4016-a8d1-0f60bfd40b65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant complained that the measure by which he was prohibited from entering or passing through Switzerland had breached his right to respect for his private life, including his professional life, and his family life. He contended that this ban had prevented him from seeing his doctors in Italy or in Switzerland and from visiting his friends and family. He further claimed that the addition of his name to the list annexed to the Taliban Ordinance had impugned his honour and reputation. In support of these complaints he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "78600777-880e-4bad-8e95-5d89402e40a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["129.  The Government admitted that while there were sufficient grounds for instituting administrative proceedings against O.H. under Article 5.35 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences for breaching the rights and the interests of her daughter by interfering with the latter\u2019s right to communicate with her father and thwarting the exercise by the father of his parental rights, the domestic authorities had no practical opportunity to do so. They assured the Court that the domestic authorities, under the supervision of the St Petersburg City Prosecutor\u2019s Office, were continuing to take further measures to establish the whereabouts of O.H. and the second applicant. There had therefore been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "35ae7a6c-33a2-41eb-ac4a-8fb708aeb9fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decision to order the applicant\u2019s eviction had constituted an inference with her rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that such an interference had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible for social housing and that it had been proportionate to that aim."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4079c040-7ad8-4980-b316-518f7bea5581", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant mentioned one tangible consequence of the refusal of naturalisation: he could not vote or stand for municipal and parliamentary elections, or elections to the European Parliament. However, the Court observes that the applicant\u2019s complaint in the present case does not concern the rights laid down in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (contrast \u017ddanoka, cited above, \u00a7 73). Nor does the applicant allege a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of being unable to preserve his current civil status (contrast Kuri\u0107 and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, \u00a7 314, ECHR 2012). Above all, the Court\u2019s decision on the admissibility of the present application determines the scope of the case currently before it and it does not include any complaints other than those under Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention (see paragraphs 3-4 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "210e6967-98a8-46e3-9cd1-fe6937707d99", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government asserted that the application should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on the grounds, among others, that the Spanish courts had acted in order to protect the rights of the two police officers established by Article <mask> of the Convention, as well as citizens\u2019 right to receive accurate information, as laid down in Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6491c604-78d9-452c-813d-b6596211c5e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicants argued that the admissibility of their complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention had already been examined and there was no reason to reconsider this matter. According to them, the situation in the case of Babjak and Others (cited above) was substantially different from their case. The applicants also emphasised that the Government had been unable to show a single final judicial decision confirming their argument that the action for protection of personal integrity was an effective remedy in a situation comparable to theirs."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ba0d4e46-5d4d-4792-9d66-4158d71c1bce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government contested that argument, claiming that the Convention required States to provide for only one institution for the legal recognition of a stable relationship. A positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to provide for such an institution could only arise in so far as couples had no access to marriage within the sense of Article 12."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7e9b738f-e623-4a06-89b8-1b8cc8312dee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicant insisted that the estate in its entirety, and not his house alone, should be regarded as his home, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that in a traditional Chechen family such as his, particularly in rural areas, personal connections between various family members were tighter than in a modern nuclear family, and that in his case the tight family connections were, in addition, reinforced by the family business. He also pointed out that all the buildings in the estate were situated very close to each other and represented a single complex with a solid fence and a single entrance. The applicant further argued that although he and his family had been absent from the estate at the time of its occupation by the police units, it had not been abandoned, as public utilities had remained in service, the mill had been operational and grain had been stored in the storage facility. He also contested the Government's argument that the police units had been unable to obtain prior authorisation to move onto the applicant's estate in the absence of the local council in the village of Bratskoye. The applicant submitted that the latter had been properly functioning and that, moreover, at the end of September 1999 the administration of the Nadterechny District had been formed and its then head had held office until 9 December 1999."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "73f3e572-595d-4691-92aa-5f8e81ee48d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government accepted that there had been interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that such interference had been justified. In particular, the secret surveillance orders had been based on Article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been issued and supervised by an investigating judge pursuant to reasoned and substantiated requests from the OSCOC which the investigating judge had accepted as such. Moreover, such interference had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating and prosecuting crime and had been proportionate to the circumstances and gravity of the offence at issue."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9c2cfafd-8737-4a67-8b7b-39e922d5a298", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained of an infringement of his private life on the grounds that he had lived in Greece for twelve years in a situation of uncertainty as regards his status, despite the favourable opinion issued by the Advisory Board on Asylum. More specifically, he submitted that he had been living in a state of insecurity for a very long period, and complained of the impact which that had had on his working and family life throughout that period and the lack of adequate procedural safeguards to protect him against arbitrary treatment by the authorities. He also alleged that he had had no effective remedy in order to complain of the aforementioned situation. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with Article 13."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "871318d8-1647-4334-83e4-81457faeaee8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government acknowledged in general terms that there had been interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the lawfulness and necessity of the decision to annul the first applicant\u2019s residence permit had been duly examined by the domestic courts. The numerous administrative infractions by the first applicant had provided grounds for his exclusion. The domestic courts had found that he \u201chad not demonstrated loyalty to Russian law and order, had violated Russian laws, and had systematically and intentionally committed administrative violations, including those representing danger to third persons; [such behaviour] had shown that the decision to annul the residence permit had been justified, fair, proportionate and had not contradicted the case-law of the European Court\u201d. The first applicant had committed eighteen administrative infractions during the last three years that he had been living in Russia. The Government stressed that the procedural guarantees under Article 8 of the Convention had been complied with, which had been \u201cverified by [an] independent court\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "73ab55b1-9316-4b38-a8d1-39d467e69ba1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants\u2019 complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev concerns the same matters as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, \u00a7 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, \u00a7 25, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "92c21055-710c-43e0-a956-e74991097adf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant complained, under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to afford him adequate protection from an act of violence. The Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the present case these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d292c192-a1f9-4d46-ae53-b612dbe86ace", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government submitted that the authorities had taken all the necessary measures, as they had immediately opened an investigation into sexual exploitation and had convicted the perpetrators of that offence and identified the perpetrators of the sexual assault on the applicant. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of O\u2019Keeffe v. Ireland ([GC], no. 35810/09, \u00a7\u00a7 191-92, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), they argued that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention did not raise a separate issue from that raised under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "29c1dc7c-b8fa-4a02-b825-41f97daf452a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, that his right to a fair trial and respect for his family life had been violated on account of the courts\u2019 decisions to discontinue contact between him and his three children and their refusal to order family therapy, and the allegedly inadequate work of the welfare authorities. The Court, master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, \u00a7 114, ECHR 2018), will examine these complaints from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention alone (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, \u00a7\u00a7 56 and 57, ECHR 2002\u2011I, and Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05, \u00a7 111, 1 December 2009). This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aac16695-2edf-494b-8ecc-2af6527a1433", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant therefore cannot be said to have suffered from a lack of long-stay visits. It follows that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as he complained about the lack of long-stay visits from his wife (for the principles concerning victim status, see Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts))."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b3dab17f-d4c8-4f20-b713-04d51fdf9de0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government conceded that, at the time, the operator of the Internet server could not be ordered to provide information identifying the offender. They argued that protection was provided by the mere existence of the criminal offence of malicious misrepresentation and by the possibility of bringing criminal charges or an action for damages against the server operator. As to the former, the Court notes that the existence of an offence has limited deterrent effects if there is no means to identify the actual offender and to bring him to justice. Here, the Court notes that it has not excluded the possibility that the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 8 to safeguard the individual\u2019s physical or moral integrity may extend to questions relating to the effectiveness of a criminal investigation even where the criminal liability of agents of the State is not at issue (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 128, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII). For the Court, States have a positive obligation inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention to criminalise offences against the person, including attempted offences, and to reinforce the deterrent effect of criminalisation by applying criminal\u2011law provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution (see, mutatis mutandis, M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, \u00a7 153). Where the physical and moral welfare of a child is threatened, such injunction assumes even greater importance. The Court notes in this connection that sexual abuse is unquestionably an abhorrent type of wrongdoing, with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such grave types of interference with essential aspects of their private lives (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, \u00a7 64, Reports 1996\u2011IV)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "68f69e8b-1626-4ad3-98ad-a0ede4f8957f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants\u2019 case and they were not victims of a violation of the Convention right they relied upon. In this connection, they contended that since the applicants had been staying at the scene of the demonstration as visitors, they could not invoke under Article 8 their right to respect for their home. Furthermore, since the applicants had not suffered any physical injury, they could not rely on Article 8 and the State\u2019s obligation to protect their physical integrity against attacks by third persons. The Government also maintained that the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning interference with their psychological integrity was to be considered under Article 3 rather than under Article 8 of the Convention, as in the cases of Karaahmed v. Bulgaria (no. 30587/13, 24 February 2015) and P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 28326/09, 23 November 2010). In this respect the Government also submitted that the impugned treatment had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required for Article 3 to come into play."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "41e8142b-6164-45f9-a256-4fb53d8e8e92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that conversations with their lawyers were conducted through a glass wall and were overheard or possibly even recorded and that the authorities had failed to provide proper conditions for private discussions with their lawyers. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I, \u00a7 44), decided to examine the problem raised by the applicants under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention and to obtain the parties' submissions thereon."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "73368b9a-3e0f-4d46-8dfd-7bfa5c685d78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government contested that argument. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence in support of her factual claim that she had been evicted from her flat by the police. The Government further submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had sold her flat to Rufan Kazimov."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f1a7de8f-a433-4405-9821-0be15464fd6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s circumstances were not capable of coming within the ambit of private life under Article <mask> of the Convention as the provision did not provide a right to choose the country in which a person sought to reside and work without regard to that country\u2019s immigration laws. Even assuming that the applicant had established private life in the United Kingdom and that it had been interfered with, such interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance and enforcement of immigration control, inter alia, for the preservation of the economic well\u2011being of the country, the protection of health and morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and was proportionate in the circumstances."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "592ba44e-c357-40d3-bbd7-8569d02f9aa0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant pointed out that he had been a lawyer since the age of twenty-six and that he had been elected to Parliament for the first time at the age of sixty-six, when he was at the height of his career. Politics was thus a complement to a successful career; it was not the centre of his life and did not mark the end of his career as a lawyer. However, obliged as he was to withdraw from his parliamentary duties in order to be able to pursue his professional activities \u2013 a particularly apt field for the development of any individual\u2019s personality, talents and skills \u2013 he had been subjected to an unjustified interference in his private and professional life. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "95284bab-9b42-40f8-a8d1-f153bf411386", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government raised an objection based on the inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the present application, submitting that it should be examined only under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that whilst, in the Mazurek and Merger and Cros judgments, the Court had found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of inheritance disputes concerning illegitimate children, this was only because the applicant\u2019s parent had already died at the material time so the applicant had acquired rights to a share in the estate (see Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, \u00a7 42, ECHR 2000\u2011II, and Merger and Cros v. France, no. 68864/01, \u00a7 32, 22 December 2004). They submitted that, contrary to the aforementioned cases, the applicant in the instant case did not have any right to a share in his late mother\u2019s estate or property. They alleged, more specifically, that the applicant had inheritance rights but that, by virtue of the deed of inter vivos division of 1970, those rights lacked any real substance. The Government concluded that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was inapplicable (see, mutatis mutandis, Alboize-Barthes and Alboize-Montezume v. France (dec.), no. 44421/04, 21 October 2008)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "55144999-0b4b-4689-9617-40658bc22216", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants complained of the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18, and of their convictions under that provision. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, they alleged that their right to respect for their private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "05c1afb6-7add-42e8-8c28-9ed098917599", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["359.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 argument. They submitted, firstly, that the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. In their view, the relations between the US applicants and the children they sought to adopt constituted neither \u201cfamily life\u201d nor \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and did not fall within the ambit of that provision for the purposes of Article 14 either. The Government pointed out that the right to adopt is not, as such, included among the rights guaranteed by the Convention and that Article 8 does not oblige States to grant a person the status of adoptive parent or adopted child (see X v. Belgium and Netherlands, no. 6482/74, Commission decision of 10 July 1975, and Di Lazarro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997). Furthermore, according to the Court\u2019s case law, the right to respect for family life presupposes the existence of a family and does not safeguard the mere desire to found a family (see Frett\u00e9 v. France, no. 36515/97, \u00a7 32, ECHR 2002\u2011I)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8502ffe6-e76e-4860-9f67-23ef91655f5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant complained that, by failing to secure regular contact with her sons, which was necessary to maintain family ties between them, the domestic authorities had breached their positive obligations and thereby violated her right to respect for her family life, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she had not had an effective remedy by which to complain about that violation. The relevant part of those Articles reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "48246af7-235c-4e3f-99f3-58a0b68a20a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government agreed that the eviction order of 8 June 2015 constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their home. However, that interference had been in accordance with the law, had pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of other individuals in need of social housing and had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. In particular, the first applicant\u2019s tenancy agreement had come to an end after his retirement, and after the applicants\u2019 eviction the flat in question had been provided to Sh., an employee of the prosecutor\u2019s office. Therefore, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eae0c5a3-0602-41ae-95e5-7368f3ef61bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government added that as surrogacy was a moral and ethical issue and there was no consensus on the question among the States Parties, the latter should be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in that area and in the manner in which they apprehended the effects of the relevant legal parent-child relationship established abroad. In their view, having regard to that wide margin of appreciation and the fact that the applicants were leading a normal family life on the basis of the US civil status of their children and that the latters\u2019 best interests were protected, the interference in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention was \u201centirely proportionate\u201d to the aims pursued, with the result that there had been no violation of that provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3d5c00a1-16f5-4d2b-8b8f-22447f415902", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["289.  The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of foreseeability and accessibility."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3e4cbbf2-702a-4e78-998c-daef32cb81ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government contended that according to the available evidence, the police officers did not carry out a search of the applicant organisation\u2019s premises within the meaning of the criminal procedure rules. Furthermore, the police officers did not enter the offices of the public notaries, and even when collecting the relevant evidence they remained in the waiting area, which was open to the general public. Given that the police officers were not present at the signing of the sale contract behind closed doors, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the instant case in so far as it concerned the applicant organisation\u2019s right to respect for its home."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "676be148-9d9c-42eb-80a7-9666b9f0aa79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["10.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed on account of his lack of access to the classified information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court and the non-communication to him of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor attached to this court. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence in relation to him and his family had breached his right to private life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aeb09188-81c2-491d-8e13-fb9a4f5bab34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government further contended that the circumstances of this case did not fall under the concept of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as there was no sufficient connection between the applicant and her nephew. Firstly, the applicant and her nephew were not close relatives biologically (such as mother and son). Secondly, the applicant had met her nephew only once (see paragraph 12 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f3cc857c-070c-425b-b022-d259e992ec38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained that the welfare authorities had unjustifiably taken his children into foster care and restricted his contact with them. He further complained that the court proceedings had not been conducted diligently; in particular that they had been excessively delayed, while his family ties with Y and Z had deteriorated. The Court considers that these issues fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention (see V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, \u00a7 115, 13 March 2007, and Karad\u017ei\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, \u00a7\u00a7 33-63 and 67, 15 December 2005)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8a3555bd-e2a5-4ab0-bfd0-f363f4a3f8c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant alleged a violation of his right to respect for family life on account of the lack of practical opportunities for prison visits stemming from the decision to allocate him to a remote penal facility and his subsequent inability to obtain a transfer elsewhere. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cba6bfec-0038-4da7-b145-d8b3d403a31e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government relied on three further arguments in contending that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. Firstly, there was no evidence to suggest that the transcript of the applicant\u2019s communications had been disclosed to his work colleagues; the applicant himself had produced the full transcript of the messages in the proceedings before the domestic courts, without asking for any restrictions to be placed on access to the documents concerned. Secondly, the national authorities had used the transcript of the messages as evidence because the applicant had so requested, and because the prosecuting authorities had already found that the monitoring of his communications had been lawful. Thirdly, the information notice had contained sufficient indications for the applicant to have been aware that his employer could monitor his communications, and this had rendered them devoid of any private element."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f8dddd75-8ad5-482d-8301-233019d60084", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argued that the authorities had acted diligently, without delays and within the limits of their powers, and had thus complied with their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the applicant had not complained about the assistance received from the bailiff and reiterated that the latter could not have forcibly taken the child away from the father. In their view, the person solely responsible for the non-enforcement was I.T."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7565697b-dc93-4119-bec6-c76dc79b12ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about unfair outcome of the proceedings against the local hospital and the courts\u2019 incorrect assessment of evidence and interpretation of the law. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Certificate contained his personal data and was issued in breach of his right to private life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "26669bc3-fd83-4f49-b471-0a1f8e959c52", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant submitted that her inability to adopt Hind constituted an interference with her family life. She asserted that, even though she had been able, by judicial decision, to give the child her surname, her inability to obtain recognition of a legal parent-child relationship was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. She pointed out that Hind was born in Algeria but that she had no family ties in that country since her biological parents remained unknown. Having arrived in France at the age of three months, and having been brought up in that country, the girl had also developed all her cultural, social and emotional associations there."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9ed1607e-3da9-4bcd-9f00-ac87cd8124d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government invokes the case of B.G. v. Poland concerning Article <mask> of the Convention and Dubjakov\u00e1 v. Slovakia (both cited above) concerning Article 6 and argues that the amount awarded was adequate. However, the Court is of the opinion that the findings in the aforementioned cases cannot be relied on in the case at hand because of the different nature of the alleged violation. In consequence, the amount of compensation awarded at national level in cases related to different violations of the Convention cannot be regarded as decisive in cases raising issues under Article 3. Additionally, the Polish national system does not provide for any alternative form of redress for a violation of a prisoner\u2019s rights on the grounds of detention in inadequate, overcrowded conditions. Financial compensation is the only post-violation measure available to victims but national law does not limit the amount of compensation (see, a contrario, Stella v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, \u00a7\u00a7 59-63)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "47b84063-536e-4bc5-8628-9e2f14ce3adf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government did not dispute the fact that the censorship of the letter from the Constitutional Court, being a State authority within the meaning of Article 102 (11), and of the letter sent by the Court\u2019s Registry constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his correspondence. They admitted that it had been in breach of Articles 102 (11) and 103 read in conjunction with Article 214 of the 6 June 1997 Code. In this respect, the Government pointed out that the rights of persons detained on remand should, in principle be at least equal to those of convicted persons serving a sentence of imprisonment. They submitted that under the above mentioned provisions both categories of correspondence were privileged and should not have been subjected to censorship. Accordingly, the measures imposed by the domestic authorities had been unlawful. However, the Government reserved their opinion on the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0615eb0f-8b4b-405d-ac22-735712bf6704", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained that his right to privacy had been breached because (i) the Internet service provider (hereinafter \u201cthe ISP\u201d) had retained his alleged personal data unlawfully and (ii) the police had obtained subscriber data associated with his dynamic IP address and consequently his identity arbitrarily, without a court order, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "16cc4ac9-c33e-4b31-af64-fbd3c83f7242", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government further contended that, even assuming that they had owed any duty vis-\u00e0-vis the applicant under Article <mask> of the Convention, they had taken all reasonable actions to ensure a fair balance between her interests and those of the community. Firstly, K. Street had served as a through road since 1983. In 1998 the street\u2019s status as part of the motorway had merely been confirmed during the stocktaking project. The Government should therefore not be held responsible for the decision to route the traffic via K. Street. Secondly, following the entry of the Convention into force, the authorities had been contemplating the construction of a new through road, bypassing residential streets. However, they had had no choice but to use the existing road until the necessary funding could be found, as closing it off would have caused considerable detriment to the economic well-being of the country. Contrary to the applicant\u2019s argument, the use of the road had not been at odds with applicable law, because paragraph 1.9 of the State Construction Guidelines had recommended, but had not required, that major motorways be constructed outside populated communities."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3ca37915-d373-4b81-adc9-98f1ae859508", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained that it was impossible for her to obtain cancellation of Mr D.\u2019s registration as permanently resident at her house, a fact which disturbed her and adversely affected the assessment of her situation in various contexts, such as for the purpose of social contributions towards dwelling costs and the calculation of fees for the removal of household waste. She alleged a violation of her right to respect for her private life and home under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1728ab60-9e8c-4597-8533-2fad0dc330e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that such interference had been lawful and justified. In particular, the secret surveillance orders had been based on Article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been issued and supervised by an investigating judge on the basis of reasoned and substantiated requests from the competent State Attorney\u2019s Office. The interference had also pursued the legitimate aim of investigating and prosecuting the crime of drug trafficking and had been proportionate to the circumstances, the gravity of the offence at issue and the applicant\u2019s criminal activity."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "03cfc2c9-ad6b-4327-9c32-cd6735481869", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant complained that the circumstances of his visit to a hospital to see his seriously ill daughter had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and added, relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that this matter had not been addressed by the domestic courts. Article 8 of the Convention has already been quoted above. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f609c2d0-a874-46cd-9495-33f9a672b753", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicant argued that because of the failure of the national authorities to enforce their own decisions adopted in various proceedings instituted against B on charges of verbal and physical violence against her, she had no effective remedy by which to obtain protection against B's violence. The Court notes that these very same issues have already been examined above under Article <mask> of the Convention and have led to a finding of a violation of that Article. Therefore, the Court considers that in the specific circumstances of the present case it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "84d0a063-977a-4b33-96d9-8e9060c302ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant submitted that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention for the same reasons for which there had been a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The lengthy and unjustified travel ban had practically destroyed his relations with his family in Germany. That could not be regarded as justified for the achievement of any legitimate aim. Nor could his family be required to mitigate the effects of the ban by settling in Bulgaria. The applicant also submitted that because of the criminal proceedings against him he had remained unemployed for a long period of time and thus been unable to pay maintenance to his family. Lastly, he maintained that, as was evident from the divorce petition lodged by his former wife, the divorce had been a direct consequence of the travel ban."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2d7433a4-be60-413d-a32f-3e55f5d3e95f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant further claimed that he did not have an effective remedy to protect his rights without suffering considerable financial loss, which resulted in him not enjoying the minimum protection of the right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention.  The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submissions that the Supreme Court\u2019s decision not to award damages and legal costs had been foreseeable, viewed in the light of the practice in this type of case, where statements are declared null and void."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "23b2fd3d-f8dd-4508-9e57-2bf3736457da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["233.  The Government asked the Grand Chamber to confirm the Chamber\u2019s finding that the two applicants had lost their \u201cvictim\u201d status. They had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits in the course of the proceedings before the Chamber and had been afforded just satisfaction in respect of the violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the Grand Chamber could not examine those parts of the application which had been declared inadmissible by the Chamber (they cited Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2007\u2011I)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "54b07f66-87d1-4c36-9ce9-88efdabd55dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken effective measures to bring the nuisances from the computer club to an end. The Milevi sisters additionally complained about the passiveness of the authorities with regard to the electronic games club and the office in the flat adjoining theirs. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2c21058c-baaf-4363-9c2f-1aa6cd1867c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained that the facts of the case had given rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Her right to due respect for her private life and her physical and moral integrity had been violated both substantively, by failing to provide her with a legal therapeutic abortion, and as regards the State\u2019s positive obligations, by the absence of a comprehensive legal framework to guarantee her rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2d76cc65-a2c8-4ba2-8b05-3239252c9817", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The applicant stressed that the relevant legislation had given the authorities a virtually unlimited power to interfere with his correspondence. He maintained that, even assuming that the authorities had intended to secure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings in his case, the duration of that measure, as well as its scope and nature had by no means been necessary in a democratic society. The need to achieve the aim pursued by the authorities had not required them to read all his letters, notwithstanding whether they had been of strictly personal or of official character. In particular, there had been no reason whatsoever to open and read his correspondence to the lawyer representing him before the Commission and the Court, as such letters were privileged under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ef5a11d3-315a-4b38-b2a7-9b9803fb3559", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government, at the outset, submitted that the widow's pension did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention because it was payable following bereavement and, in contrast to the widowed mother's allowance, was not aimed at enhancing family or private life. However, later in the proceedings before the Court the Government accepted the applicant's argument that the widow's pension fell within the ambit of that Article."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "569343ce-91d1-4ae0-ac3c-7f19f7689bda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained that the decision to remove the first applicant constituted an unjustified interference with their family life, in so far as it had led to the separation of the nuclear family. In particular, the applicants argued that the first applicant's removal had not been necessary in a democratic society and was in breach of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c66acffb-3506-4f5e-8787-a954c32acd62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government denied, however, that the inability to adopt Hind constituted an \u201cinterference\u201d with the applicant\u2019s family life. The Court shares that view. It observes in this connection that the applicant did not complain of any major hindrance to the continuance of her family life but argued that to ensure respect for the latter it was necessary to equate kafala with full adoption and thus to recognise a legal parent-child relationship, this being excluded by Article 370-3 of the Civil Code where the child\u2019s country of origin prohibited adoption. In those circumstances, the Court finds it more appropriate to examine the complaint in terms of positive obligations. In this connection, the Court would draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the situation in the present case, where the law of the respondent State merely refuses to equate kafala with adoption and refers to the child\u2019s personal law to determine whether such adoption is possible, and, on the other, the situation in the Wagner and J.M.W.L. judgment (cited above), where it decided that the Luxembourg courts, in refusing to grant enforcement of an adoption decision by a Peruvian court, had disregarded the legal status validly created abroad, in an unreasonable manner, and had thus breached Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the notion of \u201crespect\u201d as understood in Article 8 is not clear cut, especially as far as the positive obligations inherent in that concept are concerned: having regard to the diversity of practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion\u2019s requirements will vary considerably from case to case and the margin of appreciation to be accorded to the authorities may be wider than that applied in other areas under the Convention. In determining whether or not a positive obligation exists, regard must also be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest of the community and the interests of the individual, the search for which balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2002\u2011VI)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eba9f818-19fa-4873-9e0a-72d3f1cea5e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicant argued that the courts\u2019 interpretation of section 116 of the Family Act in her case had amounted to discrimination against people with mental illnesses. In particular, the domestic courts\u2019 conclusion that a parent suffering from mental illness was unfit for the everyday care of his or her child and also unworthy of parental rights despite the fact that he or she did not neglect the child voluntarily was in breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. States should take effective measures to tackle discrimination against people with disabilities, and those people should be afforded an opportunity to influence decisions which interfered with their rights and interests. Moreover, there was no objective and reasonable justification for her discriminatory treatment."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f2674d77-75e2-4182-a333-2ce9e8ab3ee5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained about the rupture of her family ties with her daughter caused by the lack of a prompt reaction from the Romanian and Bulgarian authorities in respect of return of the child, the length of the custody proceedings in Romania, and the enforcement of her custody rights over the child. She relied in substance on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "65828e68-2823-4b49-9890-774dc01af35f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant submitted that the restrictions on him practising law as an advocate had interfered with his right to respect for his private life and were therefore covered by Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied on a number of Court judgments, including Niemietz v. Germany (16 December 1992, \u00a7 29, Series A no. 251\u2011B). He disagreed with the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3753796b-27c3-4a18-a490-af197d3f1765", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained that the Hungarian authorities had failed to execute the judicial decision establishing the residence of her child with her and thus also failed to ensure the swift return of her child after his father had taken him without her consent. In so doing, the authorities had failed to secure her parental rights with respect to her son. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2216b0c1-8a4e-4c93-ab05-a52684f96eab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant considers that donating \u201cher\u201d five cryopreserved embryos that are not destined for implantation pertains to her \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and fulfils a public interest, since it provides researchers with stem cells much needed for research on incurable diseases[35]. On the basis of the above-mentioned interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 18 of the Oviedo Convention, the Government\u2019s argument that section 13 of Law no. 40 of 19 February 2004 pursues the legitimate aim of protecting the embryo\u2019s potential for life is acceptable. In that light, scientific research on a human embryo, authorised for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes with the aim of protecting the health and development of that embryo when no alternative methods exist, is an admissible exception to the prohibition of scientific research on human embryos."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "02fb6292-b7ee-4af4-a065-0e531d744d29", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention that both the Assize Court and the Court of Cassation had failed to deliver reasoned judgments. Relying upon Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, he also argued that he had not been given sufficient time to prepare his defence and that he had not had the opportunity to examine witnesses. Finally, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, he repeated the complaint he had made under Article 3."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f3f1413d-4b81-4ae6-a0df-4a729a2f1056", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["177.  The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev concerns the same facts as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, \u00a7 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, \u00a7 25, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1997, \u00a7 50, Reports 1997\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0997ca89-7c39-466f-b655-510a262a10d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government further indicated that in 2002 municipal decree no. 30 had been annulled, and, at present, the boundary of the sanitary security zone remains undefined. The Federal Program of 1996, which provided for the resettlement of the residents of the zone, is no longer in force. On these grounds on 12 July 2002 the Cherepovets Town Court rejected the first applicant's claims against the steel-plant. However, in the Court's view, it does not mean that the danger for the first and other applicants' health and well-being is no longer there. The de facto abolishment of the sanitary security zone was decided not because the concentrations of toxic substances reached safe levels, but on formal grounds. For almost ten years decree no. 30 was in force and applied by the courts. Its validity has not been called into question either by the steel-plant, or by the municipality itself. Moreover, on many occasions various domestic official bodies confirmed that the applicants lived in the territory of the sanitary security zone where concentrations of certain toxic substances were above acceptable levels and which was therefore unsuitable for human residence. At last, in their observations on admissibility and merits the Government admitted that the applicants' houses were located within the zone (see the decision on admissibility of the present cases of 16 September 2004). Thus, in the eyes of the Court, the annulment of decree no. 30 and ensuing changes in the legal status of the zone has no bearing on the applicants' situation from the standpoint of their complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0d2190e7-d8b7-4a22-a3c2-80c33a279df0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the lack of a regulatory framework for the legal recognition of his gender identity and about the requirement, which had no basis in domestic law, that he undergo genital surgery as a precondition for having his (male) gender identity recognised. Under Article 13, the applicant alleged a lack of an effective remedy. The Court considers that this later complaint is absorbed by the applicant\u2019s complaint about the lack of legal framework for legal gender recognition and will be analysed accordingly. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d3d197a5-06fb-43c0-a3ab-1c319c63de50", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable on the grounds that at the material time or at the time of introduction of the application the SNCF could not be regarded as a public authority within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 and that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of that provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5a29117f-7567-443d-b9b0-71edda5b93e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant submitted that the interception of his mail in prison, although formally based on the relevant provisions of the 1969 Execution of Punishments Act, had been unlawful, because it had been contrary to the provisions of Articles 34 and 35 \u00a7 5 of 1991 Constitution and of section 18(2) of the 1991 Bar Act. A provision similar to the one in the applicant\u2019s case, but applicable only to remand prisoners, had been declared invalid by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2000. Moreover, section 132g of the 1969 Execution of Punishments Act had been declared unconstitutional and contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in 2006. However, as this declaration had had only prospective effect, it had not impacted on the applicant\u2019s situation. His mail with his lawyer had been opened and read by the prison authorities, which had caused him to feel vulnerable and had obliged the lawyer to visit him in prison. That measure had not been authorised by a judicial authority and had not been intended to uncover or prevent offences."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "858a6837-3d18-411c-8268-cb9778aea371", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government took the view that there had not been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The domestic courts\u2019 decisions concerning the applicant\u2019s access to and information about F. had not interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. Referring to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law (they cited, in particular, L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, and H\u00fclsmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 33375/03, 18 March 2008), the Government argued that mere biological kinship, without any close personal relationship, was insufficient to attract the protection of Article 8 \u00a7 1. In the present case, F. lived together with his mother and his legal father in a stable family unit."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8178532f-2a29-417e-a9e1-4c473684bf63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government emphasised that the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis is, first and foremost, a right of a child and not of her/his parents. The parents' right of access to their children are protected but should not be given priority over a child's best interests. Under Article <mask> of the Convention a balance should be struck between the interests of all members of the family and, when those interests are at variance, the interests of the child should prevail. Legal regulations, and in particular law enforcement procedures, should not bring about results contrary to the child's best interest. The Government were of the opinion that in the present case the interests and rights of the child might have been violated if the father's access to his daughter had been enforced by more coercive measures than those actually applied."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5112589f-614c-4c66-a74a-458ebd207aca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["142.  The applicant went on to submit that until 2009, when the 1988 Act had been amended, he had not had at his disposal any remedy in respect of the alleged breach of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The existence of such a remedy was not certain even after that amendment, because there was no reliable mechanism allowing those concerned to learn whether they had been subjected to secret surveillance."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2712767e-04be-442d-8f59-216c7e7de8c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government agreed with the Chamber\u2019s reasoning and conclusion to the effect that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They noted that the impugned legislation had been passed in order to prevent inequality caused by varying administrative practices throughout the country and in order to set coherent preconditions for legal gender recognition. The bill had initially required that the person requesting legal gender recognition be unmarried or not in a registered partnership and had not allowed his or her marriage or registered partnership to continue in another legally recognised form. This had been seen as unreasonable during the legislative procedure and therefore the conversion mechanism had been introduced into the provision. Since the entry into force of the Transsexuals (Confirmation of Gender) Act, at least fifteen marriages had been turned into registered partnerships and sixteen registered partnerships into marriages. In nine cases the spouses had had children together and in none of these cases had the legal parent-child relationship changed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "68718c5c-9532-4d10-b222-0f37134afffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government agreed that some interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life had occurred in the case at issue. However, there had been no violation of Article 8 since, during the period in question, the Regional Court had allowed the applicant\u2019s brother to visit him twice in prison. The applicant had also been permitted to make two phone calls in June 1996 and one call in August 1996. In addition, the Government stressed that both the applicant\u2019s mother and his brother had been witnesses in the proceedings against him. In this respect they submitted that the restrictions imposed on the applicant\u2019s contact with his mother had been justified by the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. They averred that the applicant could have exchanged correspondence with his mother. Moreover, the restrictions imposed on the applicant had been quashed immediately after it had become clear that the applicant\u2019s mother would not testify as a witness in the judicial proceedings. In sum, the domestic authorities maintained a fair balance of proportionality between the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence and the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2f05f6d4-423e-455d-86d5-12edcde561c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government considered that there was no family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention between the first applicant and Mrs Saleh and their children as Mr Al-Nashif had not proven that he had been legally married to Mrs Saleh and had often been away from the family home as he had contracted a second marriage. Those facts were allegedly indicative of the lack of an emotional or family link between Mr Al-Nashif and his children."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a80c50a6-1427-49c1-b89f-e12d4510dd34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant further made two complaints concerning his right to respect for his correspondence. He firstly complained of the fact that a postal parcel sent to him to Gospi\u0107 Prison on 30 August 2004 by his parents had never been delivered. Secondly, he complained that some six to eight letters sent by him from the prison had never been forwarded to the addressees. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "11e0cea1-012d-4c99-a9fd-a6672cae3c82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government submit that the rules in force at the relevant time in relation to detainees\u2019 contacts with the outside world were compatible with the Convention. On this point, the Government contend that the new National Ordinance on Prisons, which contains regulations on detainees\u2019 outside contacts by letter, telephone and visits, as well as the grounds on which a detainee\u2019s right to respect for his correspondence may be restricted, fully meets the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8aa2fb67-63a5-4b5f-af6c-e85b745cc1d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants complained about the refusal of their requests to have the indication of gender on their birth certificates corrected on the grounds that persons making such a request had to substantiate it by demonstrating that they actually suffered from a gender identity disorder and that the change in their appearance was irreversible. They criticised the fact that the latter requirement meant that transgender persons who, like them, wished to have the indication of their gender amended in their civil-status documents were compelled to undergo prior surgery or treatment entailing irreversible sterility. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "45a02d7a-8274-45dd-a224-5ddf8f36d17e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant claimed 268,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage: (a) EUR 168,000 for suffering and distress due to violation of his right to family life under Article <mask> of the Convention, (b) EUR 50,000 for suffering and distress for the unjustified duration of the proceedings and (c) EUR 50,000 for suffering, distress and psychological damage in respect of the violation of the right to fair trial."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6c39e893-6573-42b4-aa76-4d3b39f374d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings regarding the prohibition of use order were unfair. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention they invoked that the prohibition of use order violated their right to family life. Furthermore, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the refusal of the building permit. They finally alleged a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 7 without further substantiation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d7002599-8841-401b-bcc3-a572fed3d4b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government stressed that, since the applicant\u2019s stay in Norway had been unlawful, the impugned expulsion did not constitute an interference with her right to respect for her family life for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The question was rather whether the Norwegian authorities \u201cwere under a duty to allow the .., applicant to reside\u201d in Norway, \u201cthus enabling [her] to maintain and develop family life\u201d in that country (see, Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2006\u2011I). In other words, the case should be regarded as \u201cone involving an allegation of failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with a positive obligation\u201d (ibid.)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6f918c8b-c0fc-4723-9e09-65646e189310", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["199.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the interim seizure of her flat. The Court observes that on 11 March 2002 the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court lifted the seizure of the applicant's flat, following which she waived her relevant court claim at the domestic level. It also does not appear that she has ever attempted to bring court proceedings for compensation for the allegedly unlawful interim seizure of her flat. The applicant therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies and her relevant complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f9a19235-4b37-4e13-b1b0-3c79cb9c78fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant contended that his eviction from the site interfered unjustifiably with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, as being unnecessary and disproportionate, in particular as he was not given the opportunity to challenge in a court the allegations made against him and his family. He denied that he or members of his family living on the plot had breached any term of the licence as alleged by Council officers and stated that he had no control over the conduct of visitors to the site, such as his adult sons or Michael Maloney. There was significant support for his family from other occupiers of the site which contradicted the situation as described by the Council. He disputed that it was reasonable or proportionate to evict him and his family for reasons relating to other adults. The Council failed to use other methods to control the alleged misbehaviour, such as injunctions or committal proceedings against those adults who were committing the damage or nuisance and appeared to make no distinction concerning the occupation of the two plots, 35 and 36. Nor when the applicant gave undertakings in court on 14 April 2000 did the Council apply for enforcement measures in respect of alleged breaches. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "12d87fbd-f792-4432-8e9c-70a28fc429b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants complained that covert listening devices were used by the police to monitor and record their conversations at a flat, that information was obtained by the police concerning the use of a telephone at the flat and that listening devices were used while they were at the police station to obtain voice samples. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ce47ad6a-8c92-46c7-8a0a-b0f6e4b32e27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the first place, they had not raised that complaint in substance before the domestic courts; while the applicant Hrei\u00f0ar M\u00e1r Sigur\u00f0sson had made a passing reference to Article 8 in his appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicants had in their written pleadings relied principally on Article 6 of the Convention. The Supreme Court\u2019s judgment did not indicate that it had addressed directly the question whether the phone tapping had infringed Article 8 and the summary of the applicants\u2019 oral pleadings did not mention that this had been argued at the main hearing. Furthermore, the applicants had not brought any other proceedings, such as a civil action against the State seeking damages for the violation of their rights under Article 8. In their submissions in reply to the applicants\u2019 observations, the Government indicated that the applicant Hrei\u00f0ar M\u00e1r Sigur\u00f0sson had lodged a civil action against the State in the District Court on 15 November 2016. They subsequently informed the Court that in a judgment of 30 April 2018 the District Court had awarded him ISK 300,000 in respect of telephone tapping which had taken place after the applicant had been told that he was a suspect but had rejected his claim as regards conversations with his lawyer on the ground that they had not been listened to beyond for the purpose of identifying who was speaking."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8e515d36-4fdf-4218-b4c1-d5383d5527d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired. He also alleged that his correspondence had been limited to certain identified people."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ca6f03ee-66c7-45ee-b576-fb2c26c8e987", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The Government submitted, firstly, that the first applicant had had an effective remedy for his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he could have lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Russia. The Government further submitted that the Russian authorities had given all possible diplomatic assistance to the first applicant in recovering his daughter from Uzbekistan. However, they had been unable to influence the judicial proceedings there. The first applicant had not appealed against the Uzbek authorities\u2019 decisions to appoint X\u2019s grandmother as her guardian and to deprive him of parental authority. Nor had he applied to the Russian courts with a request to restore his parental authority."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "44fab4c4-df64-46f7-9031-df0a6c874694", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["209.  The Government did not dispute that its refusal of 25 March 2005 to return the body of Aslan Maskhadov (see paragraphs 103-105 above) constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights to private and family life protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. It notes that the decision was taken in accordance with Article 3 of Decree no. 164 dated 20 March 2003 and section 16 (1) of the Suppression of the Terrorism Act, which precluded the competent authorities from returning the bodies of terrorists who died as a result of the interception of a terrorist act."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b9efab37-8741-47eb-8e55-597ec32eef17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants submitted in reply that the Federal Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in their case because of the jurisdictional bar in section 83(c)(3) of the Federal Supreme Court Act. The judgment relied on by the Government had been given after they had lodged the present complaint and did not concern a request for temporary residence. Such an appeal would have lacked prospects of success even if it had been declared admissible by the Federal Supreme Court, which, in its well\u2011established case-law, did not recognise that persons granted temporary residence in Switzerland could invoke Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "db28a1f3-877b-48fc-8a5b-0e231be657ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the investigative authorities and the command of the Unit disseminated offensive information about his son\u2019s personal life. However, the Court notes that the applicant did not sue anyone for defamation, thus failing to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. This complaint must, therefore, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f11d5bef-be49-4add-ae54-d60b75b40577", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicants complained of the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18, and of their convictions under that provision. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, they alleged that their right to respect for their private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9e2d1677-7b22-4db2-ba40-d58163db1441", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The Government seemed to suggest that the applicant should not be considered to have a right to enjoy family life with M. due to his alleged non-payment of child support. The Court observes that the applicant was acquitted of the charges brought against him in this connection and that in any event this argument, which was not even relied on by the domestic authorities, could not be decisive in assessing the nature of the tie between the applicant and M.. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Court therefore considers that the tie between the applicant and M., who are a father and his daughter, falls within the scope of \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "303e6a6e-e2c0-4b81-b9be-fe341d1c9a2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government acknowledged that the search of the applicant\u2019s home interfered with his right to respect for his private life. They submitted that it was justifiable under the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention as being necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime. The Government further submitted that the search warrant was executed in compliance with the procedural requirements set out in Articles 227, 228 and 230 of the CCP."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "222b0452-5923-4106-9fb4-c9daab8e1867", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants alleged that the school authorities had failed to organise a class in ethics for the third applicant and complained about the absence of a mark in his school reports in the space reserved for \u201creligion/ethics\u201d. They claimed that the third applicant had been subjected to discrimination and harassment for not having followed religious education classes. The applicants invoked Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. The Court raised of its own motion a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, namely whether the facts of the case disclose a breach of the State's positive obligation to ensure effective respect for the applicants' private life within the meaning of that provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40c097af-da24-494c-b379-aed1e1e34ec0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government did not deny that the notion of private life, which is also referred to in Article <mask> of the Convention, could sometimes encompass information enabling a person's physical or social identity to be established. They observed that in Gaskin v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), the applicant, who had been taken into care at a very early age, wished to consult the confidential case records that had been compiled by the local authorities containing reports by everyone connected with the care proceedings. He was not able to gain access to all the information in his file as some of the contributors refused to provide him with information they had given in confidence. In the present case, the French State had not refused to furnish the applicant with information but had taken into account her mother's refusal from the beginning to allow her identity to be disclosed. As in Gaskin, the application in the present case concerned two competing interests: the applicant's interest in finding out her origins and the interest of a woman who from the outset did not wish to be regarded as the applicant's mother in preserving her private life. However, the applicant's request did not concern information on \u201chighly personal aspects of [her] childhood, development and history\u201d, as her aim was to make contact with her siblings, whose existence she had only discovered on becoming an adult and whom she had never met. The Government said in conclusion that, as it stood, the applicant's request did not come within the scope of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, as it concerned information relating to a natural family from which she had been separated since birth following her mother's decision to abandon her."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4637ca24-80b3-4fef-b5cd-16d4d4fafaba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant argued that the measure constituted an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, which had also been conceded by the Austrian authorities. However, when applying the relevant provisions of the 1992 Aliens Act, the domestic authorities had wrongly found that the measure was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. In particular it did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d for the prevention of disorder or crime. Unlike the administrative authorities, the Juvenile Court, by suspending the major part of the sentence, had obviously made a positive prognosis in respect of the applicant. The Juvenile Court had taken into account the applicant\u2019s young age of eighteen years, the short period of time during which he had committed the offences, namely two and a half months, together with the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record. Further, the administrative authorities had grossly disregarded the applicant\u2019s high degree of integration in Austria, namely his lawful residence and that of his family for years, as well as his school education and completion of a vocational training on the one hand, and the lack of any family ties with Serbia and Montenegro after his grandparents\u2019 death on the other. Thus, the imposition of a residence prohibition of an unlimited duration was disproportionate to the aims pursued."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c656b116-3845-4d4c-9817-a4721cc5fce1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant asserted that her representatives had spent 32 hours each at the rate of EUR 50 on the Court proceedings. In support of this claim, the applicant submitted a contract dated 14 February 2017 concluded with Mr I. Khatiashvili. The latter document specified that the applicant was to pay the relevant sum to Mr Khatiashvili if the European Court established a violation of her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the applicant\u2019s second representative, Ms L. Mukhashavria, the applicant only submitted the first page of a supposed contract."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a31b34d2-cbbd-462b-a7b1-188dba6fe2fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government contended, as they did at the admissibility stage, that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as they had not sought redress by means of an action under Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code as regards the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's view, that remedy was effective within the meaning of the Court's case-law as it gave the applicants the opportunity to have the unjustified interference with their personal rights stopped and also to obtain financial compensation for any non-pecuniary damage which they may have suffered. That remedy was thus also capable of remedying the negative consequences of the protracted length of the proceedings complained of."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "260f6e52-3f4c-43db-9ac8-2dd42cdf20c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant claimed under Article <mask> of the Convention that his prison sentence had interrupted his family life and prevented him from taking care of his sick wife. He further claimed that his unconditional prison sentence in the current case meant that he also had had to serve two-thirds of his other two sentences and this had resulted in increased time in prison."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c82435c9-0ca8-464a-aff0-a37763b842cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government maintained that the applicant companies had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Although the applicant companies had referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in their appeal to the Supreme Court, they had not argued that there had been a violation of that provision. They had merely maintained that section 4-10 of the Tax Assessment Act had to be interpreted in the light of Article 8. In this connection, the Government referred to certain passages in the applicant companies\u2019 additional pleadings to the Supreme Court dated 3 October 2007 (apparently referring to those of 6 July 2007, quoted at paragraph 37 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dd1532cc-d92a-45f3-94f0-dde01b0b0cd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant submitted that the employment tribunals had carried out an insufficient assessment and balancing of the interests at stake. This was consistent with an automatic judicial policy that existed in such matters for the benefit of the Churches, which, in his view, enjoyed a privileged status in German law that was not granted to any other charity-type association. His rights to respect for his private life or his private sphere had not been examined by the employment tribunals. In the applicant\u2019s submission, Article <mask> of the Convention conferred on him the right to discontinue a particular way of life and to begin a new one. He argued that, whilst he did not call into question the right of the Churches to manage their affairs autonomously, that right could not go as far as forcing their employees to observe precepts outside the occupational sphere. He asserted that the employment tribunals had extended their case-law in a totally unforeseeable manner, as until then a dismissal had only been endorsed in the event of remarriage, and not on account of a private extramarital relationship. In view of the large number of ecclesiastical precepts, there was a lack of foreseeability in this connection and the decision to dismiss ultimately depended solely on the view of each human resources manager. The role of the employment tribunal was thus limited to upholding the wishes of the employing Church. According to the applicant, as a consequence of this tendency the employer and the employment tribunal were increasingly scrutinising the employee\u2019s private life in order to establish and assess the facts on which the dismissal was based. Moreover, the fact that a particular employee failed to comply with certain ecclesiastical precepts to the letter would not undermine the credibility of the Church, but would merely be a manifestation of the individual\u2019s human condition."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e9f2e58b-b321-4c37-81c8-e22c98bcca86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to complain to the courts about their allocation to penal facilities located outside their home region, in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since they had not had recourse to the above remedy, their complaint had to be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In the alternative, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month requirement for lodging their complaint. They considered that the applicants\u2019 allocation to penal facilities had been a \u201csingle moment\u201d decision and did not give rise to a continuous situation for the purposes of calculating the six-month rule under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government further submitted on the merits of the complaint that the applicants\u2019 allocation to remote penal facilities had amounted to an interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, despite the fact that the legal grounds for allocating persons convicted, as the applicants, under Articles 208 (membership of an illegal armed group) and 317 (attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer) of the Criminal Code to penal facilities determined by the FSIN (Article 73 \u00a7 4 of the CES), had been introduced several months after the applicants\u2019 actual transfer, the interference had nevertheless been in accordance with the law, had been necessary and had not amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants had been given long prison sentences, to be served in strict-regime penal facilities. However, at the relevant time there had been no such penal facilities in the Chechen Republic, which was why the applicants had been allocated to penal facilities in other regions. Furthermore, had the applicants remained in the Chechen Republic to serve their sentences, it would have created a serious risk to public order and safety in view of the criminal situation in the region at the material time."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fd3b9b20-02e2-475d-ba98-72e67b83f0a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.   The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life. All forms of family relationship had been extinguished at the latest at the time of the adoption. Citing Schneider v. Germany, no. 17080/07, \u00a7 80, 15 September 2011, the Government pointed out that biological kinship between a biological parent and child alone, without any further legal and factual elements indicating the existence of a close personal relationship, was insufficient to attract the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government noted that in the case at hand the children never lived with the applicant."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "de44234d-0c16-45ce-81da-b7c5ede233a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government accepted that the custody proceedings at issue constituted an interference with the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued, however, that the obligation of national authorities to take measures to facilitate contact by a non-custodial parent with children pending, or after divorce, was not absolute. In the present case, the Austrian courts were not to be blamed for their inactivity as initially, under the Turkish legislation applicable to the proceedings at issue, no decision on the custody could be taken since such decision had to be taken in the framework of divorce proceedings which were at the time still pending. After the applicant's new request for custody of F. in June 1996, the courts acted without delay. The Government further pointed out that a transfer of F.'s custody from his father to the applicant could at no time be considered as granted. The procedural steps taken in the proceedings at issue exclusively served the best interest of the children."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3e643e74-9061-4672-b6ae-24c865fb0261", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to allow him to challenge Mr M.\u2019s paternity and to have his own paternity legally established violated his right to respect for his private and family life as protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained, in particular, that the relevant legislation, as construed by the family courts, let the social family\u2019s interests generally prevail over the biological father\u2019s interests, without allowing for an examination of the specific circumstances of the case. He further complained under Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention, that the family courts had failed to examine sufficiently whether there existed an enduring relationship between the child and her legal father. He further complained that the alleged excessive length of the proceedings had predetermined their outcome."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "27ecfcd2-7614-4f69-9691-99a31eea200a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["171.  The applicants alleged that the searches carried out in their houses during and after the abduction of their relatives were unlawful and constituted a violation of their right to respect for home. They further complained that the disappearance of their close relatives after their detention by the State authorities caused them distress and anguish which had amounted to a violation of their right to family life. They referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d82db687-e72d-4789-89bf-2908957c3a01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government also submitted that, owing to his frequent business trips abroad, the applicant usually spent more than half a year outside Lithuania, away from his wife and daughter. Accordingly, the gravity of the applicant\u2019s situation could not be compared to the gravity of the situations in other cases involving immigration questions which the Court had examined under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3ec00780-71a5-4cde-aea2-083c17bc9dc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government pointed out that it is not per se incompatible with the Convention to limit access to reopening of paternity cases, in particular when the rules are reasonable and flexible like those in the Danish legislation and they pursue the legitimate aim of safeguarding the interest of the child, including providing stability and legal rights deriving from having a father registered. In the present case, all those concerned were heard and the cases were thoroughly examined by the domestic courts. The High Court\u2019s final decision that the requirements set out in sections 24 and 25 for a reopening had not been fulfilled was taken in what it considered to be the best interests of the children. In these circumstances, and having regard to the margin of appreciation and the principle of subsidiarity, the Government maintained that the refusal to reopen the paternity cases was not in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "af8c7a66-61db-4776-9231-64aa09cf14c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government submitted that the proceedings brought by the applicant had fully complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The courts had thoroughly and actively examined the case, admitting a number of expert reports and other evidence, but finding no medical malpractice. They had dealt with all relevant points, including whether the operation had been necessary, what was the proper approach by the operating team if the medical imaging tests were inconclusive, and whether the applicant had given informed consent to the operation and more generally whether she had been properly advised."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "631a7564-054a-4ce4-afec-57f09e369704", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant pointed out that while the Government had emphasised the difficulties in reconstructing the facts of an act which had happened behind closed doors, they had not taken into real consideration the positive obligation of the State to protect her private and family life. Her right to physical integrity had required the domestic authorities to decide on her civil disputes with Gy.B. within a reasonable time. The applicant further argued that a remedy which was slow could not be regarded effective. In her opinion, Article <mask> of the Convention included her right to use her home being secure in her person and without disturbance."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9cee9b20-19a4-4877-a96d-c69f9fb69e7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government accepted that the non-enforcement of the custody orders concerned the applicants\u2019 family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, but considered that the measures taken by the authorities had been adequate and effective. In particular, a complex collaborative process between all the State actors involved in the enforcement proceeding had been developed throughout the proceedings. The authorities \u2013 the bailiff\u2019s office and the courts \u2013 had acted diligently to assist the applicants in the enforcement proceedings and had taken into account the whole situation and the interests of all the parties concerned. The children\u2019s constant and unwavering refusal to live with their mother had contributed significantly to the non-enforcement of the court orders. In sensitive cases such as those concerning the custody of children, enforcement required a softer and more sensitive approach."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7af2b286-4603-4b9f-8fd8-607d825453c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant further emphasised that the interference complained of had not been \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Section 4a of the 1993 Act allowed a termination where the continuation of a pregnancy constituted a threat to the mother\u2019s life or health. Hence, the applicant had had a legal right under Polish law to have an abortion on health grounds."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "02222d01-8774-4a1d-b505-c224366891bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained about the conditions required to obtain sodium pentobarbital, namely a medical prescription based on a thorough psychiatric assessment. He alleged that, since those conditions could not be met in his case, the right to which he considered himself entitled, namely that of choosing the time and manner of his death, was not respected. He submitted that, in an exceptional situation such as his, access to the necessary medical products for suicide ought to be guaranteed by the State. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8b73ecd1-7089-4ab8-bc61-da233891bfd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant argued that the domestic authorities were under an obligation to protect his right to reputation pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention. In his view, the rulings of the domestic courts were also incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention. In particular, he pointed out that the domestic courts had based their decision to dismiss his case on his sexual orientation. He further submitted that the wording of the domestic courts\u2019 decisions had been discriminatory."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "136994ed-1a8e-4f38-97c6-875f14ee8a77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the colony staff had opened and inspected his letters, and had not dispatched them to addressees. He also complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the Regional Court had incorrectly calculated his sentence. The Court has examined those complaints, as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e883f9d8-e5f4-4ae6-b7bf-c5f33a9fdbcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicants complained of the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18, and of their convictions under that provision. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, they alleged that their right to respect for their private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "356535d8-a0c9-4364-b300-64fa0dd5d930", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicants submitted that the relationship established between them and their respective adopted daughters constituted a family tie, protected by Article <mask> of the Convention, which was therefore applicable in the present case. They referred to Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94), Eriksson v. Sweden (judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156), Marckx v. Belgium (judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31) and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania (no. 31679/96, ECHR 2000-I)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1dd53311-e2a5-4f1e-afd4-ca90a388340a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained that the national authorities\u2019 refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also contended that the fact that Turkish law allows married men to bear only their own surname after marriage and not married women constituted discrimination on grounds of sex and was incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention. The applicant further submitted that the Turkish domestic courts, by disregarding the \u00dcnal Tekeli v. Turkey judgment (cited above) given by the Court and failing to make the necessary amendments to the domestic law, had breached her right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9318b79d-beb5-449b-8789-6e28347f3e56", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained that, by failing to secure his regular contacts with his son, which had been necessary to maintain family ties between them, the domestic authorities had breached their positive obligation to respect his family life. In particular, the applicant complained that in the period between the time his son had been only two months old and the time he had turned eighteen, he had seen him only three times. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "79aadfe8-18e3-454b-9f00-d5d702e29600", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["191.  The applicant argued that execution of the extradition order against him would entail \u201csignificant and irreparable\u201d consequences to his relationship with his wife and children, especially his daughter who required health care in Russia. The extradition order and judicial review decisions had not properly taken into account various aspects relating to his family life. In particular, the appeal court provided no reasoning in response to his related arguments. His extradition would not pursue any of the aims set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the Government\u2019s reference to their other international obligations being insufficient to outweigh their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "37fe5ce2-e163-4409-8923-e38754911e94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government submitted that the case revealed no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While they accepted that the decisions by the Social Council of 2 October 2002 and 10 September 2003 interfered with the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life, they contended that the decisions, and the judgments upon appeal, had been in conformity with domestic law as they had aimed at protecting the children's physical and mental health and their social development."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7649026f-2c77-454e-863e-bf09453a1996", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of inaction on the part of the local authorities in Valencia, in particular the City Council, which had failed to put a stop to the night-time disturbances. In particular, he claimed that the City Council had not fulfilled its positive duty to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "608dc385-fc68-438a-9c9a-223138382dc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had been under secret surveillance between 23 March and 7 August 2007 and subsequently from 17 September 2007, and that he had learnt this when the indictment had been lodged on 10 March 2009. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, the six-month time-limit had started running from that time and there had been no reason for the applicant to wait for the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that in his constitutional complaint the applicant had not expressly relied on the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 35 of the Constitution. He had only complained about the alleged unlawfulness of the secret surveillance orders and the use of their results in the criminal proceedings against him."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "471ae4b9-e8e2-496a-af97-4529f0b6ff2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government claimed that inappropriate blood sampling which led to the DNA test being declared inadmissible did not amount to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Under Article 87 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court could order a second test if it doubted the accuracy of the previous one; however the applicant had failed to request a new test."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eeb8594d-5c00-43bb-9727-4634f9abd630", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government contested the facts as presented by the applicant. The visit had not been organised to take place at a time when no visits were allowed. On the contrary, a specific visiting time had been previously agreed upon with the hospital. No medical procedures had been performed on the applicant\u2019s daughter during his visit and he himself had asked to leave the hospital (see paragraph 19 above). However, in the event that procedures had been performed on other patients and the applicant had been asked to leave the room, the Government held that this clearly would have taken precedence over the applicant\u2019s visiting rights. It was very unlikely that permission to touch his daughter had been granted (see paragraphs 18\u201120 above). Against that background, no interference with rights protected under Article <mask> of the Convention had taken place with respect to the timing and duration of the visit, or as regards the applicant\u2019s ability to touch the child. In any event, even if there had been such an interference, it had been proportionate."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8054e527-041d-4e89-96c4-98e9eb076069", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not in fact been subjected to secret surveillance, and on that basis argued that he was not a victim of an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that it has in a number of previous cases held that to the extent that a law institutes a system of surveillance under which all persons in a country can potentially have their mail and telecommunications monitored, without their ever knowing this unless there has been either some indiscretion, a deliberate leak, or subsequent notification, it directly affects all users or potential users of the postal and telecommunication services in that country. In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 30\u201138, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, \u00a7 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, \u00a7\u00a7 78\u201179, ECHR 2006\u2011XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, \u00a7\u00a7 58\u201159, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, \u00a7 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, \u00a7 34, 10 February 2009)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cbd09ad4-271e-463a-bc05-d8a336ab2e10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant submitted that under the Court\u2019s case\u2011law sometimes the mere existence of laws authorising secret surveillance could render a person victim of an alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. It was not necessary to establish that he had in fact been subjected to such surveillance. The letter of the National Security Agency which said that it had no information that special means of surveillance had been used against the applicant was therefore irrelevant. In any event, that letter did not constitute full proof that the applicant had not been subjected to secret surveillance. When he had sought information on that issue in 2001 and 2003, the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 had allowed a number of authorities to request the use of special means of surveillance against a person. The National Security Agency, which had been created long after that, in 2008, was the successor of only some of those authorities. A 2009 letter in which the Agency affirmed that it had no information that the applicant had been subjected to secret surveillance could not therefore show that other authorities had not sought to have the applicant subjected to such surveillance. Moreover, the law continued to be unclear as to the manner in which information about the use of special means of surveillance was to be recorded and stored. It was therefore difficult to accept that the Agency could provide full information on that point. Another reason why the information given by the Agency\u2019s director was of dubious reliability was that by law any information relating to the use of special means of surveillance was classified, and its disclosure to an unauthorised person amounted to a criminal offence. It was therefore hard to believe that the National Security Agency would make public accurate information about the use of special means of surveillance against the applicant. The only authority, apart from a regional court, that would have been able to give comprehensive and reliable information on that point was the National Bureau for Control over Special Surveillance Means, whose creation had been mandated by the 2008 amendments to the 1997 Act."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "42fd6370-3436-4a91-935d-cfa0f82ce424", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government contended that the application was inadmissible, since the complaint fell outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention and, consequently, Article 14. In any event, unlike in Frett\u00e9 (Frett\u00e9 v. France, no. 36515/97, \u00a7 32, ECHR 2002-I), the refusal to grant the applicant authorisation had not been based, explicitly or implicitly, on the applicant's sexual orientation and could not therefore amount to direct or indirect discrimination based on her homosexuality."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "74e04803-e6ec-457b-a480-a3b484659523", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicants complained that the searches in their house and the photography studio had not been duly circumscribed by the search warrants which had authorised them, had encompassed many items \u2013 such as mobile telephones, computers, flash memory drives and memory cards, and later even the first applicant\u2019s email account \u2013 which contained personal data, and had been carried out chaotically. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "924d4dbe-efb3-4b16-9b1a-3298316a4c2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government did not see how the refusal to call into question the legal situation established in 1970 could be regarded as an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They added that if the Court were to consider that there had been an interference, this was prescribed by section 14(2) of the Law of 1972. In their submission, the Montpellier Court of Appeal had been correct in ruling that the transitional provisions of the Law of 1972 prohibited heirs statutorily entitled to the reserved portion from exercising those rights to the detriment of inter vivos gifts granted prior to 1 August 1972, without thereby depriving such heirs of their inheritance rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "670f10e4-3b89-4f91-b220-cf1f14357cf9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about fairness of the proceedings and under Article <mask> of the Convention claiming that his right to respect for his home had been violated. He further complained under Article 14 of the Convention claiming that he had been discriminated against because of his Albanian origin and poor economic situation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0fe24443-761c-46b7-bcba-5b961b3e4e56", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about his pre-trial detention and claimed that he had been prevented from contacting his family at that time. However, the Court notes that the applicant was released on 30 May 1997, while the present application was only lodged on 25 May 2004. Assuming that the applicant did not have an effective remedy at his disposal to complain about the violations that had allegedly occurred during his pre-trial detention, the starting date of the six\u2011month period provided by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention is that when the violation ended, namely 30 May 1997."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ec63f1db-9b30-4934-bd22-1c5d5e218715", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government accepted that Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention applied to the present case. Thus far, the Court\u2019s case-law had considered homosexual relationships to fall within the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d, but there might be good reasons to include the relationship of a same-sex couple living together within the scope of \u201cfamily life\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2581ed4d-db33-485c-9c4a-ff7dd54286de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained that the State had failed to secure her right to respect for private life as a result of the derisory sum of non-pecuniary damages awarded to her, even though the domestic courts had found that a serious violation of her privacy had been committed by the newspaper Lietuvos Rytas. She also argued that the national legislation did not provide an effective remedy from the point of view of Article <mask> of the Convention as it limited the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages for a breach of privacy by the mass media. The applicant relied on Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b3e8668f-bf85-4802-9059-ee1caee731b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government firstly pointed out that the applicant had not challenged the requisition order by way of administrative recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution but had only challenged the compulsory acquisition order. They argued that in the context of a recourse against the requisition she could have raised and argued the issues under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and filed an application for a suspension of the order of requisition pending the final outcome of the recourse in order to prevent the execution of works and demolition of her house until final determination of the recourse at first instance and on appeal. She had not taken any of these steps, however, although she had known that her house had been requisitioned and would be demolished."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "baa19ff0-5d5c-4986-ba8f-d236c333305c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that it was open to the applicant to challenge before the domestic courts the bailiffs\u2019 actions (or inaction) in enforcing the judgment of 24 January 2014, as well as A.D.\u2019s failure to comply with the above-mentioned judgment. The Government relied in this regard on the 1993 Law on Judicial Review of Measures and Decisions Infringing Individual Rights and Freedoms, and also on Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (\u201cChallenging decisions, actions or the inaction of State and municipal bodies and officials\u201d), which was replaced, from 15 September 2015, by the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation. They furthermore referred to Article 66 \u00a7 3 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, which provided that in the event of non-compliance with a court decision, the parent guilty of non-compliance was to be subjected to measures stipulated by the legislation on administrative offences and enforcement procedure, and that in the event of persistent non-compliance with a court decision, the court could, upon a claim being lodged by the parent residing apart from the child, take a decision to place the child in his or her care, having taken into account the child\u2019s interests and the child\u2019s opinion. However, the applicant had not availed himself of the above remedies and had thus not afforded the domestic authorities an opportunity to address the alleged violations of his rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4da6646b-260c-4eb8-9a16-1dc69c607de0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant argued that the ISP had retained his personal data for almost six months without having a clear legal basis for such action and thus in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his observations, submitted on 15 October 2015, the applicant claimed that he had lodged his application with the Court not because the ISP had failed to keep his personal data secret or because it had retained them beyond the statutory time-limit, but because the State had obtained and used the data in question in the criminal proceedings against him. He argued that he had maintained, throughout the criminal proceedings, that the courts had relied on illegally obtained evidence."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "42a4d6e7-8442-43f2-b240-810b9c97a810", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on visits and telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had had the right to use a telephone only twice a week and that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired. He also alleged that his correspondence had been limited to certain identified people."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7a3e9db5-6981-4676-b234-3c00b45ca935", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government submitted, referring to the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Tonchev v. Bulgaria, no. 18527/02, 19 November 2009; Kulakov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 12944/02, 16 November 2010; and Ilieva and Georgieva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9548/07, 17 April 2012, that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been applicable to the incident of 4 March 2008. The Government considered that at the time of the events in question the applicant had not been in a particularly vulnerable position, given that he had reached the age of majority, and that he had simply fallen victim to a brawl between two groups that took place in front of his school. The attack had not been directed towards the applicant personally and he had not sustained any serious injuries. This had been confirmed by the relevant medical documentation in the case file and the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints that he had suffered mental distress."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f00d38c2-a211-4dfd-b7c0-2e86c557792b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant makes two distinct complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which must be examined separately: first, that paragraphs 398 and 399 of the Immigration Rules, which required the existence of \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d before removal would be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, imposed a higher standard than that of \u201cproportionality\u201d; and secondly, that in all the circumstances of his case, the decision to deport him constituted a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cbfc847c-3ebd-4d24-8896-db58b598184c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention when they applied the Amnesty Act without him asking them to do so. The Court considers that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 that the authorities had infringed his right to an effective remedy. The Court considers that the applicant failed to substantiate that complaint. Moreover, in so far as he relied on the fact that the domestic courts had not properly examined his complaints (see paragraph 20 above), the Court considers that this is covered by its findings under Article 6 of the Convention. In these circumstances the Court finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f95d33ba-0cf9-4ba7-85a2-e6d2f21d1f7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicants complained that they were unable to claim damages in respect of their relatives' deaths before completion of the investigation and thus had no access to court, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about unlawful searches of their homes, carried out by Russian servicemen on the night of their relatives' abduction. In so far as relevant, the respective Convention provisions provide:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "32ef8b77-57e8-4e65-8648-066cc56667ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his sexual orientation in that, as a survivor of a de facto same-sex union, he had been denied a survivor\u2019s pension. The applicant complained in particular of the difference of treatment between de facto same-sex unions who had been unable to achieve legal recognition before the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2005, and unmarried heterosexual couples who had been unable to marry before divorce was legalised in Spain in 1981. The applicant relied on Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "628fdd27-3b55-4b7c-831f-eb0740089d5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government reiterated that the refusal of the residence permit and the expulsion order against the applicant were justified measures under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the circumstances which had led to the applicant\u2019s conviction in 2001 were so serious that the immigration measures had been necessary in a democratic society in order to preserve public order and safety. They also considered that the applicant had shown neither remorse nor the necessary respect towards the victim during the criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "efa058ac-72ff-4e77-8289-08b4b739496a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government argued that as the Secretary of State followed a practice of following the Tribunal's recommendation this did not deprive the Tribunal's review of an effective decision-making function. While they have referred to previous cases concerning the relevance of administrative practices and policies, the Court observes that these judgments examined complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention where issues arose as to whether certain measures were \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d. In that context, the existence of administrative practices may indeed have a bearing on the conditions of lawfulness of measures. Under Article 5 \u00a7 4 however, the plain wording of the provision refers to the decision-making power of the reviewing body. In this case, the power to order release lay with the Secretary of State, even though he may have been under some constraints of administrative law as regarded the situations in which he could or could not depart from a policy that had created legitimate expectations. The ability of an applicant to challenge a refusal by the Secretary of State to follow his previous policy in the courts would not remedy the lack of power of decision in the Tribunal. Article 5 \u00a7 4 presupposes the existence of a procedure in conformity with its provisions without the necessity to institute separate legal proceedings in order to bring it about. Similarly, although both parties appear to agree that the Secretary of State, following entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, would not be able lawfully to depart from the Tribunal's recommendation, this does not alter the fact that the decision to release would be taken by a member of the executive and not by the Tribunal.  This is not a matter of form but impinges on the fundamental principle of separation of powers and detracts from a necessary guarantee against the possibility of abuse (see, mutatis mutandis, Stafford v. the United Kingdom, [GC] no. 46295/ 99, 28 May 2002, ECHR 2002-..., \u00a7 78)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ffa0e21c-7d4e-43af-99de-41ec0b903676", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son, that the unauthorised publication of her son\u2019s photograph in a booklet produced for the Municipal Child Protection Centre had infringed their private and family life. She further complained that the domestic courts had failed to protect her and her son\u2019s rights to respect for their private and family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0d0c67c4-4d5d-4279-a04e-842e689c6c55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government accepted that the first applicant had established a family life with his wife and child in Cyprus within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they argued that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there had been no interference or lack of respect for his family life and home in breach of that provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8f0e411c-5b93-4766-8762-04ff5ddf1db2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained about the interception of his telephone and electronic communications, which he said had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant alleged that his right to respect for his private life and correspondence, protected by that provision, had been breached by the implementation of the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court\u2019s decision. He noted that while the purpose of the impugned measure appeared to be the identification and arrest of criminals, the seizure of evidence and the prevention of criminal acts by illegal terrorist organisations with international connections, the authorities had failed to provide any evidence which indicated that he or any other person living in Turkey had committed a crime. The Assize Court\u2019s decision had also not shown that there was any reasonable suspicion that he or any other person would have committed a crime."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0a4b9219-9e2d-4b73-9a04-2f0bc9cb47c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant submitted that by introducing the possibility to challenge in court a legal presumption of fatherhood, the Bulgarian legislator had recognised the personal right to the protection of private life of individuals who, like himself, were legally presumed to be fathers of children born during the former\u2019s marriage to the mothers. The applicant believed that this right had to be protected not only in theory but also in practice. He argued that by limiting, in law, the possibility of bringing a challenge to fatherhood to one year after the child\u2019s birth or the date of learning thereof, the legislator had deprived of protection any individuals who, like and including the applicant, happened to learn about the biological reality after the expiry of that one year period. Furthermore, by not examining the merits of his legal challenge to paternity, the courts\u2019 decisions represented an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his right to private life in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7d0dacfc-e0ce-408a-9239-e2226c844f95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government have argued that the publication at issue did not affect the second applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 seriously enough for that provision to be applicable. The Court reiterates, however, that in the article the second applicant had been named as a person holding public office and repeatedly breaking the law. It has already been accepted in the Convention organs\u2019 case-law that a person\u2019s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to respect for private life. The Court therefore considered that a person\u2019s reputation, even if that person was criticised in the context of a public debate, formed part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also fell within the scope of his or her \u201cprivate life\u201d (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, \u00a7 35, 15 November 2007, with further references). The Court explained its approach to such cases in its judgment in A. v. Norway (no. 28070/06, \u00a7 64, 9 April 2009), holding that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Mikolajov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, \u00a7 55, 18 January 2011; Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, \u00a7\u00a7 40-41, 5 July 2011). Having regard to the accusations in respect of the second applicant, the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. Article <mask> of the Convention thus applies. The Court also finds that the second applicant\u2019s complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The complaint must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a265313c-5819-468a-9534-42e4d53312a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts\u2019 decision to refuse him access to his son and information about his personal circumstances violated his right under Article <mask> of the Convention to respect for his private and family life. He further submitted that the domestic courts\u2019 failure to investigate sufficiently the relevant facts concerning his relationship with his son, in particular his paternity, and the question whether access was in the child\u2019s best interest violated Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5d7ecced-1b60-444e-aef0-0b6422012a40", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicants contended that this interference was not in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the provision of Article 45 of the Ministry of Interior Act on the ground of which they were dismissed left unlimited discretionary power to the Ministry to terminate the employment of police officers solely on the basis of the initiation of criminal proceedings. The applicants also claimed that this discretionary power was not consistently applied. They further maintained that the law in question had no provision regulating the renewal of employment upon acquittal in criminal proceedings. They essentially argued that the law was not foreseeable enough and that, for these reasons, it did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness from Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants further argued that the definitive termination of their employment solely on the basis of the initiation of criminal proceedings was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d2359f2e-d712-4bca-a906-9c10cd301db5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant submitted that the decision to withdraw night-time care from her and require her to use incontinence pads, even though she was not incontinent, constituted an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her private life. In particular, she argued that it was difficult to conceive of a factual situation which established more of a \u201cdirect and immediate link\u201d to the rights protected under Article 8 than a disabled person\u2019s need or assistance to reach a toilet or commode where they could urinate and defecate in dignity. The aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention relating to personal and psychological integrity were all in play, and the interference affected the applicant\u2019s ability to maintain an independent life at home and negatively impacted on her family life with her partner. Moreover, it exposed her to considerable indignity and placed significant caring responsibilities on her partner, who had made it clear that he was unable to act as her carer."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "beb14f76-90b2-4875-b2db-befe7d9f074a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant submitted that the refusal to grant him compassionate leave was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He emphasised that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, even if a detainee must be subjected to various limitations of his rights and freedoms, each of these limitations must be justifiable as necessary in a democratic society. It was the duty of the State to demonstrate that such necessity really existed in the applicant\u2019s case. The applicant considered that the Government failed to demonstrate such necessity. The refusal of leave was based mainly on the gravity of the committed offence and the penitentiary authorities failed to take into account the progress of the applicant\u2019s rehabilitation. He further considered that the authorities should have acted with greater expediency, having regard to the urgency of the situation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "027c8bf5-4800-4fad-95d6-061bc254880b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government maintained that child benefits did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the State's general obligation to promote family life did not give rise to concrete rights to specific payments. The statutory provision of Section 1 \u00a7 3 of the Child Benefits Act and its application in the present case did not discriminate against the applicants in the exercise of their right to respect for their family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aebf1f4b-6797-4939-9871-df223c47712d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government argued that the applicant could not be considered a victim or even a potential victim of the alleged violation, in that the relevant rules of civil law did not prevent a transsexual from marrying in his new identity following gender reassignment surgery. The key issue was still that of gender recognition and, as such, it was more appropriately dealt with under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c32d37a4-2dde-4e52-b8f9-55d4c1c9c358", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government disputed the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They maintained that the choice of name was not entirely a matter of a person\u2019s individual choice and that the States had a wide margin of appreciation in the area. In their submission, the legislation on assigning names had to remain within the State\u2019s domain and did not come within the scope of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3ce84e0e-e8a1-4b89-b16e-ecb6f6e9c599", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants disputed the Government's argument that their case fell outside the scope of protection of Article 8 of the right to respect for private and family life. They pointed out that the first and second applicants had been married during the period when a stay of execution had been granted in respect of the first applicant's expulsion and were thus lawfully residing in Norway. A marriage, even if entered into in breach of the criteria for contracting marriage, should be regarded as having been legally contracted and as implying the same rights as other marriages entered into in Norway. Spouses of Norwegian citizens who had applied for family reunion had a right to make such an application from Norway and to live with their spouse in the country pending final decision on their application. Thus the first applicant had established and enjoyed family life with a permission to reside in Norway, which was sufficient to trigger the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the Court's case-law in this area (notably Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006\u2011...; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006\u2011...), the applicants argued that the Article 8 guarantees applied also where the person concerned did not hold a formal residence permit but nevertheless lived and had family life in the respondent State."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "41aff369-c73b-488a-b365-e38cd0ae5564", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained of a violation of the right to respect for his private life which had allegedly taken place when his telephone conversation with S.\u017d. and the conversation in person between him, O.V. and S.\u017d. was recorded on 14 December 2001, and when the conversations in his office had been recorded on 18 December 2001. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7866e09f-6631-4e52-b249-b63e7ec032f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government submitted that the aunt did not have the necessary standing to act on behalf of her nephews. Their argument in this respect was threefold: firstly, the father of the boys has never been deprived of his parental rights and was the sole legal guardian of the boys after the death of their mother (see Kru\u0161ki\u0107 and Others v. Croatia, (dec.), no. 10140/13, 25 November 2014). Secondly, the boys have never been placed under the guardianship of their aunt and she hence had no legal basis for representing their interests. Even in the context of the domestic proceedings, the interests of the boys had been \u2012 according to the Government \u2012 represented by a representative of the SSA and not by her. In any event, Ms N.Ts.\u2019s status as an aunt did not amount to family life with the boys meriting protection under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5d676ba8-3f2a-4fa4-adb1-2518921d0586", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicants asked the Court to hold that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While aware that a long period of time had elapsed since the child was taken into care, and that it was in the child\u2019s interest not to be subjected to a further change in his family situation, the applicants considered that the award of a sum by way of just satisfaction would not be sufficient. They sought to resume contact with the child."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "66cde8b7-fb55-4c50-8b5c-e7ed528e09be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that the search of his business and residential premises and the seizure of documents, which had been ordered by the Bad Urach District Court, had been in breach of his right to respect for his home. He argued in particular that, in the context of investigations into a contravention of a regulation committed by a third person, the search was disproportionate. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2089c4ff-67b2-4d74-b47c-cc7bf9a487f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint as he had belatedly presented facts to the Court of Appeal with regard to his relationship to his father and thus to family ties in the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Submissions in that regard would also have been relevant for examining whether his rights under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were concerned."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "90f40e5d-2509-4b2f-9706-a0d713efbb52", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government contended that the concept of private life was very broad and did not lend itself to an exhaustive definition. An individual\u2019s physical and moral integrity fell within the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d and was protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. In that regard, they noted that the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court had sought, inter alia, to provide the applicant with adequate compensation for the damage caused by the surgical procedure to her physical and psychological integrity, which had had an impact on both her health and her well-being. In addition, the Government observed that the applicant had complained of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of sex and age, elements which formed part of an individual\u2019s personality and therefore included the concept of private life. The Government concluded therefore that the circumstances of the case fell within the scope of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "06ec01c7-b0cd-43c3-9621-cd662e6c2b75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicants complained that their removal from Latvia had violated their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention in that the measures taken against them in that connection had not respected their private life, their family life and their home in Latvia. They claimed that those measures had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2. The Court must first determine whether the applicants are entitled to claim that they had a \u201cprivate life\u201d, \u201cfamily life\u201d or \u201chome\u201d in Latvia within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1, and, if so, whether their removal from Latvia amounted to an interference with their right to respect for them."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5d902f7d-708e-492a-9375-4fa5b21fe00d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant also contended that the criminal conviction had adversely affected his moral and psychological integrity and that he had suffered personally, socially, psychologically and economically. The Court observes that the protection of an individual\u2019s moral and psychological integrity is an important aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. It notes, however, that there is no Convention case-law in which the Court has accepted that a criminal conviction in itself constitutes an interference with the convict\u2019s right to respect for private life. The Court does not ignore that such a criminal conviction may entail personal, social, psychological and economic suffering for the convicted person. In the Court\u2019s view, though, such repercussions may be foreseeable consequences of the commission of a criminal offence and can therefore not be relied on in order to complain that a criminal conviction in itself amounts to an interference with the right to respect for \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cdfc578b-5705-42b0-b5ed-7368ddf830ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant replied that in his application in the first Ad\u017ei\u0107 case he had complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention of the excessive length of the proceedings for the return of his son, and under Article 13 that he had not had an effective domestic remedy for those Convention complaints. He had not raised any other complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1, because at that time the proceedings had still been ongoing (see paragraph 11 above), and such a complaint would have been premature."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a7b1f005-06d2-4c14-bf50-92987214ca0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government described the entire incident as a property-related quarrel among neighbours insufficiently serious to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 50 above). There were no long-lasting psychological effects on the applicant. The applicant had also \u201cprobably ... verbally provoked ...\u201d P.V. Lastly, the Government recalled that the applicant had never filed a separate civil suit for damages whilst the respondent State, for its part, had instituted criminal proceedings ex officio."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "23c4408d-a690-4b4d-b5f2-606315459f26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant took a number of steps attempting to obtain redress at the domestic level. For instance, his allegations, which served as the basis for his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in the proceedings before it, were accepted for examination by the domestic courts on the basis of Article 234 of the then current legislation, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1960. Having regard to the conflicting views expressed by the domestic courts in examining that complaint, and especially, to the positions taken by the Supreme Court in its ruling of 13 July 2004 and the District Court in its decision of 14 October 2004 (see paragraphs 37 and 38 above), the Court cannot conclude that the applicant had attempted to use a remedy which was obviously ineffective (compare and contrast with Ulyanov (dec.), cited above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "06c45b19-7cba-49bb-b935-bf349fa0dc13", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government argued that complaints of this nature were to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect they referred to a series of cases against Latvia (see Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, \u00a7\u00a7 157\u2011158, 15 June 2006; \u0145ikitenko v. Latvia, no. 62609/00, \u00a7 37, 16 July 2009; and Pacula v. Latvia, no. 65014/01, \u00a7 65, 15 September 2009)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "56a59126-10f5-458a-9ede-72ed6b4665d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government also considered that in balancing two interests the Lithuanian courts had given sufficient weight to the second applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, they had rightly qualified the statements in the article as statements of fact and thus susceptible to proof, therefore placing a more stringent test on the journalist. The courts had emphasised that the journalist had acted in good faith. When preparing the article she had gathered information from all available sources: she had spoken not only with the applicants\u2019 neighbours, but with the second applicant himself. It was also critical that the journalist had relied on official documents \u2013 sources of information which, according to the Supreme Court, she had a legitimate right to trust. Taking into account the systemic, multiform nature of administrative-law violations attributed to the property jointly owned by both applicants and that they had acted in an extremely abusive and inappropriate manner, the statements in the publication were accurate enough to allow the conclusion that the right to freedom of expression did not overstep the bounds of responsible journalism. In the light of the above, the Government considered that there was a fair balance in the instant case in favour of freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "55847b7a-486f-44a7-a34b-98c9ac817894", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the information about his HIV status had been made available to a third party, G., and that this information had been further disseminated by her to others. He also alleged that the domestic inquiry had taken too long and that he had had no effective remedy at national level."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9c3c347d-7e2a-4525-9921-5c60c58501a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government contended that there was no breach of either Article <mask> of the Convention or of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. They submitted that the refusal of the Supreme Court of Cassation on 26 June 2012 to allow the second applicant\u2019s travel was in strict application of the law, as well as that it was based on the highest court\u2019s constant practice in similar cases, which included a proportionality analysis of the relevant circumstances. They also pointed out that the second applicant was allowed to travel abroad with his mother as a result of the final decision of the Ruse District Court of December 2012."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4db73f6d-e83d-45d9-9680-191ad7c1e8a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government separated three periods as regards the applicant\u2019s long\u2011stay visits: between 31 October and 5 November 2008 and between 24 January 2013 and 17 August 2015; between 17 August 2015 and 22 August 2016; and between 9 August 2016 and 1 January 2017. The Government submitted that for the first period the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention because the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had been expressly acknowledged by the domestic courts and the applicant had received compensation (see paragraph 35 above). For the second period, the Government submitted that the case was still being examined by the domestic courts, and thus the applicant\u2019s complaint regarding that period was premature. Lastly, as regards the third period, the Government argued that the applicant had not asked for long\u2011stay visits during that period."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9ff8d343-e510-43d9-88be-3825f3c9bad2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained that the respondent State, owing to the failure of the domestic courts to secure the accused\u2019s attendance, had failed to protect the right to respect for his private and family life, including his reputation, which had been damaged by the article published in the newspaper. He alleged that as a result of the published article there had been negative public perception about him and his family. His house and business premises had been covered with graffiti describing them as \u201cthieves\u201d. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b7978e36-0fa7-459e-90ef-917a9d17c020", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained that by routing the M04 motorway via her street, which had been unequipped for such a purpose, and by failing to organise the road\u2019s proper environmental monitoring and management, the Krasnodon municipal authorities had breached her right to enjoyment of her home and her private and family life. She referred in this respect to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5ff71b84-704f-475f-8669-d4c4682a246a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant further pointed to the new legislation allowing the establishment of paternity irrespective of the will of the biological father, with the attendant consequences on inheritance cases, as evidence of altered views on such matters. Taken together with the factual relationship between P., on the one hand, and the applicant and his mother, on the other, this necessarily meant that \u201cfamily life\u201d in the sense of Article <mask> of the Convention existed between P. and the applicant."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0d9aa9b3-c4b0-4fb3-b39e-db0e175770b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his confinement in the social care home had violated his rights to home, correspondence and private life on account of the limitation arising from his detention and involuntary medication. Furthermore, under Article 13 of the Convention he complained that he had had no effective remedy for violations of his rights under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 4 and 5 and Article 8 of the Convention. Lastly, relying on Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on grounds of his mental disability and that he had been denied reasonable accommodation, as he had been placed in the social care home instead of being provided with services in the community."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0d64a2c4-d4ab-4498-a30b-0f106d7b2d03", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant made a similar complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention with regard to the following four letters: (1) the letter sent by the applicant to his lawyer on 19 March 2007; (2) the letter sent to the applicant by the Supreme Court on 14 March 2006; and (3-4) the letters sent to the applicant by the INFOR publishing company on 14 August and 10 October 2007."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "96d1a876-f4ac-4f83-afea-728fa31112de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government maintained, on the contrary, that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention did not safeguard aspirations, yet to be fulfilled, to found a family. Refusing to grant a person prior administrative approval for a possible adoption was not a decision that interfered with a person's private life and so it did not fall within the scope of Article 8. While respect for private life should also comprise \u201cto a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings\u201d (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33-34, \u00a7 29), the right to adopt was not included as such among the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see Di Lazzaro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 134)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "02c5ffba-ee9d-46be-aa79-9eeace942b98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants complained about their inability to enjoy family life together as a result of the impossibility, for over two and a half years between 29 April 2010 and the time of submitting their application to the Court on 16 November 2012, for the second applicant to leave the country in order to join his mother in Germany. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9e67779b-3a02-4775-922b-4d2004e5f982", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant also complained of a discriminatory interference with his right to respect for his private life on the grounds that the potential assistance by a third person would have had the effect of making him dependent on that person and depriving him of his privacy, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f5d354dd-d6eb-40d2-a8c2-e9445ff66fda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government conceded that the applicant\u2019s relationship with her adopted children might fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention under the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d. They acknowledged that the fact of the children\u2019s existence would always be an important aspect of the applicant\u2019s life history, given that she was their natural mother. However, they doubted that the decisions of the domestic courts regarding contact and information rights infringed the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private life. The Government pointed out that the applicant had been informed about the legal effects of the placement order. They further stressed that the alleged arrangements concerning a \u201chalf-open\u201d adoption were made only after the applicant had placed the children for adoption. At the time of consenting to the adoption, the applicant had had no grounds whatsoever to assume that she would be able to continue any form of relationship with the children."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "372c473a-ed0f-4e1f-ac9e-3098b3a61c92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the wrong reason was given for his discharge from the armed forces and that the reason given carried a stigma which had a negative effect on his future employment prospects. He further complained under Article 13 about the fact that the award of compensation did not take into account his expenses in bringing the claim. Finally, he complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been the victim of discrimination as he was unable to afford proper representation and, as a result, his status and standing were called into question."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f5f0c9aa-1be0-4f45-8a57-9b1d21dd4806", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on visits and telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired. He also alleged that his correspondence had been limited to certain identified people."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a60e5134-8d85-478e-9c77-47882e02077f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for family life was justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. They essentially stated that the domestic courts had carried out an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of the child and both parents. In the circumstances of the case, the resulting decision not to order the child\u2019s return to Canada had undoubtedly been in his best interest."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "31bc9f04-50a0-4a0f-94fc-5f246365fecf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["267.  The Government argued that extracting the metal fragment would have been not just pointless but impossible. It would not have yielded any useful additional information regarding the circumstances in which M.P. had had recourse to lethal force. Micro-fragments of lead had already been found on the victim's balaclava, the analysis of which had confirmed the intermediate object theory. Furthermore, at the time Carlo Giuliani's body was returned to his family for cremation there had been no reason to suppose that the autopsy report, which had not yet been written, would be \u201csuperficial\u201d. It was usual practice, moreover, to hand over the body to the relatives once the experts had indicated that they had no further need of it. This spared the victim's relatives a further ordeal and respected their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0270c8ea-60cf-465e-88cf-b763061f740c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The applicants complained, firstly, that the order for their removal to Kazakhstan had constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to a private and family life. They argued, secondly, that their placement in detention had not been a necessary measure in relation to the aim pursued and that the conditions and duration of their detention had constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to a private and family life. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2608d360-274a-4bbc-a26f-8783b4efdf38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants complained that, as a whole, the authorities\u2019 behaviour had amounted to a disproportionate interference with their private and family life because for more than six years they had not been allowed to use their embryos for a new assisted reproduction procedure and had thus lost the possibility to have another child. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3cda896e-f82c-48c8-85a1-88db246213e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government noted that the applicant had alleged a violation of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, what was at stake in the present case was a weighing of the applicant\u2019s interests protected by Article 8 on the one hand and the freedom of the press to disseminate information protected by Article 10 of the Convention on the other. It followed that the principles developed by the Court\u2019s case-law under Article 10 also had to be taken into account."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ca6c11c6-5688-4238-9fe8-c9b1be615877", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant contended that the length of the civil proceedings exceeded the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Moreover, he complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by delaying the payment of the additional compensation and by unlawfully depriving him of his property, the authorities violated his right to respect for his private and family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c983c8b1-869c-4d9d-be60-e66a5e94d45a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government conceded that, on the facts of this application, the existence of, and prosecution of the applicant under, legislation providing for different ages of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activities constituted a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government recognised that it was regrettable that there was a policy of maintaining different ages of consent according to sexual orientation. The Government reminded the Court that the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activities had been equalised since 2001 and that they were now engaged in a comprehensive review of the law relating to sexual offences to ensure, inter alia, that legislation did not differentiate unnecessarily on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation. The Government further recalled that, although criminal proceedings were commenced against the present applicant, the CPS decided not to pursue the charges and he was formally acquitted. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "80b139ff-f81d-40cb-98c2-c6998acc14bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government pointed out that while the principle of professional secrecy as expressed in the Lawyers Act served to protect the special relationship of confidence between a lawyer and a client, professional secrecy did not protect the lawyer himself against criminal prosecution or measures in connection with such prosecution. Turning to the present application, the Government stressed that the search had been carried out in the presence of a representative of the Bar Association, and in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to securing the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ab795997-ef04-40de-a49b-bd4183bd2f42", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government admitted that the judgment of 12 March 2009 granting the applicant custody of her son remained unenforced. They asserted, however, that the domestic authorities had applied, without undue delay, all the measures provided for by domestic law to have the above judgment enforced. The measures in question had been adequate and sufficient, and the competent domestic authorities had acted diligently to assist the applicant in execution of the judgment. The enforcement proceedings were still under way, as was the search for the applicant\u2019s son, and enforcement of the judgment in question was still possible. There has therefore been no failure by the State to comply with its positive obligation to secure the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ac8feef0-0785-4d2b-8191-1beddb373c16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant, being duly represented by a lawyer and having had legal training himself, admittedly failed to complain expressly, before the domestic courts, of a violation of his right to respect for his family life, under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in the appeal he lodged on 7 March 2006 with the Court of Appeal, against the District Court's decision, he expressly stated that the court below had reversed the burden of proof, in patent disregard of Article 13 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 38 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5158f2ff-17c4-4d59-93fe-9bd55649ee55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant companies pointed out that the Government had taken nearly three years, following the Constitutional Council's decision of 29 December 1983, to repeal the 1945 ordinance and that the administrative authorities had in the meantime continued to implement regulations which they must have known to be contrary to the Constitution and to the principles enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been during that very period that the inspections in issue had been carried out. The applicant companies further stated that no advice had been issued to the inspectors to exercise a minimum of caution. Having regard to the proceedings after the case had been remitted to the Paris Court of Appeal, the applicant companies argued that that court had not drawn the necessary inferences from the observations submitted by the minister in reply to their pleadings alleging a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. In their submission, the minister's reasoning should logically have led the court to find, in the light of Funke, Cr\u00e9mieux and Miailhe (no. 1), that there had been a violation of Article 8 and therefore to set aside the investigation proceedings. The Paris Court of Appeal's finding that only the right of inspection had been exercised in the instant case had therefore been made proprio motu and was a statement of principle which did not follow from any of the material before it. The applicant companies considered that the judicial authorities had \u201csalvaged\u201d the proceedings in disregard of the Court's case-law. In practical terms, the actions complained of had resulted in the following fines for the applicant companies: 5,000,000 French francs (FRF) for Colas Est, FRF 3,000,000 for Colas Sud-Ouest and FRF 6,000,000 for Sacer."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7dc40b75-e802-4899-8b6d-fd64b943913a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant Ms Ostrovskaya moved to Russia to follow her extended family. Her parents and husband had died but her sister and her adult son lived permanently in Russia with their families. The Court reiterates that an applicant cannot rely upon the existence of \u201cfamily life\u201d in relation to adults who do not belong to his or her core family and who have not been shown to be or to have been dependent on him or her (see Slivenko, cited above, \u00a7 97). Nonetheless, the link between adult children and their parents falls under the head of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (ibid.). She shares household expenses with her son\u2019s family and does not have friends or relatives outside Russia. These are further indicators of the personal, social and economic ties which make up her \u201cprivate life\u201d in Russia, which the exclusion order against her has threatened to disrupt."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40324e30-6b6b-4fa3-b958-2d526af8ef27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government further asserted that the documents confirming the allotment of the plot of land to the applicant were missing from the records of the local council of the village of Bratskoye, that the title to the houses which the applicant and his brother had built on that plot had not been properly registered, and that those houses were not listed as residential premises, according to the records of the local council of Bratskoye. They referred in this respect to the certificates of 2007 (see paragraphs 75, 77 and 78 above). The Government also submitted that between 1997 and 1999 the applicant and his family had been absent from their premises, which at that time had been occupied by Chechen fighters who had built quarters on the applicant's land, and that at the moment when the units of the Ministry of the Interior had occupied the applicant's estate it had been abandoned, and therefore had not been his home within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9afa50ce-3789-4c49-8c34-f2742b4fd55a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government submitted that the restriction of the applicant\u2019s right to correspondence had been based on section 13 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act, and had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the context of the proportionality test, they emphasised that, even though the applicant had not been granted permission to correspond with his relatives, he had benefitted from three family visits during the relevant time."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f57d43d6-cba2-46d0-aecf-fa5e3c6eae55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant argued that the quashing by the City Court of the judgment of 2 December 2015 ordering V.\u2019s immediate return to Finland had amounted to unlawful and disproportionate interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, as it had not been necessary in a democratic society. He challenged the City Court\u2019s interpretation of the provisions of the Hague Convention regarding its basic concepts, such as \u201chabitual residence\u201d, \u201cwrongfulness of the removal\u201d, and \u201cexceptions to immediate return\u201d. In interpreting those concepts, the court had applied approaches characteristic of the national law, without regard to their autonomous meaning in the light of the Hague Convention. He criticised the court\u2019s finding that Finland had not been the place of his daughter\u2019s habitual residence despite the fact that she had been born in Finland and had lived there for over two years prior to her removal to Russia, where she had never been before. The applicant noted in this connection that I.K. had not disputed the fact that Finland had been the country of V.\u2019s habitual residence (see paragraphs 14 and 33 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "14497c5a-2959-4156-9032-53c120966269", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant also complained that the use of the land next to her house for burials had breached her rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular, on account of an elevated risk that her well water would be poisoned and in view that living in the immediate proximity of a functioning cemetery caused her serious psychological discomfort."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8686ac79-512a-4361-ad57-c38f385a8605", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government accepted that the police officers' entry into the front garden of the applicant's house constituted an interference with her right to respect for her home guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the interference had been in \u201caccordance with the law\u201d. According to the Government, the interference had been based on section 13(19) of the Police Act of 18 December 1990, and in particular on provisions authorising the police to enter private houses without the consent of the owner and to inspect them in order to put an end to offences and to pursue persons suspected of having committed an offence. The Government also argued that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "897a020a-9d0f-4c6f-afd0-3f9274879a4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government submitted that the decision ordering the demolition of the house in which the applicants lived was lawful. It had been judicially reviewed and upheld. It was also necessary for the protection of public safety. The national authorities had a wide margin of appreciation to tackle the problem of illegal construction. The impossibility to legalise unlawful buildings had been put in place in view of the strong public interest to ensure the safety, hygiene and aesthetics of construction. The demolition of a building because it had been erected without a permit was a proportionate measure required in all cases and not capable of being eschewed at the discretion of the building control authorities. Those authorities had acted straight away when apprised of the illegality of the house inhabited by the applicants, and had not tolerated an illegal situation for a long time: the applicants had started inhabiting the house at the earliest in 2009 and the demolition procedure had started in 2011. The applicants had constructed the house knowing full well that they had not obtained the required permit. All such buildings, unless falling under the transitional amnesty provisions of the 2001 Act, were subject to demolition; the courts had inquired into that point in the applicants\u2019 case. The authorities had allowed the first applicant to comment on the intended demolition, and had invited her to comply with the demolition order of her own accord. In as much as she argued that she had no other place to live, it had to be noted that in June 2013, after the beginning of the demolition proceedings, she had donated a flat that she owned in Burgas and that, although the authorities did not have an obligation to provide the applicants, who did not belong to a particularly vulnerable group, with alternative accommodation, they had explored the possibility of settling them in a municipal flat. The second applicant was in receipt of a sufficiently high pension and the first applicant was able to work. They could thus afford to pay market rent in Sinemorets, and their personal circumstances were not as dire as they sought to paint them. The authorities had endeavoured to take all these matters into account when sending a social worker to interview the first applicant. It was equally possible to have the proportionality of the demolition reviewed in proceedings under Article 278 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006. The interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their home was therefore proportionate. Article <mask> of the Convention could not be construed as precluding the enforcement of the building regulations in respect of those who sought to flout them, or as requiring the authorities to provide persons in the applicants\u2019 situation with a place to live."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d4a1f2a1-87ac-436c-a430-c1a7223fdf79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant submitted that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, Article <mask> of the Convention applied to both the child and the mother, and the right to know one\u2019s origins could not have the effect of simply denying a woman\u2019s interest in remaining anonymous in order to protect her health by giving birth in appropriate medical conditions: the conflict was between two private interests \u2013 which moreover affected two adults each endowed with her own free will \u2013 which were not easily reconciled, on account of the complex and delicate nature of the question raised by the secrecy of information about a child\u2019s origins regarding each and everyone\u2019s right to their personal history, the choice of the birth parents, the existing family tie and the adoptive parents. She argued that the Court should seek to balance the competing interests and examine whether in the present case the Italian system had struck a reasonable balance between the competing rights and interests."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eccfbae8-2a99-4f01-8c26-2973d0dc6c95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government denied that the domestic child-care system in any way failed to respect the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, pointing out that the child's welfare and need for secure placement was at the heart of the authorities' concerns and that the importance of safeguarding the link between a child and the family of origin was recognised. Adoptions could provide for contact, where such was in the child's interests. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e28d11b7-08d7-4c51-9a74-316dd2b96c3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant contested the Government's arguments that she had deliberately acted or omitted to bring paternity proceedings within the prescribed time-limit. The applicant argued that she could not be blamed for the fact that she had been given the chance to identify her father only at the age of fifty-two. She had been deprived of her right to seek judicial recognition of paternity. In her opinion, the Law in question was disproportionate since her above right had been extinguished before it had been created. Hence, she submitted that there had been a violation of her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b280a9eb-e2ea-42a6-b0ce-e91c1da05acc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The applicants also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complaining about the search conducted at their home on 20 July 2004. They claimed that it had been unlawful, that some of their belongings had been damaged and that the State agents who conducted the search had stolen their money and some of their belongings. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ce6f611f-e1fe-47e5-9d40-7de728664aab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government admitted that there had been interference with the applicant's rights secured by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a result of a temporary occupation of his premises by the consolidated police units, but argued that it had been justified in the circumstances of the case and fully complied with \u201cthe general principles of international law\u201d, given that at the material time a counter-terrorist operation had been underway in Chechnya in order to ensure the fulfilment of Russia's international obligations in the fight against terrorism. In this connection the Government quoted the United Nations and Council of Europe documents on combating terrorism, to the effect that States were urged to ensure that their territories were not used for the organisation of terrorist acts and that States could derogate from their obligations undertaken in accordance with international treaties on protection of human rights \u201cwhen the fight against terrorism took place in a situation of war or public emergency which threatens the life of the nation\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b71c1705-4518-4ac2-b542-fba998375c23", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the occupation by federal police units of his estate, which represented the only housing for him and his family, between October 1999 and June 2002, had infringed his right to respect for his home and his private and family life, and had constituted a temporary de facto expropriation of his possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Under the latter head the applicant also complained about the State's failure to enforce the judgment of 14 February 2001 in a timely manner and the refusal of the domestic courts to award him compensation for the damage caused to his property by the federal forces. The respective provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "986776d7-ae43-4c74-a44d-8be379e8682b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant submitted that, contrary to the applicant in the Loizidou case, himself, his wife and his daughter and son had had their principal residence in the town of Kyrenia. He claimed to be a displaced person under Article <mask> of the Convention and argued that the respondent Government had implicitly admitted the lack of any legal justification for the interference at issue."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8600d13e-086c-4898-ab62-21fe98070f72", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["2.  The applicant\u2019s claim that he had sustained a violation of his right of access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 is distinct from the interference with his right to respect for his honour and reputation under Article <mask> of the Convention. Under Article 6 \u00a7 1, the applicant complained that he did not have an adequate opportunity to address the allegations of harassment in the workplace made exclusively against him during the proceedings in the High Court of Justice of Castilla-Le\u00f3n. Following those proceedings, in which the applicant was not allowed to take part, the High Court of Justice issued a judgment which included the applicant\u2019s identity and described his conduct as amounting to repeated psychological harassment. The applicant argued that this judgment was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his honour and reputation as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. Thus, the two complaints, although related, are separate: one, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, relates to his right to participate in the proceedings, while, the other, under Article 8 of the Convention, concerns the harm caused by the inclusion of his name in the judgment (see paragraph 28 of the judgment)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "560c02c3-f572-4b15-8599-a862bafdf4c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government referred to the Court\u2019s jurisprudence to the effect that where immigration is concerned, Article <mask> of the Convention cannot be considered to impose on a State a general obligation to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to authorise family reunion in this territory (see G\u00fcl v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, \u00a7 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011I, and Pejcinoski v. Austria (dec.), no. 33500/96, 23 March 1999). In their view, it was primarily the applicant\u2019s duty, and not that of the Russian authorities, to take care of his family and ensure that they lived together. To that end he had to comply with the relevant laws and regulations so as to obtain in due time the authorisation required for his stay in Russia. Yet, despite the numerous breaches of the immigration regulations committed by the applicant, the authorities had for a long time refrained from ordering his administrative removal. The decision on the applicant\u2019s administrative removal was taken after he had been found guilty of an administrative offence on account of a breach of immigration laws for the fifth time. Therefore, the applicant must have realised that his failure to rectify his conduct would result in his removal. Furthermore, the applicant had been found guilty of an administrative offence on account of a breach of traffic rules sixteen times during his stay in Russia. Therefore it was only after the applicant had demonstrated particular defiance of the Russian law and order that such measure was taken. Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s removal was proportionate and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d as required by Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fbdd66c2-cc2f-4997-b846-a3138a6652ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that the loss of their jobs, respectively, as a private-company lawyer and barrister, and the ban under Article 2 of the Law on the Evaluation of the USSR State Security Committee (NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB) and the Present Activities of Permanent Employees of the Organisation (\u201cthe Act\u201d) on their finding employment in various private-sector spheres until 2009, breached Article <mask> of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1d7146d1-8d53-45e6-890b-253ccec25a3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully deprived of the flat. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that the separation of the property jointly owned by him and his former wife had not been in accordance with the law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "14038168-61af-467c-b57d-b1d79bea436e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicants complained that the Court\u2019s correspondence had been opened by the prison authorities and that it had been received in a disorderly state; thus, they were not sure that they had had access to all the documents submitted to the Court by the Government. They further alleged that the authorities had stopped their correspondence (with their lawyer) in an attempt to hinder their right to complain before the Court. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2f101b60-a7df-4424-9561-785ac81d1e31", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["204.  The applicants also complained that the authorities\u2019 failure to maintain the channel of the Pionerskaya river in a proper state of repair and to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of floods resulted in the damage done to their homes and property, and that no compensation had been awarded to them for their losses. They referred to Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which, in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "488b46fd-2e1e-4141-8ece-ab6264e31849", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the court decisions refusing joint custody had infringed his right to respect for his family life, and under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that the application of Article 1626a \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code amounted to unjustified discrimination against unmarried fathers on the grounds of sex and in comparison with divorced fathers."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8ce2d999-368b-44dc-b9bf-e86a9be85aa1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants submitted that the telephone metering of the telephone in B.\u2019s flat constituted an interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, referring to Malone v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 30-31, \u00a7 64). They conceded that the information was disclosed in accordance with the applicable domestic law (namely section 45 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and section 28(3) of the Data Protection Act 1984). However, neither, of these legislative provisions, nor any common-law rule, provided the safeguards envisaged in the Court\u2019s case-law (see Khan, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 26-28; Halford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 1017, \u00a7\u00a7 49-51; and Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, pp. 55-57, \u00a7\u00a7 32-35), in particular as regards the use to which the material could be put, the conditions under which it would be stored, provision for its destruction, etc. They argued that section 45 of the 1984 Act merely exempted telephone operatives from prosecution if they disclosed information in connection with a criminal offence. Equally, the Data Protection Act rendered personal data liable to disclosure for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. Neither Act stipulated any of the restraints on abuse which, for instance, are to be found in the Police Act 1997 in relation to covert recordings. Accordingly, the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 was effected otherwise than \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fce3c536-04f5-4dcc-9281-320ac0d08c41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["145.  The Government claimed that the applicant should have lodged a constitutional complaint in order to challenge the constitutionality of Article 217 of the CECS with Article 47 of the Constitution. They referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 2 July 2009 (no. K 1/07), given on an application from the Ombudsman, in which this provision was found incompatible with the Constitution and Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as it did not specify the reasons for refusing family visits to remand prisoners. The applicant maintained that he had exhausted the relevant domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "47aa1c21-461d-4037-bf50-1276cb506285", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government considered that the relationship between the first and second applicants and the first and third applicants did not fall within the scope of \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They emphasised that the first and second applicants had separated in May 2009 and were no longer cohabiting. It was thus clear that the family relationship had broken down and no longer fell within the scope of family life. The Government further submitted that the third applicant was an adult who had started her own family. The fact that the first applicant would babysit for the third applicant\u2019s son was not sufficient to establish a specific dependence which could bring their relationship within the scope of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a0c66b55-697b-42d7-8dd2-93540ed1a570", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The Government accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that such interference had been lawful and justified. In particular, the secret surveillance orders had been based on Article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been issued and supervised by an investigating judge pursuant to reasoned and substantiated requests from the State Attorney\u2019s Office. Moreover, such interference had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating and prosecuting corruption and had been proportionate to the circumstances and seriousness of the offence at issue. The Government also considered that there had been no reason to rely on the OSCOC Act when ordering and conducting special investigative measures as the additional covert measures envisaged under that Act had not been used and thus that Act had not been applicable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "04030525-e3c9-4a47-8bab-60dfd68048c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["189.  The Government referred several times in their written submissions to the fact that the applicant herself disclosed details of the caution to her prospective employer, and that the details she disclosed were merely confirmed by the Criminal Records Office. The Court observes that the posts for which the applicant applied were subject to vetting. In this context she was asked for details of her conviction and caution history and provided them as requested. The Court notes and agrees with the comments of Lords Hope and Neuberger in R (L), to the effect that the fact that disclosure follows upon a request by the data subject or with her consent is no answer to concerns regarding the compatibility of disclosure with Article <mask> of the Convention. Individuals have no real choice if an employer in their chosen profession insists, and is entitled to do so, on disclosure: as Lord Hope noted, consent to a request for criminal record data is conditional on the right to respect for private life being respected (see paragraph 106 above). The applicant\u2019s agreement to disclosure does not deprive her of the protection afforded by the Convention (see paragraph 110 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ed203ea1-8417-4be1-8d78-e7303c003568", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant maintained that the relevant passage of the High Court's judgment amounted to an affirmation of suspicion that he had committed sexual abuse. Referring to a medical statement of 7 June 2003 (see paragraph 21 above) the applicant submitted that, having been labelled a sexual abuser, he had suffered serious psychological and social problems. He also invoked a psychiatrist's statement of 4 September 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). The impugned passage entailed an unjustified interference with his right to respect for private and family life in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b2c6e479-bd1c-4d68-ac56-c85d95fe4460", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The applicant claimed 55,000 euros (EUR) for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the violation of his rights under the Convention: EUR 20,000 for the violation of Article 3, EUR 30,000 for the violation of Article 5 and EUR 5,000 for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He cited the Court\u2019s case-law to prove that comparable amounts had been awarded for violations of these Articles."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4fc4c323-a77e-4a64-947b-375340260861", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant submitted that the domestic decisions interfered with his own rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Both the Federal Institute and the domestic courts had failed to appreciate that he had a personal interest in the decision on his late wife\u2019s request. This personal interest derived from the wish that his wife\u2019s decision to end her life be respected. Furthermore, the distressing situation provoked by his wife\u2019s unfulfilled wish to commit suicide had immediate repercussions on his own state of health."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8687fa1a-eb5e-4ee8-b9cd-9f86aad83af2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government did not call into question the applicants' ownership of the property in issue, nor dispute the argument that the persons referred to had entered the house against the applicants' will. The Court is therefore satisfied that the actions of the aforementioned men constituted an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their home secured by Article <mask> of the Convention and their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further notes the absence of any justification on the part of the State for its agents' actions in that regard. It accordingly finds that there has been a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their home under Article 8 of the Convention and their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e4e6d4ae-54dc-4f27-a2a2-58cd6067e5e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government maintained that the domestic courts applied standards that were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention as interpreted in the Court\u2019s case-law and that the balancing test, between the competing rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, was based on principles developed in the Court\u2019s case-law. In the light of that and the fundamental principles of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation, the Government submitted that there had not been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention by the Supreme Court\u2019s decision not to award him damages and legal costs."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "12329a5c-b3e0-4daa-afe1-4a1441fc34f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decision to order the applicant\u2019s eviction had constituted an inference with his right to respect for his \u201chome\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that such interference had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible for social housing and that it had been proportionate to that aim. In particular, the applicant had only lived in the flat for about eleven months before his eviction, which in their opinion was insufficient to develop a long-lasting connection to it. He had moreover not asked that eviction be suspended."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "357f730b-f7b8-40b1-a7e1-153516783000", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["121.  The Government asserted that the Russian legal system provided for an effective remedy in respect of the applicants\u2019 grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to Chapter 25 of the CCP containing the mechanism for challenging State and municipal authorities\u2019 decisions before the courts. The Government stated that a final domestic decision in the context of such proceedings would be \u201can appellate (cassation appellate) judgment of the second-instance court, where citizens ha[d] a right to apply if they disagreed with the findings of the first-instance court\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "02517bff-d99f-42b1-91f2-ce56bd65fa07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that the decision to deny the first applicant continued residence in the Netherlands was necessary in a democratic society and was proportionate. Referring to the guiding principles for cases of this nature as established by the Court (Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, \u00a7 48, ECHR-2001), they argued that the first applicant had been convicted of an extremely serious drug offence, of the kind that creates a sense of unease and insecurity in society. The Government added that drug offences are regarded both nationally and internationally as a very serious threat, and that considerable efforts have been made, and are still being made, to counter them. The mere fact that the first applicant had not been convicted of such crimes again should not be of decisive importance when balancing the different interests involved in relation to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a4492ffd-c10b-49df-ac97-e63dbfc4764b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government informed the Court that the first applicant, Mr E. B., had died on 14 September 2008 and asked the Court to strike the application off the list. They submitted that his application, which essentially concerned complaints under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, related to his private life and could not be transferred to an heir."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "64188857-252b-4f6a-8a26-452aa335d935", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant further complained that the facts of the case had given rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Her right to respect for her private life and her psychological and moral integrity had been violated by the authorities\u2019 failure to provide her with access to genetic tests in the context of her uncertainty as to whether the foetus was affected with a genetic disorder and also by the absence of a comprehensive legal framework to guarantee her rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7fca4da8-1c1f-4dd7-9339-ad96b1f88153", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicants complained of the Federal Court of Justice\u2019s refusal to prohibit the media outlets concerned from keeping on their respective Internet portals the transcript of the Deutschlandfunk radio programme broadcast at the time of the events and the written reports published in old editions of Der Spiegel and Mannheimer Morgen concerning the applicants\u2019 criminal trial and their ensuing conviction for murder. The applicants alleged an infringement of their right to respect for their private life under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8130f6ad-6650-45ba-95e8-a023ec3f02f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicants complained that the facts of the case gave rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that their right to due respect for their private and family life and for the first applicant\u2019s physical and moral integrity had been violated by the absence of a comprehensive legal framework guaranteeing her timely and unhindered access to abortion under the conditions set out by the applicable laws."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "02b6fc60-4333-4977-b73c-005ffc5f2e29", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to assist him in his efforts to maintain contact with his daughter. He relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. Since the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by the applicant (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, \u00a7 54, 17 September 2009). It thus finds it more appropriate to examine the case under the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention alone (see, mutatis mutandis, Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, \u00a7 111, 1 December 2009), which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "950cfa7e-2e02-4585-82b7-7584d9fb1f60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants submitted that contrary to the Government\u2019s assertion, in order for Article <mask> of the Convention to apply, it was irrelevant that they had not suffered actual injuries, since their physical integrity had been exposed to a clear and imminent danger. The first applicant, Mr Kir\u00e1ly, was a resident of Devecser and although he had not stayed in his own house during the demonstration but had been at his brother\u2019s house, his ties to the place and to the persons living there were close enough that it could be considered his \u201chome\u201d for the purposes of Article 8. They further argued that even threats that had not actually materialised into concrete acts or physical violence could affect a person\u2019s psychological integrity as protected under Article 8. This was particularly the case if the threat of violence was made with reference to a person\u2019s Roma origin. In their view, the threats uttered against the Roma community in an openly racist rally and accompanied by acts of violence had caused such a degree of fear and distress, as well as a feeling of menace and inferiority, that they had affected their psychological integrity, rendering Article 8 applicable in the present case. This was particularly the case, since the applicants had been subjected to intentional harassment as members of a captive audience, unable to avoid the message conveyed by the speakers and demonstrators."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fe3a569b-3823-4296-af1f-28c1b32e220e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to respect for his family life had been violated. He claimed, in particular, that the restriction imposed by the domestic courts on his parental rights in respect of his son D. was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and not justified, as it had not been convincingly shown that he posed any danger to his son. He also alleged that, in so far as the relevant court decisions allowed him to have contact with his son in a manner and to the extent requested by him, those decisions were illusory and meaningless, as they ordered that contact may only take place with the consent of the child\u2019s guardian, Ms T.K., who in fact was hostile towards the applicant and had explicitly requested the domestic courts to restrict his parental rights in an attempt to minimise his contact with the boy. The applicant also complained that the restriction in question was discriminatory on the ground of his mental disability and therefore in violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f598f1dc-e84d-49e5-8635-ac4a485872d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submitted that the interference complained of was justified under Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, it was in accordance with the law and based on a reasonable suspicion that the first applicant had committed an offence, namely that he had been illegally distributing software. The first applicant had not been diligent in conducting his business, as was evident from the fact that he had already been warned by the police once and could have predicted the consequences of his behaviour. The Government went on to argue that the interference had the legitimate aim of prevention of crime and maintenance of fair competition. They claimed that the interference was also proportionate: the officers who had carried out the search and seizure had known where to search and what to search for, and the operation had been conducted in the presence of the applicants, a technician and two certifying witnesses. Also, the authorities had carefully listed the seized computers in the search-and-seizure record, retained the computers in accordance with the law and in connection with the ongoing criminal proceedings, and the content of the computers had not been made public. Furthermore, the approval of the record by the court had been an important safeguard and had served as a guarantee for the justification of the measure. Lastly, the Government pointed out that unlike the cases of Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008), Kopp v. Switzerland (25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II) and Heino v. Finland (no. 56720/09, 15 February 2011), the search-and-seizure operation had not touched upon any privileged material."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ef959834-f7d9-4805-a509-fd03c3a4509c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained that the allegedly defamatory sworn statements of the police officers that led to the imposition of restrictive measures against him and to a public trial were an attack on his reputation and hence on his private and family life. He argued that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5a03d686-7e29-4d57-b67b-2de514ee210c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicants submitted that they had suffered a serious interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the severe environmental pollution emanating from the thermal power plant in close proximity to their homes and the State\u2019s failure to regulate the hazardous industrial activity. They relied on the expert reports commissioned by the domestic courts in support of their claims (see paragraphs 18-24 and 29-30 above). They further argued that the third applicant had not refused to undergo the medical examination commissioned by the first-instance court, as it had selected the claimants at random."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "309255c1-98d0-48f4-b8b2-513aca8907f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government argued that protecting individuals from erroneous and defamatory statements corresponded to a pressing social need, even with respect to public figures. They submitted that the domestic courts had thoroughly assessed the disputed statements and had not found sufficient evidence to support them. The Government lastly submitted that the applicant had not suffered disproportionate consequences because the domestic courts had not ordered her to retract the disputed statements or to pay damages, nor had they prohibited further publication or sales of the book \u2013 the applicant and her brothers had only been obliged to ensure that the disputed statements would no longer be disseminated (see paragraph 31 above). The Government thus argued that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 10 and the other party\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "411e7752-dd7d-42b8-b7fc-40067919a004", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decisions to order the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that such interference had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and that it had been proportionate to that aim."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e0d2363a-4e25-4954-b2c0-f8f9ace9881c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants submitted that the first applicant was integrated in Austria and had a right to an employment permit under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted in this regard that the first applicant had lived in Austria since 1992 with an indefinite settlement permit and that his wife, who also lived in Austria had become an Austrian national in 2002. The first applicant had already worked for the second applicant for six months in 1993. The applicants submitted that a claim to work by a foreign worker permanently established with his family in the host country was, at the very least, an arguable right. The right of a foreign employee to an employment permit was furthermore indirectly recognised by the case-law of the Constitutional Court according to which an alien was not to be discriminated against by another alien. Further, the competent authorities did not have an unfettered discretion to decide whether or not an employment permit should be granted but were bound by the conditions laid down in the Employment Act. The applicants argued that the first applicant\u2019s right to employment in Austria could be deduced from the Geneva Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Association Agreement between Austria and Turkey and the European Social Charter."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d2403076-de15-459d-9441-bab7a21dcd43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants referred firstly to the fact that the domestic courts had established medical negligence in respect of the first applicant. There had thus been a very serious interference with her physical and psychological integrity, as confirmed by the domestic judgments. However, the finding that their rights had been breached was not sufficient to take away the applicants\u2019 status as victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the compensation awarded was far from being just or in line with comparable Article 8 cases examined by the Court."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "064dc80e-88e8-4e5e-90a6-5125ea70ad76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the decision to divest him of his Maltese citizenship had not been made in accordance with the law. It had interfered with his right to private and family life and exposed him to the risk of being separated from his family. The decision had not been accompanied by the relevant procedural safeguards as required under Article <mask> of the Convention and the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect his rights under that provision. Lastly, the applicant complained that the decision had left him stateless. He thus had to live in a state of uncertainty, where he could not even leave the country for fear of not being let back in. The provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d9213865-4ea9-40a2-8b72-fab76ef8fa02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicants argued that the taking of the children into public care and their removal from their home were extremely drastic measures. It was not appropriate to refer to investigations done in 1992 and 1993 and to order the contested measures without hearing them or any witnesses as to the arguments put forward by the Youth Office. In particular the removal and taking into care of the child Laura-Michelle shortly after her birth, constituted a serious breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and had to be considered inhuman treatment in respect of both mother and child. Further, the removal of the new-born baby deprived Mrs Haase of the possibility of breastfeeding, which had recognised health benefits. This child was neither mentioned in the expert report nor included in the Youth Office's request to the District Court. The removal of Laura-Michelle from the hospital was therefore unlawful. In of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision of 22 June 2002, they were still affected by the decision of the M\u00fcnster District Court of 17 December 2001, since they were still separated from the children and some of the children from each other."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "810d4749-8a6b-4b2c-b343-c9526e8cacdf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant submitted that the authorities should have taken urgent action in accordance with the positive obligations arising out of Article <mask> of the Convention. On the contrary, they had left her in a vulnerable situation despite being aware of the danger she faced. The initial inaction of the authorities and the subsequent inaction of the social services had thus deprived her of the protection she needed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8064c2af-2aab-4d6f-b7f1-59819a57d8d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government submitted at the outset that, in view of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the period in respect of which the conditions of the applicant's detention should be examined had started only on 21 March 2006 (i.e. six months before the date on which the application had been introduced) and ended on 15 December 2006, when he had been transferred to a purpose-built unit at Sopronk\u0151hida Prison. In respect of the latter measure, they emphasised that this institution had been equipped to accommodate disabled inmates. As regards the period spent in Szeged Prison, the Government were of the view that the conditions and incidents complained of had not attained the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 to come into play, especially in view of the speedy measures taken by the authorities to remedy them. Nor had they constituted a breach of the applicant's rights enshrined under Article <mask> of the Convention, the curtailment of his privacy being a necessary consequence of the strict-regime prison sentence imposed on him."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1ba1af37-75f8-4225-9905-e7dac31aa8cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not guarantee a right to receive long-term visits for detainees. They relied on, most notably, the cases of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000\u2011X), Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2) (no. 31583/96, 3 April 2003), and Aliev v. Ukraine (no. 41220/98, 29 April 2003) to argue that such a right could not be derived from the Court\u2019s case-law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "73cc2d2b-7c41-400e-a153-de5326911758", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The applicant\u2019s situation is rather a specific situation of a stateless migrant who complains that the uncertainty of his situation and the impossibility to regularise his residence status in Croatia following his almost forty-year, at times regular and constantly tolerated, stay in Croatia adversely affects his private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. The instant case thus concerns the issues of the respect for the applicant\u2019s private life and immigration lato sensu, both of which have to be understood in the context of the complex circumstances of the dissolution of the former SFRY."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8ceca77a-c4b3-4ae6-867c-ee00a71b48fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant complained that the facts of the case had given rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the applicability of this provision, the applicant emphasised that the facts underlying the application had concerned a matter of \u201cprivate life\u201d, a concept which covered the physical and moral integrity of the person (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, \u00a7 22)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d39df261-a207-4a64-bcbb-d7f06b7db6e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants argued that the interference had not been justified under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they stated that the prosecutor could have interviewed V.E. to verify his statements. They claimed that there had been no reasonable suspicion and therefore no basis for the search-and-seizure operation. In response to the Government\u2019s assertion that the first applicant had already been warned by the police once, the applicants submitted that at that time they had presented all the necessary documents. In their view, the operation had been unlawful because the circumstances had not been pressing: the authorities had planned the operation carefully and could have sought judicial approval beforehand. The subsequent judicial review had been formalistic and had failed to provide any safeguards against abuse, and the applicants had been unable to present their arguments. Also, it had not been necessary for the authorities to seize the computers; they could have seized only the computer products by recording them on paper or by some other means. Lastly, the applicants asserted that the computers had been retained without due consideration of the fact that they had contained personal information."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bde115d2-aa7c-4418-a97d-750ededa3a8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that the time-limit for establishing the paternity of children born before the entry into force of the new Paternity Act on 1 October 1976 gave rise to a violation of his rights under Article 8 as he could not have the paternity established, despite the conclusive DNA tests. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4d2ed6d4-5b1e-454f-9155-b7a43f1b9a1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained in substance under Article <mask> of the Convention, firstly, that the removal of tissue from her husband\u2019s body had been carried out without his or the applicant\u2019s prior consent. Secondly, she complained that \u2012 in the absence of such consent \u2012 his dignity, identity and integrity had been breached and his body had been treated disrespectfully."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5053b172-b567-46a1-857f-4819590fceed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant argued that the courts arbitrarily reduced his right of access. As a result of the conduct of the child's mother and the court decisions in the present case, he had been deprived for almost one year of any contact with his daughter. The courts should have made the child's mother aware of her obligation of offering some form of co-operation in raising their child despite the fact that the couple were no longer together. In his opinion, the obstructing of contact by the child's mother should be considered as a dereliction of her primary duty to protect  the child's rights, in particular on account of the child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. In his submissions, the restriction and almost complete suspension of his right of access constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2a0834fd-46fb-4839-9b6e-0a0f605d5b88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government did not contest that the police posting of the applicant\u2019s photograph constituted an interference, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, that interference was justified because it had had been carried out as an \u201coperational investigative measure\u201d. The Government stated that, since the applicant\u2019s photograph had not been circulated through the mass media, the interference was of a limited nature and could not amount to a violation. They further asserted that the competent authorities had duly conducted an investigation to identify the persons involved in the impugned act. The Government contested as untrue the applicant\u2019s submission that his photograph had been removed after the newspaper publication of 9 February 2004. In reality, they claimed, the photograph had been removed following the authorities\u2019 proper recognition of their \u201cerror\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c36e8fc0-6d24-4c19-92ba-54d51a44b662", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant maintained that her request for information about strictly personal aspects of her history and childhood came within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Establishing her basic identity was an integral part not only of her \u201cprivate life\u201d, but also of her \u201cfamily life\u201d with her natural family, with whom she hoped to establish emotional ties were she not prevented from doing so by French law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8dcf605e-e686-4e32-a8b4-1bb690067297", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant pointed out that he had never had the chance to get acquainted with the full text of his psychological assessments. In fact, it had been exactly the \u201cdisturbing, yet unclear and incomplete\u201d information given to him about them that had provoked him to seek the full results. The applicant pointed out also that the psychological assessments concerned his state of health and his mental integrity, which justified his legitimate interest in them. The nature of the information sought by him meant in addition that it had to be considered part of his \u201cprivate life\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8ca1fe8e-96c5-48ac-83e1-e9099ac60f05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["140.  The Government, once again, referred to the Obligations Act, as well as the relevant domestic case-law (see paragraphs 67, 68 and 69 above). Since the applicant had failed to bring a civil case on the basis of this legislation, or indeed directly under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government argued that his complaint should be rejected as inadmissible."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "58629aa0-8de0-4ae5-acdc-45e8eda5ee5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government pointed out that it was the ties between the applicant and her two children that had to be considered when examining \u201cthe extent to which family life [would be] effectively ruptured\u201d by her expulsion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, \u00a7 39). While the Government did not dispute that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in such cases, it was by no means an \u201cextraordinary\u201d circumstance that children were affected by expulsion measures. Hence, the mere fact that the applicant had children in Norway could not preclude expulsion, even having regard to the protection of \u201cfamily life\u201d provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. In this regard the Government subscribed to the approach of the Supreme Court set out in paragraph 62 of its judgment:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8b66cfc6-a5cf-45c2-b538-48ada9f33d2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicants submitted that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had been deprived of a member of their family. Relying on Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, they further alleged that Stelios Kalli Panayi had been killed because of his Greek-Cypriot national origin and the fact that he was a Christian."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "88ab5586-94c4-4b94-91aa-72bf64ffa46c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government further argued that the present case was similar to the case of Guichard v. France ((dec.), no. 56838/00, 2 September 2003) where the applicant had not been able to rely on the protection afforded by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and where the Court had found that Article <mask> of the Convention had not therefore imposed positive obligations on the French authorities to secure the return of the child. Lastly, the Government submitted that the present case was also similar to the case of Petersen (cited above) where the Court had found that the child\u2019s interest in temporarily moving abroad with his mother and his new family had overridden the applicant\u2019s interests. The Government\u2019s argued that in the present case too a prohibition on leaving Russia would have violated the children\u2019s freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Given that the residence order had been granted in favour of the mother, the children could not have been separated from her merely because she had decided to move to Germany and to establish her family life there with a new husband. V. and N. had been moreover entitled to maintain contact with their younger half-brother born in Germany."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a460e6ae-9f0b-4629-9f35-94498bfeabf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant alleged that he was the victim of interference with the exercise of his right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He did not share the Government\u2019s view that other options for ending his life were available to him. He considered that the ingestion of sodium pentobarbital was the only dignified, certain, rapid and pain-free method of committing suicide. Moreover, the fact that none of the 170 psychiatrists practising in the Basle region contacted by him had been willing to help him was, in his opinion, proof that it was impossible to satisfy the conditions laid down by the Federal Court. He submitted that this was unquestionably contrary to the principle, established by the Court, that the Convention protected rights that were practical and effective (he referred to Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, \u00a7 33, Series A no. 37)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bc0f02bf-ebab-4158-9369-e3948a0d1552", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The applicant did not claim that the respondent State had interfered with his family relations with A.P. directly: he accepted that it was clear that the interference had to be attributed to a private individual, Ms E.P. The applicant argued, however, that the respondent State had failed to meet its positive obligation to protect his right to family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he claimed that the Russian authorities had done little, if anything, to enforce the R\u00ee\u0219cani District Court\u2019s judgment whereby he had been granted a residence order in respect of A.P."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b48d19e7-e461-4db7-9295-8c8dbbbdfefc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention without specifying the nature of their grievances. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that there is no indication of a violation of this provision. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "80a69a39-a54c-45e8-a4a9-15962bdc911f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, cited above, about restrictions on his correspondence and exchange of documents with his counsel. Relying on copies of three of the intercepted letters addressed to his mother, he maintained that they had not contained any subversive information or insults, contrary to the Government\u2019s assertion. Had such information been present, under domestic law the letters would not have been returned to him. Censorship of his correspondence with the courts had been proven by the refusal of the director of the remand centre to post his complaint on the ground that it would have no prospect of success. Restrictions on the exchange of documents, including commercial documents and forms of authority, had had no basis in the domestic law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "82edacca-1879-48b8-9922-1b4dd1e73979", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicants alleged that the disappearance of their relative had amounted to a violation of their right to respect for family life. They also complained that the search carried out at their house on 11 January 2003 had been illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the unlawful seizure of their property during the search and relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "349e0cc1-e7f8-477c-9723-4f50c3a1e0e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["688. The applicants MM El\u00e7i, Tur, Acar, \u00c7em and Kurbano\u011flu contended that the search of their homes and offices was of doubtful lawfulness, given the lack of clear authority from a Prosecutor or Judge, the need to protect the confidentiality of the client/lawyer relationship, the bad faith which tainted the arrest decisions and the indiscriminate nature of the searches and seizures, with no indication of the specific items sought and no observance of any special rules governing professional papers. Moreover, it was claimed that documentation which was not used in the criminal proceedings, such as Mr El\u00e7i's files relating to his clients' cases before the Commission, was not returned to the applicants, despite the Government's declarations to the contrary, such declarations being unsubstantiated by any written proof. In particular, Mr El\u00e7i averred that papers concerning two applications to the Commission (\u00d6zkan and 31 others v. Turkey, application no. 21689/93, and Ismail Ertak v. Turkey, application no. 2764/92) were never returned to him. The applicants submitted that even the temporary deprivation of the documents concerned infringed Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9dcbf5ba-066b-4de5-a8b0-e60842b3f4ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant's complaint concerning her inability to enjoy family life with her son Balavdi Ustarkhanov concerns the same facts as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, \u00a7 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, \u00a7 25, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "71575797-3bd5-460e-b577-98f0e1a6389a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of the various criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the bailiff, the lawyer representing M.S. and the prosecutors investigating the case. He also complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that the domestic decisions defining the level of child support were not well reasoned. He further submitted that the same facts as constituted the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention also gave rise to a breach of Article 5 of Protocol No. 7."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "55b423ae-93f6-4204-995f-5ba3df47773a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant therefore cannot be said to have suffered from the lack of long-term conjugal visits. It follows that he cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to his complaint regarding the lack of conjugal visits from his partner (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, \u00a7 33, ECHR 2008)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6ab73d66-6772-4795-a87d-2ddca25ccee2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant thus concluded that, in the circumstances of her case, the general interests of the Netherlands State did not outweigh the rights of the applicant and her family under Article 8 and that insufficient weight had been given to the best interests of her children. The outcome reached by the Netherlands authorities was not in line with Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child nor was it proportionate for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ac744b15-e5bc-468c-88f6-17dc141ad327", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government submitted that the right to exercise administrative functions in a court did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. In contrast to the cases of Oleksandr Volkov (cited above) and \u00d6zp\u0131nar v. Turkey (no. 20999/04, 19 October 2010), the applicant in the present case had not been removed from judicial office. Given this important distinction, the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6df18689-f462-4b00-9216-d4a4238c97a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government reiterated their argument concerning the unreasonableness of the applicant\u2019s allegations under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the amount claimed in relation to non\u2011pecuniary damage was excessive in the light of awards made by the Court in comparable cases. As regards the pecuniary damage, the Government noted that the documentation submitted by the applicant in support of her claim was insufficient; the copies of the two air tickets submitted showed an amount of only approximately EUR 300."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bc6d8cf3-76d2-4d25-996f-eba58338e11c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicant further complained of the fact that there had been an interference with his right to respect for his home. In particular, he contended that the search on 29 December 1999 of his apartment was performed in contravention of domestic law, because there was a lack of legal justification, the applicable procedure was not followed and was performed in the presence of two witnesses. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f0ce6beb-d976-4df4-9fa3-437892c3d525", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government referred to Ms L.\u2019s right, under Article <mask> of the Convention, to respect for private and family life. The impact of the libel on her had been enormous, causing also great harm and distress to her family. The Government considered that this aspect of the case, which engaged the positive obligation on States under Article 8, distinguished it from other defamation actions."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "44972e19-1a4f-4f9a-a12c-734cbcfc97de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant\u2019s case was considered by no fewer than five different Russian courts, including the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. In the first round of proceedings, the courts in the Krasnodar region applied a formalistic and uninquisitive approach, considering themselves bound by the assessment made by the Consumer Protection Authority and leaving it full and unchecked discretion to determine that her presence in Russia constituted a threat to public health (compare M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41416/08, \u00a7 102, 26 July 2011). The Krasnodar Regional Court described that threat as a \u201creal\u201d one, without elaborating why it was so. Both of the applicant\u2019s applications for a cassation review, addressed first to the Regional Court and later to the Supreme Court, were dismissed without addressing the detailed legal arguments relating to the established case-law of the Constitutional Court and the Convention or factual elements militating against the disruption of her family life. The Russian courts did not attempt to perform any balancing exercise conforming with the criteria laid down in the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention (compare Gablishvili, cited above, \u00a7 56, and Liu (no. 2), cited above, \u00a7 89). The Court finds that, despite having the formal option to seek judicial review of the CPA\u2019s actions, the applicant was not afforded a sufficiently thorough review by a national authority offering the requisite procedural safeguards against arbitrariness on the part of the authorities (compare Gablishvili, cited above, \u00a7 57)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3f351496-6723-428b-b180-3ec2a2110aaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government accepted that the applicant had family life in the Netherlands within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Since she was still in the process of seeking a first admission for residence purposes, the pertinent question was whether the Netherlands authorities were under a positive obligation to allow her to reside in the Netherlands for the purpose of enabling her to enjoy family life with her husband and children there. This was the essential question in the case, and not the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa when applying for a residence permit."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "07adda7a-e198-4d32-bf90-599ebb35457a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government contested that claim and submitted that the refusal to authorise gender reassignment surgery on the ground that the statutory conditions were not satisfied could not be said to constitute interference with the exercise of the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addressing the issue whether the right of transgender persons to effective respect for their private life gave rise to a positive obligation for the State, regard had to be had to the \u201cfair balance which [had] to be struck between the general interest and the interests of the individual.\u201d In its judgments in Rees v. the United Kingdom (17 October 1986, Series A no. 106), and Cossey v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1990, Series A no. 184), the Court had taken into account, among other considerations, the fact that \u201c[t]he requirement of striking a fair balance could not give rise to any direct obligation on the respondent State to alter the very basis of its system\u201d, in order to conclude that no such obligation existed for the respondent State."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ab08f20d-28f5-438d-98de-f0c94b482f65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["212.  The Government further contended that the alleged interference with the applicants\u2019 rights had been lawful, given that the counter-terrorism measures within the territory of the Chechen Republic had been taken on the basis of the Suppression of Terrorism Act (see paragraph 138 above) and \u201crelevant legal instruments of State bodies\u201d. The Government insisted that the interference in question had been in the public interest as it was necessary to suppress the criminal activity of the illegal armed groups. They added that they had complied with their obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by enacting a number of legal instruments enabling the applicants to obtain compensation for their lost property. The Government thus concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0fdeb3bf-e418-42cb-9a11-f48c4c0f222c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that, owing to the negligence of Dr L., she was denied adequate and timely medical care in the form of an antenatal screening test which would have indicated the risk of her foetus having a genetic disorder and which would have allowed her to choose whether to continue the pregnancy. She also complained that the national courts, by wrongly interpreting the Medical Treatment Law, failed to establish an infringement of her right to respect for her private life in this regard. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6a6f18cb-fdd4-4887-ad15-cff336be05a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The applicants alleged that the disappearance of their relative had amounted to a violation of their right to family life. They also complained that the search carried out at their house on 8 September 2002 had been illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the damage caused to their property during the search and relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3b3e1912-2512-4fcc-a5cb-3dd59e0c19d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that the competent bodies had taken all the necessary steps and had used the available mechanism under domestic law for the enforcement of interim order of 27 December 2005, all the while taking care of the best interest of the children and their rights. However, the enforcement had been made difficult due to children\u2019s continuous and strong resistance to see their father. M.G.\u2019s health got worse at each attempt to enforce the interim order and it had been reported that he felt fear and anxiety. Moreover, after meeting with the applicant in the Social Care Centre, M.G. had been upset and the ambulance had to intervene."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1ed5656c-74db-463c-9cf6-6696085340e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained of her inability to obtain non-identifying information about her birth family. She maintained that she had suffered severe damage as a result of not knowing her personal history. She stated that she had been denied access to non-identifying information about her birth mother and family that would have enabled her to trace some of her roots while ensuring the protection of third\u2011party interests. She also complained that, in weighing the two competing interests, the legislature had given preference to the mother\u2019s interests alone without there being any possibility for the applicant to request, as in French law, a waiver of confidentiality of the mother\u2019s identity subject to the latter\u2019s agreement. She also submitted that she had been the subject of a simple adoption order, which had not created an effective family relationship. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7e05f0ee-d643-48b2-a3f3-1321dfe2bab9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government further held that the refusal of the residence permits for the three children on the ground of family reunification was proportionate under Article <mask> of the Convention and in accordance with their right to control the entry of non-nationals into their territory. The Government reiterated that the applicants had deliberately concealed the existence of their three children when they entered Switzerland. The Swiss authorities had learned of their existence only on 4 December 2007. Furthermore, the applicants had not only concealed the existence of their three children but they had also brought them to Switzerland illegally. Instead of appealing against the decision of 28 April 2009, which had become final, they had presented the domestic authorities with a fait accompli. The Government thus maintained that in view of the applicants\u2019 wrongful conduct, the public interests of Switzerland outweighed their private interest in being reunited on its territory."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "418430ef-460a-479d-897d-27e78c0bfade", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted, firstly, that they were aware of the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Ta\u015fk\u0131n and Others v. Turkey (no. 46117/99, ECHR 2004\u2011X); \u00d6\u00e7kan and Others (cited above); and Lemke v. Turkey (no. 17381/02, 5 June 2007). However, they noted that the Ovac\u0131k gold mine had started operating twenty years ago and that the applicants had failed to prove that it had had any negative impact on their rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that there was no data showing that the gold mine presented a danger to the health of the local population, agricultural land or underground water sources."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b7d9533d-bf16-4b20-bf72-4c0d8968a434", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government were convinced that the conduct of the domestic courts had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had agreed to a no-fault divorce and for years had not questioned the ruling concerning his contact with his son. In addition, the applicant had not visited his son for one year following the granting of the divorce, and in the subsequent period his contacts with his son had not been as regular as that provided for by the divorce judgement."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9fbd67ff-24cd-4ce2-b413-c7ba1406286c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["140.  The applicants also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone, complaining that the refusal to grant the second applicant a residence permit in Denmark violated their right to respect for their family life. However, in the light of the conclusion set out in the previous paragraph, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need to examine the application separately under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bafb173a-b869-4353-811d-35de2a3ce62d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government maintained that the Chamber, in applying the necessity test under Article <mask> of the Convention, had exceeded its power of review and had substituted its own evaluation for that of the domestic courts. Although stricter scrutiny was called for as regards restrictions placed by those authorities on parental rights of access, it was nevertheless for them to establish the relevant facts, that is to take and assess the evidence, as they had the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c4a157d6-ddae-4566-91f8-f195dcb32008", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the interference by the prison authorities with his right to communicate in private with his lawyer. He was only able to talk to him through a glass partition with holes which prevented normal discussion. In his opinion, there were no guarantees that their conversations were not overheard or recorded by the remand centre authorities, which he suspected they were. Moreover, he and his lawyer could not work together on any documents or exchange them. He argued that his application to this Court was signed by his lawyer and he later signed the powers of attorney for the lawyer during a court hearing."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "64de9c46-18b4-4248-af9d-d2d6ad03df7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant considered that there had been a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private and family life and his home. He complained in particular that, for more than five years following the allegedly unlawful entry into his flat, he had been unable to occupy it and that he and his wife had been forced to live with members of another household under conditions that prevented normal family intimacy. The applicant further complained that his flat had been returned to him in an uninhabitable state and that the authorities had so far taken no steps to remedy the situation and punish those responsible. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "28cd877e-de1f-454a-bc96-ec563a9ea5bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complained that the way in which their two children had been killed by soldiers and the authorities\u2019 subsequent refusal to allow them to bury their children in a cemetery of their choice \u2012 exacerbated by the fact that they had been prevented from holding a religious ceremony \u2012 had represented an unjustified interference with their right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "36193b63-4f98-4f7c-b56a-4d211dae1c41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that the re-seizure of 7 March 2012 had been incompatible with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular because (i) it concerned private and legally privileged material, (ii) it had been against the object and purpose of the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 2010, (iii) it was as such unlawful and disproportionate, (iv) it had been carried out under the sole authority of the PPS, without any judicial control, and (iv) in its decision of 16 May 2013 the Constitutional Court had failed to address aspects of his case that he considered crucial."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d20927ec-9dc5-4d6d-b5a1-e703e65923be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to apply relevant, in particular criminal-law, measures against the participants of the anti-Roma rallies so as to discourage them from the racist harassment that eventually took place. She also maintained that by failing to properly investigate this incidence of racist verbal abuse, the authorities had neglected their positive obligations. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2b182331-256c-4053-a204-7dc5104b75ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant claimed that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that when collecting and recording information concerning his identity the authorities had refused to register his Romanian ethnic identity and forced on him an ethnic identity with which he did not identify. The relevant part of Article 8 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "460b5200-0b10-447d-b4e5-501102cc96a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "64fe742b-438d-42d9-9d97-58c1ada456ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that their right to respect for their home and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been infringed as they had been unable to regain possession of their house for many years and it had subsequently been sold without their consent. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, which in their relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b65b66f2-1241-418e-8600-a6dc4b386840", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government referred to the Court's previous case-law (the above-cited Rees, Cossey and Sheffield and Horsham judgments) and maintained that neither Article 12 nor Article <mask> of the Convention required a State to permit a transsexual to marry a person of his or her original sex. They also pointed out that the domestic law approach had been recently reviewed and upheld by the Court of Appeal in Bellinger v. Bellinger, the matter now pending before the House of Lords. In their view, if any change in this important or sensitive area were to be made, it should come from the United Kingdom's own courts acting within the margin of appreciation which this Court has always afforded. They also referred to the fact that any change brought the possibility of unwanted consequences, submitting that legal recognition would potentially invalidate existing marriages and leave transsexuals and their partners in same-sex marriages. They emphasised the importance of proper and careful review of any changes in this area and the need for transitional provisions."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8b44218f-af49-438a-907a-00e116787545", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant reiterated that her application only concerned the search of her home, not the seizure of items. There were no explicit or, for that matter, any provisions or case-law even suggesting that a person subject to a search could have access to a court in order to challenge that search. It was true that the civil liability of the officers conducting the search could be invoked but this possibility was neither effective nor capable of providing redress for the interference with her right to respect for her home as she would have to show that she had actually suffered damage. None of the private prosecutions initiated against officers having conducted or ordered a search had been successful. This remedy was therefore theoretical as well as illusory. The same was true for lodging a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) and the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern). There had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fccfa261-3fcb-46d3-94ed-0db9fbac8f96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants complained that the withdrawal of parts of their parental authority and the subsequent separation of the children and their parents had been disproportionate and not grounded on a sufficient factual basis, but on general considerations about the Twelve Tribes Church and their religious beliefs. They further complained that they had been prevented from raising their children in compliance with their religious beliefs and that the court proceedings had led to the stigmatisation of their religious community. As far as the underlying proceedings before the family courts were concerned, the applicants complained that they had not been heard before the interlocutory order of 1 September 2013 was issued. They also alleged that the duration of the interim proceedings before the family courts and the length of time the interlocutory order had been in place had been excessively long. The applicants relied on their right to respect for their family life, as provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, they also invoked Articles 9 and 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, \u00a7 56, ECHR 2002\u2011I), finds it appropriate to examine all complaints solely under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, as far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "af48bd31-92a4-4295-91bc-3e8f4b1f40df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant complained under Article 8 that all his correspondence had been read by State officials and that a large number of his complaints and applications to various State authorities and a letter to his counsel, Ms Liptser, had not been sent to the addressees at all. He referred to Rule 12 of the 2001 Internal Regulations in support of his complaint. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7e0bbf8b-175b-4c83-be61-02655902c479", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that his administrative arrest of April 1997 and the search of his apartment in April 1997 had been unlawful. He also raised complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (d), claiming that his right to prepare for a hearing before the regional court had been breached (see paragraphs 9 \u2013 10 above) and that he had been unable to interrogate one of the witnesses in his case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "43633519-d6c1-4926-9162-8add981d8a92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about having been denied any access to their children during their placement in public care. They further complained under Article 14 of the Convention about having been discriminated against vis \u00e0 vis parents of German origin. They finally complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention about having been denied compensation for the erroneous decision of the German courts."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1de2f86a-9755-45ed-857e-b32092dca5ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government thus maintained that in the present case the applicant\u2019s deportation from the territory of Lithuania had corresponded to the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of national security. On 11 June 2002 the State Security Department had started an investigation into the applicant, who was suspected of trying to set up an organisation of an anti-national character. The data collected during the investigation had proved that the applicant\u2019s activities posed a threat to national security and public order. On that basis, the Migration Department had refused the applicant\u2019s request for a temporary residence permit. Since all the data submitted by the State Security Department constituted State secrets, the courts had decided not to disclose it and had, exceptionally, relied on the data as evidence. However, the courts had duly examined the information marked \u201crestricted use\u201d and \u201csecret\u201d, and had found the conclusions of the State Security Department to be well reasoned. From the above, the Government deduced that the applicant\u2019s deportation from the Republic of Lithuania had been fully compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "13f8c335-5960-4ac2-9822-b5bbd1445937", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants complained that the Norwegian immigration authorities\u2019 decision, upheld by the national courts, that the first applicant be expelled to Ghana with a prohibition on re-entry for five years would entail a breach of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. It would disrupt the relationships between the first and the third applicants in a manner that would have long lasting damaging effects on the latter."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ac25f91c-8141-4d02-bdab-dd3b05ec0e48", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government noted that the applicant alleged a violation of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, what was at stake in the present case was a weighing of the applicant\u2019s interests protected by Article 8 on the one hand against the freedom of the press to disseminate information protected by Article 10 of the Convention on the other. It followed that the principles developed by the Court\u2019s case\u2011law under Article 10 also had to be taken into account."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f393832a-8148-4ba0-b981-d05c85da43d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that due to the belated enforcement of the final custody judgment of 5 May 2006, as well as the respondent State's prior failure to enforce the NSCC's order of 8 March 2005, she had been prevented from exercising her parental rights in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "075a5f92-484e-41be-8180-5005444f8a0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained that the Polish authorities had failed to take effective steps to enforce his right to contact with his daughter and that the process of enforcing the courts' decisions had lasted too long. He alleged a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that the applicant's complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4d52dfed-a922-43bc-8dd4-0442385726ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93. The Government maintained that the national authorities had done everything within their power to ensure that the applicant could exercise her access rights. They submitted that in a case involving enforcement of access rights a fair balance had to be struck between the competing interests of the children and of the community as a whole. The children had expressed their reluctance to see their mother many times in the course of the divorce and custody proceedings and at the meeting in Divri\u011fi on 21 August 1997 when they firmly refused to travel with the applicant\u2019s lawyer. In such circumstances the authorities were also under an obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect the interests of the children who were mature enough to have their views taken into account. The failure to enforce access rights was first and foremost the result of the father\u2019s refusal to co-operate and the Government could not be held responsible for his conduct.  Secondly it was the result of the children\u2019s refusal to see the applicant, again a matter for which the Government could not be blamed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e64d6c85-33d2-4203-a828-5681d5f1dd60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government submitted that the decision to grant a residence order in respect of the second applicant in favour of the mother had been based on the best interests of the child. There had therefore been no discrimination. The Government referred to the case of Tiemann v. France and Germany ((dec.), nos. 47457/99 and 47458/99, 27 April 2000) where the decisions to grant a residence order to the mother had been found to be in the bests interests of the children and therefore compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Like in Tiemann, the first applicant in the present case had been trying to separate the second applicant from his mother. In such circumstances the domestic courts had achieved a balance between the interests of the first applicant, the second applicant and M., in particular by granting the first applicant contact rights. Despite the fact that the second applicant lived in another town, the first applicant could still visit him and maintain contact by other means."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "76b2fc4a-22a9-4f92-9e1f-005668650f07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants submitted that the relationship between the first and second applicants came within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention because they remained married and had chosen to maintain regular contact with each other, including in order to continue jointly raising their young daughter. The ties between the first and the fourth applicants clearly fell within the scope of \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8. Furthermore, the first applicant maintained a close relationship with the third applicant \u2013 his adult stepdaughter \u2013 and her child. The Government\u2019s contention that the family unit had disintegrated ignored the reality of their relationship, and in particular the fact that the first applicant had to a great extent relied on the support of his family to be able to cope with and stabilise his mental health condition."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b3f4f543-b3a9-4275-b9d4-865d26180c53", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["145.  The applicant contended that the regime covering covert surveillance between a detainee who was a \u201cvulnerable person\u201d within the meaning of the Code of Practice and an \u201cappropriate adult\u201d (see paragraph 13 above) was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d as required by paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that even though these consultations were not protected by legal professional privilege, in view of the vulnerability of the detainee they should be as frank as possible. As such, they were analogous to consultations with legal and medical advisors and their covert surveillance should also have been treated as intrusive \u2013 rather than directed \u2013 surveillance."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3f26b9bd-501a-44ba-9ac9-cf39529d3f7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant organisation complained that the entry of police officers onto its premises and the seizure of documents, public notary fees and taxes, as well as the questioning of its staff members, were unlawful, had impinged on its duty of professional secrecy and had breached its right to home, private life and correspondence under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7662c731-3f18-4654-ad29-86ab371b4280", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants also submitted that the twin daughters should, under Article <mask> of the Convention, be entitled to regular contact with their father. Moreover, the first applicant had become the father of a third child in 2012, from a relationship with another Swiss national. He was now living with her and they hoped to get married as soon as possible."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b9b4f46a-05f1-46eb-88ad-a0e4cde43ddb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained about the courts\u2019 judgments in the proceedings under the Media Act refusing him compensation in respect of the publication of an article and two photographs in the issue of Profil of 12 July 2004. He alleged a violation of his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0e8218c5-533f-4053-9e7e-15dad93755e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government did not deny that the notion of private life, which was also referred to in Article <mask> of the Convention, could sometimes encompass information enabling a person\u2019s physical or social identity to be established. However, they pointed out that the State had not refused to furnish the applicant with information but had taken into account her mother\u2019s refusal from the beginning to allow her identity to be disclosed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3c253962-3eb8-44bf-8cf0-6033f34e02a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained under Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention that his detention at the Kumkap\u0131 Foreigners\u2019 Admission and Accommodation Centre had no legal basis and that there were no judicial remedies available to him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He maintained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention that he had no right to compensation under domestic law in respect of these complaints. He further claimed under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to family life had been breached on account of his unlawful detention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5998adbd-c23d-47c4-bb9a-81804019689c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that his observation via GPS and its aggregation with several further measures of surveillance, as well as the use of the data obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him, had breached his right to respect for his private life as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fd78e056-2773-4b3b-96d0-bb24e139dc9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that the construction of a cemetery near his house had led to the contamination of his supply of drinking water and water used for private gardening purposes, preventing him from making normal use of his home and its amenities, including the soil of his own plot of land, and negatively affecting his and his family\u2019s physical and mental health."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c897ded5-0ec2-4d79-8c87-88349855c0c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 3 (c) and 8 of the Convention that letters from his lawyers and from the Registry of the Court had been opened and read by the administration of Lovech Prison. The Court is of the view that the complaint falls to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b9eec1f5-30ba-4fcb-a11c-b64fa76008ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had had a legal basis in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Constitution of 1991 and the relevant provisions of the CCP, which were fully in line with the requirements of the Convention. The interference had furthermore pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary for its attainment. The search in the applicant\u2019s office had been directly related to the needs of the investigation, as the objects found and seized there had had a direct link with the offence under investigation. Moreover, both the applicant and two independent observers \u2013 neighbours who had had no interest in the outcome of the case \u2013 had been present during the search. The intrusion in the applicant\u2019s privacy had been kept to a minimum: the contents of his computer\u2019s hard drive and of the seized disks had been explored through a special piece of software using keywords, which meant that the contents of his electronic documents had not been checked in full. There was no indication that the information obtained had been revealed to a third party, copied or improperly used. Finally, the interference had not lasted unreasonably long, as the computer had been given back to the applicant two months after its seizure."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dbf34346-5c31-4259-afae-2e79c1dd9f30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government contested these arguments and maintained that the apartment block in question had not been an illegal construction although the administrative proceedings concerning the building permit disclosed some irregularities of a procedural nature. They submitted that the major part of the land in question had been, at least since the 1970s, designated for multi-family housing. It could not therefore be said that the local development plan was suddenly altered to a substantial degree. Moreover, the applicants did not sustain any damage on account of the apartment block having been constructed on the adjacent plot of land. In particular, they were not prevented from constructing on the land belonging to them as the local authorities had granted the first applicant planning permission in 1997 and 2001. Only one of the three applicants still lived in Pu\u0142awy and the others had been living in Austria and in Germany and therefore they could not claim a violation of their right to respect for their \u201chome\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the Government indicated several types of remedies which the applicants should have exhausted before making their complaint to the Court. In particular they should have brought a civil action for compensation if they had sustained any damage in consequence of the actions of public authorities or the private investor. The Government underlined that the apartment block had been built legally, in accordance with all safety and technical requirements, and that thus there had been no obligation on the authorities to demolish it or to prevent its construction."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "acd687e3-f623-44c4-824c-76287324044b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant maintained that the reversal of the award for damages in respect of his dismissal from the Police Force because he had allegedly been negligent towards the acts of torture committed by other officers in his control, was plainly incompatible with the respondent State\u2019s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The reversal of the award had undermined the protection of his moral and psychological integrity and reputation, being encompassed in the protection guaranteed by Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40b1ba14-5848-4013-96a8-ab2ac968e651", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant complained that her right to respect for her private and family life had been violated as a result of her sterilisation, which had been carried out contrary to the requirements of the relevant law and without her and her mother\u2019s full and informed consent. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in its relevant parts, provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "06421a65-81e2-488e-9c4e-d1bbea95026e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant complained that the domestic authorities had failed to secure his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention in that they had not acted expeditiously in the non-contentious proceedings for the return of his son under the Hague Convention. He also complained that the length of those proceedings was incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and under Article 13 that he had not had an effective remedy for his Convention complaints. The relevant part of those Articles reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "18933c5a-0819-4c66-a7d3-99baff06f1be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicants, without relying on any particular provision of the Convention, complain that their dismissal based on the allegation of the commission of criminal offences for which they have been acquitted brought great shame on them and that it deprived them of their material well-being. The Court, being a master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, \u00a7 88, 31 May 2005), considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "09dadaba-599a-4599-b66d-505d7d1d95d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the courts\u2019 assessment of the evidence and interpretation of the law and challenged the outcome of the proceedings. She further complained under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention of her own suffering and discrimination allegedly caused by the domestic courts. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the State authorities had failed to respect her right to a home guaranteed by this provision. She also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "466087c9-299b-4bd5-9eb2-8617cb5ce0cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained that there was a breach of his right to respect of family life in that the domestic courts failed to correctly apply the Hague Convention criteria when deciding on his request for a return order. The complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention. He also claimed under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings under the Hague Convention had been unfair. Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention provide, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "68ebb204-5cac-4b69-9264-13555d8300d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicants complained, firstly, that their children had been placed in care unjustifiably, and, secondly, by a letter of 12 April 2012, that they had been unable to obtain the children\u2019s return to their family, given the dismissal of their action by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final judgement of 20 March 2012. They relied in essence on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "43ea146c-5e8a-4eda-89d9-1bdace46e612", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicants asserted that Article <mask> of the Convention guaranteed the right to a normal family life and was therefore applicable to the present case, regard being had in particular to the Court\u2019s extensive view of the question. They argued that the Law of 4 March 2002 had infringed that right and constituted interference with its exercise, but that none of the conditions required for such interference to be compatible with the Convention, namely that it should be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary, had been satisfied. In the first place, the legislation was neither clear nor precise, contrary to the requirements established by the Court\u2019s case-law, in that the reference to national solidarity remained vague and imprecise. Secondly, and above all, the interference did not pursue a legitimate and compelling objective. In particular, the considerations linked to improving the organisation of the health service, chief among which was the concern to avoid increases in insurance premiums for doctors and health-care establishments, could not justify giving the latter immunity in respect of their negligent acts or omissions. As regards the State\u2019s positive obligation, this could not be considered to have been discharged since, by depriving C. and her parents of a remedy whereby they could obtain compensation for the damage consisting of the special burdens arising from her disability, the legislature had prevented the family\u2019s interests from being protected practically and effectively."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e43f3722-b477-49ba-8136-8cb09346f03a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicants complained that the decisions of the domestic courts in the main proceedings to withdraw parts of their parental authority had been disproportionate and had been based on unfair proceedings that had lacked sufficient factual foundation. They further alleged that their religious beliefs were the reason their parental rights had been withdrawn and that they had been prevented from raising their children in compliance with their religious beliefs. Lastly, the applicants complained that the main proceedings before the family courts had been unreasonably long. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, they invoked Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 9 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, \u00a7 56, ECHR 2002\u2011I), finds it appropriate to examine all complaints solely under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, as far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "33f1f75c-672b-4102-8ebe-050dd19b330b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["169.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention that he had not been informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the second set of proceedings. He also complained under Article 7 that, in both sets of criminal proceedings, the acts for which he had been convicted did not constitute a criminal offence. Lastly, he complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the searches conducted on 22 May 2007 in his flat and the newspapers' office had violated his right to respect for his home."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b8189b5e-1f45-47c9-8cef-cbf445d3d567", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to family life had been infringed as a result of the Austrian courts\u2019 decisions to refuse them access to their former foster child. They also submitted that the conduct of the Austrian courts amounted to a breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement under Article 6 of the Convention. The Government contested that argument."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d177194e-b89b-4cb5-852f-4689779e1efe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained that he had not been allowed to meet in private with his lawyer and had been separated from him by a glass partition, preventing normal discussion or work with documents. As a result they had had to shout to hear each other and had both refused on several occasions to meet in such conditions, informing the court that they were unable to prepare for hearings. The applicant lodged his initial complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention but in his subsequent observations he referred to it under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7abc7aa6-5170-46a2-8c15-90f959e9ac7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicants initially complained that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion to Turkey would entail a violation not only of Article 8 but also of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. However, after his expulsion to Turkey on 16 July 2011, they submitted in their pleadings to the Court of 18 October 2011 that they only maintained their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cc6213ab-57fc-4443-9bbe-0d2ebf913afa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government said in conclusion that the child's persistent refusal to see her mother was the only reason why the access arrangements had not been complied with. It would be going beyond the State's positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to take coercive measures to force the child to meet her mother. Therefore, even assuming that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life, it had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1a5fc384-8fcd-42b9-91eb-cd12af2407c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention by reason of the unlawful search at their apartment and the failure to investigate properly their complaint concerning that search. They further complained that, in relation to the search on 2 November, that the warrant issued was both imprecise and contained errors. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c4e86dae-b428-4816-81f1-48a5a4f6b422", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The eviction order had been in accordance with the law; it had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in order to protect the rights of individuals in need of housing. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had not brought any counter-claim against the administration of Grozny and had not submitted any claims for provision with alternative accommodation. Furthermore, the applicant had not applied to the state authorities with a request to help her with solving her housing problem. After her eviction the applicant had returned living to the flat in which she had been registered until 2005."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "71e03f43-0d45-45c6-9ae4-f79ca0a15c7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant claimed that the Swiss authorities had not complied with their obligations, inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention, to allow him to reside in Switzerland, thereby enabling him to enjoy family and private life in that country. He submitted that his personal interests in remaining in Switzerland outweighed the State\u2019s interest in securing public order and safety, and that his expulsion for an undetermined period of time was a disproportionate measure under Article 8 of the Convention. He alleged that the facts of his case were comparable to those in Emre v. Switzerland (no. 42034/04, 22 May 2008) because he too had been living in Switzerland for a long time, had established strong social and professional ties to that country and no longer had ties with his home country, Peru. In addition, he was enjoying family life in Switzerland since he had been residing there with his second wife between 2005 and 2008, and several of his brothers and sisters were living in the respondent State. Furthermore, by contrast to Emre (cited above), he had been sentenced only once."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aa3bf63f-3d24-4473-a974-619876189e87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his appointment to the new post -which had compelled him to move to another city- as well as alleged unfounded accusations against him, had interfered with his right to respect for family life. He further claimed that financial consequences arising from his appointment, such as transportation and accommodation costs, had amounted to a violation of his rights under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c28732bd-50be-4aec-bd6a-492af313ef26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government averred that the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 8 refers only to the fact that the alleged perpetrators had been acquitted and that the applicants had been forced to leave town in order to protect the first applicant after the incidents. In their view, these aspects should not fall within the realm of Article <mask> of the Convention and in any case the applicants could not be considered victims of a violation of that Article. They put forward that the applicants had chosen to leave and had not been forced to do so by the authorities; the applicants had also waited for nine months after the end of the proceedings and almost seven years after the events before they had actually moved. The Government also pointed out that the applicants had failed to complain to the authorities about any impact on their private and family lives of the allegedly ineffective investigation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fb628bd8-ecce-47dc-a7e7-326a9cc0d95d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant stated that her inability to effectively opt for any alternative model of childbirth and the requirement for her to surrender to the obstetric model of birth care in hospital \u2013 causing her to experience obstetric violence \u2013 represented a serious breach of her right to decide on the circumstances in which to give birth, and interference with her right to physical and psychological integrity under Article <mask> of the Convention. Although she believed that the circumstances of her case called for an assessment primarily in terms of the Government\u2019s positive obligations, the applicant intended to apply a holistic approach to the assessment of whether the damage sustained by her was justifiable in the light of the relevant principles of the Convention, bearing in mind that the underlying principles of legality, legitimacy and proportionality were inherent in both the positive and negative obligations of the State."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f049fb0f-55f7-453b-b073-8104c07abb91", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to substantiate her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention by specifying any particular consequences that the police decision had had on her private life. Moreover, the police decision predominantly consisted of allegations made by the applicant's husband. The applicant had not shown that she had attempted to contest these allegations domestically, for example, by filing an action under Articles 11 et. seq. of the Civil Code, or by a criminal complaint against her husband on the grounds of false accusation. Nor had the applicant claimed before the Court that her husband's allegations were false."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2e3e8698-f0ca-4358-90f3-81a310716eb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants submitted that the second applicant was integrated in Austria and had a right to an employment permit under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted in this regard that the second applicant had been legally residing in Austria since 1991 and had a wife and a daughter in Austria who, in the interim, had become Austrian nationals. He had already worked for the applicant company for seven years. The applicants submitted that a claim to work by a foreign worker permanently established with his family in the host country was, at the very least, an arguable right. The right of a foreign employee to an employment permit was furthermore indirectly recognised by the case-law of the Constitutional Court according to which an alien was not to be discriminated against by another alien. Further, the competent authorities did not have an unfettered discretion to decide whether or not an employment permit should be granted but were bound by the conditions laid down in the Employment of Aliens Act. The applicants argued that the second applicant\u2019s right to employment in Austria could be deduced from the Geneva Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Association Agreement between Austria and Turkey and the European Social Charter."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9a0e538a-6269-4bf7-b860-34c6464b38e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government objected that the scope of the applicant\u2019s original complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, as expressed in his initial submission and defined by the Court\u2019s admissibility decision, did not cover his subsequent objections in respect of the continued existence of his StB file in the State\u2019s hands, its legal framework, legitimacy and proportionality. They maintained that, in any event, the last-mentioned criteria were met."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fbd8d63a-6725-41f2-8cd4-50a6320155b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her home had been proportionate and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d because the applicant had moved into the flat unlawfully and she had had an alternative place in which to live. In addition, the interference had aimed to protect A.\u2019s right to respect for his home. In that respect, while the lawfulness of establishing one\u2019s home in a particular place and the availability of alternative accommodation might be relevant for the assessment of the proportionality of an eviction, the Court observes that those matters were not examined by the domestic courts in the present case. As regards A.\u2019s interests, the Court agrees that in the present case the domestic courts had to balance two competing private interests, namely A.\u2019s right and the applicant\u2019s right to occupy the State-owned flat under a social tenancy agreement following the death of the tenant. However, the Court is not convinced that in taking the decision to evict the applicant, the domestic courts balanced those interests in a way compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d6092d5b-1060-4dca-9372-018e319750f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained of ill-treatment by the police which had seriously endangered his life and had led to serious consequences for his health. He also complained of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations. The applicant further submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the physical harm suffered by him and that, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no effective remedies against the breaches enumerated above. Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, on which the applicant relied, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0d162618-b1f3-49e9-9f54-bb36069aef44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant also complained under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that his appeal against the judgment of 8 June 2004 had not been examined. In his letter of 30 October 2006 the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about monitoring of his correspondence with a non-governmental organisation. Lastly, he complained under Article 34 of the Convention about his transfer from one prison to another."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2f5982ac-742f-437c-b4ca-4f0669b42f55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the procedure followed by the Italian courts were communicated to the Government under Article <mask> of the Convention, which, whilst it contains no explicit procedural requirements, requires that the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by that Article (see, inter alia, Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, \u00a7 41, 27 July 2006, and Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, \u00a7 27, ECHR 2010\u2011... (extracts))."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1e8bad5a-b8ce-4cde-a9a5-8245e652b460", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not been subject to any physical or verbal violence subsequent to the publication of the article. They further maintained that the applicant had requested the public prosecutor\u2019s office to punish the author of the article published in the Bolu Express and had not requested security protection. The Government therefore considered that there had been no violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention in the present case. They stated, however, that the applicant\u2019s complaints under this head should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention. At the same time, the Government did not submit any observations under Article 8 and left it to the Court\u2019s discretion to rule on the applicant\u2019s complaints under this head."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b8f4185c-c44b-4ce7-91ab-1a396a37e325", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the killing of Solomos Solomou, a member of the applicants\u2019 family, was a deliberate action destroying the family unit as such, which violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They furthermore submitted that, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, the Turkish authorities had adopted a discriminatory policy with regard to Greek Cypriots. It was hard to believe that Turkey would have acted in the same murderous way if Solomos Solomou had been a Turk."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dca37b9a-1ae2-4071-a8c1-1f5bfc43f587", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant submitted that the searches at his office and apartment constituted an interference with his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. He considered that, while pursuing a legitimate aim under paragraph 2 of that Article, the interference was neither \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d, nor \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. In particular, he referred to the lack of detail in the court\u2019s decision authorising the searches, which failed to identify the object(s) to be searched, the time-frame for the searches or the person responsible for carrying it out, despite express legal requirements to give such detail. Moreover, the searches conducted on the basis of vaguely worded search warrants and without any special measures being taken to safeguard the confidentiality of files in a lawyer\u2019s office, necessarily resulted in a disproportionate interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. In particular, he referred to the opening, by the investigating authority, of his safe and of all his files at his office, which undermined his lawyer-client privilege."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1df94c27-68c5-4347-92be-7f3744794b4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicants did not allege a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court decided of its own motion to examine this question under Article 13 in the present case (see, for a similar approach, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, \u00a7 89, ECHR 2009), and requested the parties in applications nos. 35090/09, 35845/11, and 45694/13 to address the issue of availability of effective domestic remedies. Article 13 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1bf27dae-f61a-40b0-8236-4d9548a618f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants complained that the freeing order was a disproportionate interference with their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention because the domestic authorities failed to keep their assessment of their family situation under review and because the reasons given by the trial judge were neither relevant nor sufficient. The applicants also argued that, procedurally, it was improper for a freeing order to have been made in advance of an adoption order. If the freeing order had been refused, the applicants would have been able to participate at the adoption order hearing."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a75dc1f9-ff09-4ae1-9d0f-d41a61f3b795", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government did not dispute the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the circumstances of the present case. They submitted, however, that the applicants could hardly be considered as having been adversely affected by the absence of the possibility to have long-term family visits, given that they had not even been using their right to short-term visits. The Government observed in that connection that the second applicant had visited the first applicant only on two occasions in 2003 and 2004 and never thereafter."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "23a5519e-b0d3-4996-806c-aae8d27893a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention of the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought by him against his former wife in so far as he stated that the authorities had shown themselves to be partial and to favour his wife, and that the same facts as those which constituted the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention also gave rise to a breach of Articles 13 and 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c2eafda8-e582-490f-ab0c-15f9e3ab09df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that not being allowed long-stay visits from his partner and his sister had caused him intolerable mental and physical suffering. He also complained, under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14, that his entitlement in that connection had been restricted more than that of a convicted person serving a prison sentence. The relevant parts of Article 8 and Article 14 provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d89b9a86-bc4f-49da-842b-13fb7dbaa0cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant also contested the argument that there was a public interest in the article at issue. Even if there were a public debate about the occurrences at the seminary or about the moral standards proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in respect of homosexuality, this did not justify attacking him in a defamatory manner, giving his full name and publishing a picture taken at a private party. He alleged that to permit reporting on his private life and publication of his picture just because he was a priest deprived him of the protection which was afforded to any other person under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cd5927ef-6df2-428e-b567-c1987448ed88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government further submitted that the present case was different from the case of G\u00f6rg\u00fcl\u00fc v. Germany, (no. 74969/01, 26 February 2004), where the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, because by contrast to the G\u00f6rg\u00fcl\u00fc case, the child in the present case was older than ten years of age and the first applicant had not been prevented from maintaining contact with her. Indeed, X had stated in the domestic proceedings that her grandparents had not prevented her from communicating with her father, but that her father had never attempted to contact her. In any event, the first applicant had never applied for contact rights. There was also evidence in the case file that X had been traumatised by the only contact she had had with her father, in January 2010 (see paragraph 26 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dfcb97de-4996-4200-a94e-e899ce743c2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The applicants\u2019 complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Arbi Karimov concerns the same facts as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, \u00a7 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, \u00a7 25, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 50 Reports 1997\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "594205ca-9ce4-4bd6-a2b2-7246fa0e7e09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had not complied with their procedural positive obligation under Article 3 and/or Article <mask> of the Convention in that they had refused to prosecute the first applicant\u2019s father for the criminal offence of child abuse he had committed against her. They also complained that the domestic authorities had not discharged their positive obligation under either of those Articles in that they had failed to remove the first applicant from her father\u2019s care and thus prevent him from committing further violent acts against her. Those Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c863df3d-21d9-47c4-8af8-c31bb13599d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant alleged that there had been a breach of his right to respect for his private life on account of the order to provide a biological sample for inclusion in the FNAEG and the fact that his refusal to comply with that order has resulted in a criminal conviction. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4a4614e0-8742-4865-b9d1-a4f7a1b068e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicants invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, arguing that the abuse suffered by them in their private and family life and the local authority\u2019s lack of action to prevent that abuse was a violation of their right to respect for their physical and moral integrity. They had needed protection from the assaults and abuse, which could and should have been provided by the local authority in whom the care of the applicants had been vested."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "038f90dc-2bd2-4db0-b600-60d41c30f3f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants complained that their separation during the ten days that the second applicant was in hospital violated their right to respect for their private and family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. The second applicant further complained that the decision to take a blood sample and photographs without consent constituted an unjustified and disproportionate interference with her physical and moral integrity."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6b2b7a76-034b-42b7-ae1e-4315697760c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that the domestic authorities had failed to secure her right to respect for her family life in that: (a) they had not taken any measures to facilitate the voluntary return of her children; (b) the domestic courts had not acted expeditiously in the proceedings for the return of children; and (c) in the same proceedings the courts had refused to order the return of her children. She also complained that by deciding in the civil proceedings for divorce and child custody that all three of her children were to live with their father, the domestic courts had breached her right to respect for her family life. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5f744b9e-ab4c-4fb0-ad21-912a590affba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued that the German courts had not failed to protect the applicant\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention when they had refused his request for an injunction. The courts had extensively examined his action in line with the Court\u2019s case-law regarding balancing Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. The German courts had correctly concluded that the journalist had complied with his journalistic duty of care. In particular, the article had been free from exaggerations and based on reliable official reports. Both aspects had been considered by the Court of Appeal in detail. Moreover, the Government submitted that the public had a valid interest in the publication of articles in an online archive of a newspaper, if they had been lawfully published originally and were recognisable as archived old-news stories. In the present case, both requirements had been met. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the applicant\u2019s submissions regarding the right to be forgotten and the correlating judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union were negligible, since the judgment concerned completely different circumstances and no relevant principles could be derived from it for the present case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "725baca2-5823-4809-b564-1bf7d0fb7335", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to respect for his family life resulting from the length of the proceedings complained of. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings, his company went bankrupt, and that he was under criminal indictment for an excessive period."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3fcd735e-8fa0-4d1b-bbf7-8d348a319733", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant alleged that he had not been provided with an opportunity to appeal against the decision of 31 May 2002, in contravention of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Dr. N's visit to his flat on 5 June 2002 had been an interference with his right to respect for his private life and that, on the basis of her decision of 5 June 2002 to admit him to hospital, he had been arrested and taken to a police station. He complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital might warrant the restriction of his legal capacity, in which case he would be unable to sell or buy property. Lastly, without providing further detail, the applicant alleged a violation of his rights provided for in Articles 2, 4, 7 to 10, 13, 17, and 18 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1e022e92-4343-469f-8891-b594b198225d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants submitted that the second applicant\u2019s detention also violated Article <mask> of the Convention as it constituted disproportionate interference with their right to respect for their private and family life. The Belgian State was or should have been aware of the first applicant\u2019s refugee status in Canada because of the letters it had received from Mr Ma. and the UNHCR\u2019s intervention. The applicants argued that family reunification was a fundamental right of refugees and cited, among other authorities, Recommendation 1327 (1997)of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers in Europe. In their submission, the obligations incumbent on States that were parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child signed in New York on 20 November 1989 (and in particular, Articles 3 and 10 thereof) could be used as a guide when assessing whether the interference with the child\u2019s family life had been necessary. The reasons given by the Government in no way justified the interference, which had consisted of the second applicant\u2019s detention notwithstanding a proposal by her lawyer for her to be placed with foster parents. Her illegal entry was not a reason for denying her fundamental rights; nor did her inability to travel to the Netherlands prevent her placement with foster parents. Furthermore, although family reunification in Canada would have taken some time, there had been no need to keep the child in a closed centre. Nor could the fact that members of her family had been located in Kinshasa serve to justify her detention since she was the daughter of a person with recognised refugee status and her return to her country of origin placed her safety and even her life at risk. The fact that the first applicant had been granted refugee status in Canada should, furthermore, have alerted the Belgian authorities to the need to act with great caution. Lastly, while the applicants accepted that the first applicant had been wrong to ask her brother to bring her daughter to Europe, they said that she had done so in the belief that it was in her daughter\u2019s best interests."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bc5b9e9c-e9ec-412f-aec7-5586cdcf38f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant submitted that the prolonged distress and anguish caused by his son's disappearance over the past eleven years amounted to a violation of his right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, this breach was the direct result of the respondent State's failure to protect his son's right to life, liberty and security pursuant to Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4755d78f-845a-4d11-b458-54922cb924da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicants claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) (EUR 20,000 each) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage arising out of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that their physical separation had engendered feelings of loneliness and hopelessness. The second applicant had had to take sedatives for a year after the expulsion of her husband. The relationship between the first applicant and his daughter had suffered serious damage as a result of their being apart. This had been exacerbated by the fact that the third applicant had epilepsy, which had grown worse as a result of the stress caused by her father\u2019s absence. The option for the whole family to settle in Turkey was not viable because there, unlike in Bulgaria, the costly medication needed for the third applicant\u2019s epilepsy would not be provided free of charge. Moreover, neither the second nor the third applicant spoke Turkish."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "378b0fec-f4ce-43d1-b94e-83fccdc2c8ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained that the exclusion order against the first applicant gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants further complained that their separation as a result of the exclusion order caused both of them irreparable mental harm and therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaint concerning the effects of the expulsion on the applicants\u2019 mental health also falls under Article 8 (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, \u00a7\u00a7 46-47, ECHR 2001\u2011I, with further references), and will consequently examine it under that head. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "938085e1-2bb5-4e25-8d93-c16d0e93c107", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant stressed in particular that the interference with his private and family life had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had been disproportionate. He pointed out that although he had been dismissed as a result of the withdrawal of his canonical mandate, this measure had been a direct consequence of his second marriage. Thus, his chances of pursuing his specific professional activity had been seriously affected on account of events mainly related to the personal choices he had made in the context of his private and family life. Moreover, precisely because of his specialised educational background and skills, it had been difficult for him to secure alternative employment or be entitled to social assistance. He therefore considered that this clearly showed that there had been an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "76ea4c25-7b52-4648-9d4a-36bb7cbcbc9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, in connection with the first aspect of the complaint concerning the period of his pre-trial detention, they submitted that the applicant had never requested a family visit in accordance with the procedure provided for in section 89 of the Law on Imprisonment, in force at the material time (see paragraph 29 above). As for the subsequent post\u2011conviction period, he had been entitled to supplementary visits with the consent of the governor of the relevant prison, but he had never availed himself of this opportunity."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "61a7e354-920e-47d9-bd56-5a48bd555bab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.   The applicant resided in Switzerland between 1989 and 2008, that is to say for more than eighteen years \u2013 with a short interruption in 1993-94 \u2013 and he worked and raised his family there. The Court has therefore no reason to doubt that the applicant had established social, professional and family ties in the respondent State. The immigration measures taken by the domestic authorities therefore clearly interfered with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. This has also been acknowledged by the Swiss Government."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aca59bbc-6602-4b57-b662-0911621a3b04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government disagreed that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the restriction of the confidentiality of his meetings with his lawyer. The Government submitted that, were the Court to find that there had been an interference, it had been justified under the second paragraph of Article 8. They submitted that the restriction had been in accordance with the law, namely section 5 of Law no. 5275, and had pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring order and security in the prison and protecting the rights of convicted prisoners and detainees."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "15046d14-0fc9-420b-bde4-a41b9faaa6fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["175.  The applicants maintained that the Social Welfare Board and the courts failed to carry out a proper examination of the applicants\u2019 request for reunification of their family, and thus exceeded their margin of appreciation. The applicants stressed that taking into care should be regarded as a temporary measure to be discontinued as soon as possible and that, in the present case, care was expected to be of long duration, as the authorities\u2019 presumption from the very beginning was that these children would never be returned to their biological parents. The meetings with the children under strict supervision were, in the applicants\u2019 opinion, so unnatural that the parents and the children were not able to form normal family ties and they never had an opportunity to have a normal family life together. As the Government\u2019s intention not to reunite the family was also repeated several times by the Government before the Court, the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect had been established. The authorities had acted in a clearly arbitrary way without any intention at all to terminate the care, whatever the circumstances."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1f32f4e7-903a-4c7c-a3a0-706b6fc096cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants complained that the Supreme Court, in its decision of 15 October 1996 in the enforcement proceedings, had ordered a review of questions which had already been dealt with in the final return order under the Hague Convention and that this review had eventually led to the non-enforcement of the return order. They alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention which, as far as material, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "564902d7-f299-4328-b66b-e164033eb751", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant also alleged that the ex-officio reopening of the social security proceedings, which had resulted in the quashing of the final decision granting her a right to a pension, was in breach of the principle of legal certainty under Article 6  \u00a7 1 of the Convention. She also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of an interference with her right to respect for her private and family life in that by divesting her of the EWK pension the authorities had deprived her of her sole source of income and the financial resources indispensable for her livelihood."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ca678dca-5d6b-4922-a4e1-b828d69289ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the written obligation not to abscond and the seizure of his international travel passports constituted an unlawful and disproportionate interference with his private and family life, which was largely concentrated in another country. He emphasised that subsequent to the written undertaking not to abscond until the date of his application to the Court, he was at no point summoned by the investigator for the purpose of taking part in any investigatory procedure."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d3c9e103-267b-4b06-a3c3-be95e28d7d68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["210.  The applicants further maintained that the third applicant\u2019s right to respect for her home under Article <mask> of the Convention and their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated, as the means employed by the authorities had been disproportionate to the aims sought to be achieved. They also referred to the domestic courts\u2019 decisions by which the first applicant\u2019s claim for compensation had been rejected and argued that the right to compensation for the destroyed property established, according to the Government, in a number of legal instruments, was illusory and not enforceable in practice."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aed9d911-052b-4191-8b60-7d2139817f9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants asserted that, regardless of the danger to one\u2019s health, the deterioration of the environment fell to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention where it adversely affected one\u2019s life. They agreed that Article 8 was not violated every time environmental deterioration occurred. They understood the importance of urban development and the economic interests associated with it. They also understood that States had discretion in making decisions about urban planning. On the other hand, the applicants had no doubt that any State interference with the environment should strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individuals and the community as a whole. In the present case the issue of the fair balance was rather simple. In its decisions nos. 3955/1995 and 3956/1995 the Supreme Administrative Court had itself tipped the balance in favour of the swamp and against urban development. Consequently, the Greek authorities were obliged to abide by their own choice. However, in failing to comply with the above-mentioned decisions, they had allowed the destruction of the swamp."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f79da848-0d21-43a7-9fe6-f435d9566bce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government acknowledged that the impugned court decisions had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. However, the interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of A.L., as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to Kasabova v. Bulgaria (no. 22385/03, \u00a7 54, 19 April 2011) and Axel Springer AG (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 85-86, 89), the Government also claimed that the interference had been proportionate. They maintained that the States must be given a certain margin of appreciation in striking the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life (Kasabova, cited above, \u00a7 60)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "75ec1ef8-e5de-4e1c-a90a-a02cf15a7eaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The eviction order had been in accordance with the law, it had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in order to protect the rights of forced migrants. The housing occupied by the applicants was federal property managed by the FMS, which distributed it to forced migrants in need of housing and their families. The first applicant had lost her status of a forced migrant in 2001 and since that time she had been unlawfully occupying the housing in question. Such unlawful occupation breached the rights of forced migrants in need of accommodation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c5d8c5d3-ccab-446d-ae2b-ef431db055da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["203.  The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s home had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the applicant had been suspected of having organised in 1999 the embezzlement of property and shares of several companies active in the oil industry. The applicant was a lawyer and a member of the Moscow Bar; as a result, special rules set out in Chapter 52 of the CCrP applied to him. Those rules required that any investigative measure affecting the applicant should be preceded by a court authorisation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eebd7616-03f3-4d61-83e4-fb3674577ef1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicants complained that the search of their house carried out by Russian servicemen on 20 July 2004 breached their right to respect for their home. The fifth, seventh, eighth and tenth applicants complained that the killing of their father breached their right to respect for family life. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5338085a-b44f-4c65-b78d-bd21ffc1690f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants, referring to the Court's case-law, submitted that they were entitled to the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention as they were a family, had at all relevant times permanently lived together and had been financially dependent on one another. The existence of true family life between the applicants could not be denied on the sole ground that Mr Al\u2011Nashif had a second religious marriage. Such a situation was not uncommon in the cultural traditions of many peoples."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b09f73a5-2867-43b1-853a-d0e2777204c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants further complained of violations of Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In this connection, they alleged that they had been denied a fair trial as a result of the national courts\u2019 decisions based on the opinion of the Ministry of Justice. The interference in question had also constituted a breach of their right to family life protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the applicants claimed to have been denied an effective remedy for their grievances in breach of Article 13. Finally, they alleged that the violations in question had occurred as a result of their Greek ethnic origin and their Christian Orthodox faith."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cdd8cc14-3b4a-462d-98e7-c7b63f63623d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant also complained that the search constituted unjustified interference with her right to respect for her home and private life, as protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. She noted that her laptop, which had been seized, contained private information which she did not consider was necessary for the purposes of the investigation. She objected, in that regard, to the wide scope of the search warrant."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e65239a9-39cc-43c5-a6b9-c4734adb2d43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government disagreed. They accepted that the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination constituted interference with his private life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued, however, that this interference was justified under paragraph 2 of the provision at issue. In particular, the assessment had been carried out based on Mrs L.\u2019s complaints about the first applicant\u2019s deviant behaviour, which had posed a threat to her own safety and the safety of others. These complaints had not been unsubstantiated; in particular, in June 2000 the first applicant had injured Mrs L. Other villagers had also complained to various authorities about the first applicant\u2019s provocative conduct. The Government submitted in this regard copies of complaints concerning the first applicant\u2019s conduct signed by various individuals and dated 2000 \u2013 2003. In the light of this, the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination had pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 namely, protection of the rights of others. It had been necessary in a democratic society and was conducted in accordance with the law. In particular, the relevant provision was section 11 of the Law of Ukraine \u201cOn Psychiatric Assistance\u201d, authorising forcible psychiatric assessments of persons manifesting real intention to commit acts putting others in danger. Lastly, the Government submitted that the lawfulness of the application of that provision in the first applicant\u2019s case had been confirmed by judicial authorities of two levels in the course of the contested proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0716e276-a958-4402-83a7-9ef4c64064fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants complained that their right to respect for family life had been violated by their separation from their child, that their right to moral and physical integrity under the private life aspect had been violated, that their right to reputation had been violated, affecting their right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and that they had been deprived of the right to have inherent procedural safeguards in place and observed to ensure the protection of the above rights. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e67abe02-59f6-45e6-bf34-3b4716a111cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that her and her minor son\u2019s eviction had been ordered by the courts unfairly and without their personal situation being taken into account. She also complained that the process of enforcing the eviction order had been brutal and arbitrary. The applicant invoked a number of the Convention provisions in respect of the above-mentioned complaints. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the above-mentioned complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "58fda144-781f-4ee7-b42a-ad857bf8c00e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The applicants maintained that the search conducted at their home had not been \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and could not be regarded as being necessary in a democratic society and had therefore been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also contended that the first applicant could claim to be a victim of the alleged violation because he had been staying overnight at the other applicants\u2019 house. The applicants further maintained that in the course of the search USD 12,000 and RUB 40,000 had been stolen from their house, and claimed that the failure to investigate these allegations amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a37b5ae0-8248-4788-b2eb-124989b5109a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. They maintained that, in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the High Court could only examine the conformity of the interception with the legal norms then in force and that no complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention had been raised in that regard. Moreover, the applicant had had a remedy at his disposal in the form of a civil action for damages, but had failed to use it. The Government provided copies of the decisions delivered by the domestic courts in a case in which a claimant had successfully brought a civil-law action."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9f7675a5-cccb-4201-9b6b-e152d01d4ef6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant stressed the social and economic problems she faced on account of her illegal status in Latvia. She could not work legally or receive allowances or social security benefits; moreover, she lived under constant threat of losing the only accommodation she had. With regard to the regularisation of her daughter\u2019s stay and her subsequent naturalisation, the applicant considered that these measures did not afford adequate redress for the damage they had both sustained as a result of their ordeals. In sum, there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "58af9854-1440-4761-bddb-01e4f3e7912a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the outcome and the length of the Hague Convention proceedings. The applicant also argued that the breach of Article 8 of the Convention resulted from the domestic court\u2019s decisions to entertain E.N.\u2019s divorce petition and to issue interim orders on the child\u2019s residence and child support when the Hague Convention proceedings were pending."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dc71650e-a520-4223-9f35-f4c376a00178", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants complained that the refusal of the Supreme Court of Cassation to allow the second applicant to travel abroad had breached their right to respect for their private and family life, as provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention, and that they did not have an effective remedy in this respect. The relevant parts of Articles 8 and 13 read:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9139f754-1adb-4c4b-8277-1e02ac8b2931", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government relied on the Court\u2019s case-law in cases against Latvia to argue that the circumstances of the present case were different from cases where the Court found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002; Moisejevs, cited above; and Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, 15 June 2006), and were instead comparable to those where no violation was found (see Nazarenko v. Latvia, no. 76843/01, 1 February 2007, and \u010cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, 8 February 2007)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1a1ab028-f353-4733-8aaf-5bac92b59c59", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant claimed that the refusal to exempt her from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa and the refusal to admit her to the Netherlands breached her right under Article <mask> of the Convention. Her intention had been from the outset to settle in the Netherlands with her partner, later her husband, and this had at all relevant times been known to the Netherlands immigration authorities. The applicant submitted that the Court should place emphasis on the question as to whether a fair balance had been struck between the competing interests involved. She considered that in her case no fair balance had been struck for the following reasons."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ccd5aa4d-07e4-4aae-8ff9-aa03a2eee08f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government submitted that the case revealed no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. While they accepted that the relevant domestic decisions constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life, they contended that they had been in accordance with domestic law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the health and morals and the rights and freedoms of X. The Government further considered that the measures taken by the Swedish authorities had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "793bbd01-3d2f-432a-8ba1-70a33714cbf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. In particular, he could have appealed against the court decision of 6 December 2004 authorising the interception of his mobile telephone communications. The fact that the applicant had not been provided with a copy of that decision should not have prevented him from lodging such an appeal. Alternatively, the applicant could have complained about his telephone being tapped and the interception of his communications by the police to a higher police body, a prosecutor, or a court. Lastly, the Government submitted that the interception of the applicant\u2019s communications had not infringed his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Such interception had been duly authorised by a court. The case file had contained all the relevant information and it had been accessible to the applicant and his lawyer."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5def95fd-5555-4747-826e-fa86356032c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a0b63198-d688-49aa-aa86-0e1a35a84c64", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention of the manner in which the national court had decided on his claim against the company operating the mine. He complained furthermore under Article <mask> of the Convention of an infringement of his right to a home. Lastly, he complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been deprived of the possibility to \u201cuse freely\u201d his property."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d408a12f-227c-412a-9053-e86666090366", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government did not make any submissions under this head on their observations on the merits of the case. In their earlier observations on the admissibility of the application, however, the Government had made limited submissions under this head. In particular, they disputed the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, on the basis that the notion of \u201chome\u201d in Article 8 could not be interpreted to cover an area of the State where one had grown up and where the family had its roots but where one no longer lived (Loizidou (merits), cited above, p. 2238, \u00a7 66)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f26ced6c-e7cc-45b9-b98b-f1ad308ea42b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicants complained that their allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, they complained about restrictions on visits and telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicants submitted that they had had the right to use a telephone only twice a week and that they had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate their telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "44e59121-9335-403c-8d5b-1a6ebb7b3f6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant argued that neither the prosecution authorities nor the District Court had carried out a thorough examination of his criminal complaint. As a result, his right to reputation, which the Hungarian authorities were under an obligation to protect pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention, had been violated. He stressed that the impugned statement had targeted him as an official rather than a politician \u2013 a consideration ignored by the domestic authorities. In his view, the ruling of the domestic court was also incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention, which provides insofar as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fbfde7d7-ce36-4c9c-a738-10ec140a1a95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government considered that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private life and her home, because the level of noise and other alleged nuisance had not attained the minimum level of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Contrary to the case of Olui\u0107 (cited above) the level of noise in the case at issue had been excessive only a few times and had not been sufficiently severe to raise an issue under Article 8. The Government firstly pointed out that the applicant\u2019s house was located near a road. Moreover, the measurements of 5 October 2005 (see paragraphs 30 and 31 above) had showed that the level of noise had not been excessive and had not posed any threat to the health of persons living in the surrounding dwellings. The measurements of 21 January 2008 (see paragraphs 62 and 63 above) had showed that the noise had only slightly exceeded the permitted levels. It was true that this report had showed that the permitted level of noise had been significantly exceeded (by 13 and 15 dB) in the living room of the applicant\u2019s flat on the first floor and inside the flat on the ground floor, but that had happened only when chairs were being dragged, which had been only a temporary occurrence that could not affect any of the applicant\u2019s rights. Furthermore, the measurements of March 2008 (see paragraph 69 above) had found that the level of noise was excessive during the night, but that needed to be viewed in the context of the fact that the house was located near a road. The expert report of 14 November 2008 concerning the noise insulation in the house (see paragraphs 48-49 and 52 above) had first found the noise insulation insufficient but then, after the company had carried out the necessary work on the insulation, the report had found the noise insulation adequate. In addition, the expert report commissioned during the civil proceedings confirmed that the noise in the applicant\u2019s flat did not exceed permitted levels, and in that regard the applicant had all the procedural guarantees of a fair trial to challenge the findings. The Government also pointed out that the expert reports had not found the level of any other emissions affecting the applicant\u2019s flat excessive. The applicant had not argued or demonstrated that she had suffered any damage to her health or well-being as a result of the alleged nuisance or that it had adversely affected any of her property rights and interests."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "acd9c187-4bec-4c17-a70a-d9ea4c003b0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The Government challenged the existence of a family life in the present case, relying essentially on the absence of a biological link between the applicants and the child and on the illegality of the applicants\u2019 conduct under Italian law. They submitted that, in view of the applicants\u2019 unlawful conduct, no tie protected by Article <mask> of the Convention could exist between them and the child. They also argued that the applicants had lived with the child for only eight months."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2057014e-867b-4810-9e7e-e57e1e27ead9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant also complained that the domestic court had failed to secure the effective exercise of his right of contact during the Hague Convention proceedings. As a result, his contact with the child had been irregular and rare, as it had been at the absolute discretion of the abducting mother. That, in the applicant\u2019s view, had led to the break-up of the father\u2011son relationship, and it had been in breach of Article 21 of the Hague Convention and in violation of his and his son\u2019s right to respect for their family life under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "36297cce-a12a-4495-beba-17fa211c4fb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government submitted that, under Netherlands law, access arrangements could be made under Article 1:377a of the Civil Code between the child and a legal parent, and under Article 1:377f of the Civil Code between the child and a third person who had a close personal relationship with the child. The biological father was considered a legal parent if he was married to the child\u2019s mother or if he had recognised the child. In such a situation, the legal tie between the father and the child constituted ipso jure family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e0370e73-298a-4377-a753-c47648fe3f60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government admitted that the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. Lastly, the Government submitted that the flat had not been recovered by the municipality and the applicants continued to reside there."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "19504fd2-2360-4815-b3de-ebbe3cd0bbf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The applicant replied that the main reason why the interference had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was because it had been unlawful. According to the criminal procedural law, the precondition for declaring a person \u201cwanted\u201d by the investigative authorities was the initiation of criminal proceedings, in which the person was suspected of or charged with an offence (paragraph 42 above). In the present case, however, the authorities had implicated the applicant in a murder by posting his photograph on the boards of \u201cwanted\u201d persons in police stations, without ever having launched criminal proceedings against him. Consequently, the applicant had been unlawfully and libellously implicated in a very grave crime in the eyes of the public."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "61f6766a-3edf-4b3d-8be0-6289bb82ff2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government contended that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case, arguing that the reasons for the applicant\u2019s dismissal from his job of religious education teacher were not pertinent to his private or family life. The Government pointed out that, when dismissing the applicant from his post, the schools had not examined any circumstances of his private and family life but had based their dismissal decision on purely formal grounds, namely the withdrawal of the applicant\u2019s canonical mandate. At the same time, the schools had had no knowledge of the reasons for the withdrawal of the applicant\u2019s canonical mandate; nor had it been for the schools to examine the reasons for the Church\u2019s decision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2325d73a-c2ab-4bd4-95aa-0e124d6d5834", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicants complained of the refusal by the German courts to grant an injunction against any further publication of the photo that had appeared on 20 February 2002 in the magazines Frau im Spiegel, issue no. 9/02, and Frau aktuell, issue no. 9/02. They alleged that there had been a violation of their right to respect for their private life, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1d236cbf-ad1a-4768-9633-3b0a0c1c83aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant disagreed and maintained that she had raised the complaint on her own behalf. She had indicated her name in \u201cthe applicant\u201d field in the application form and it was evident that, in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary, she had complained of a violation of her rights under the Convention. She also relied on quotes from her application form to further substantiate this. The applicant indicated that her submissions had been as follows: \u201cI consider Article <mask> of the Convention to be violated\u201d and that she as \u201cthe mother of O\u013cegs Petrovs was refused rights, granted by law, to object to removal of organs\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6e559bcb-bba3-4416-b12a-00d6292e6efc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicants complained that they had had no access to a court, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as under domestic law they were barred from bringing a civil claim to obtain compensation for the deaths of their relatives in the absence of any tangible results from the criminal investigation, and that the killings of their close relatives had constituted an unlawful and brutal interference with their family life, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The respective Convention provisions in so far as relevant read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "23f540bc-64f9-42b4-8518-6413c4c0524e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant\u2019s first complaint was that the authorities had not done enough to enable him to inform his family of his arrest and placement in detention. This raises an issue under the authorities\u2019 positive obligations flowing from Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court has had occasion to hold that in view of the deep anxiety that the disappearance of a family member can cause, even for a short period, and the consequent importance for someone who has been arrested to be able to get in touch with his or her family promptly, there is an obligation under that Article to enable an detainee to contact them rapidly after being taken into custody (see Sar\u0131 and \u00c7olak v. Turkey, nos. 42596/98 and 42603/98, \u00a7\u00a7 33-37, ECHR 2006-V (extracts)). In some cases this can also amount to an important safeguard to prevent arbitrary detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 122-24, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III). Indeed, in Bulgaria such an obligation is set out in section 243 of the 2009 Act (see paragraph 26 above). As evidenced by that provision, as well as the other relevant provisions of Bulgarian law, European Union law and international law (see paragraphs 23 to 27 above), that obligation takes on an added importance when the detainee is an alien whose family may be in a different country."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a2c848be-932d-4904-a763-576bba9ac0a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government submitted, among other arguments, that during the whole period at issue the applicant was afforded the opportunity to lead his normal and family life. Most importantly, the administrative proceedings in connection with the decision to expel the applicant from Lithuania had come to an end. The applicant was issued with a permanent residence permit. The Government could be understood as arguing that the applicant may no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "69246b0e-36a3-4c35-80c2-4d134db2f541", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["249.  The applicant alleged that the restrictive guardianship regime, including his placement in the Pastra social care home and the physical living conditions there, had amounted to unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life and home. He submitted that Bulgarian law had not afforded him a sufficient and accessible remedy in that respect. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b43115f5-3d2f-4402-8442-0179ee33396c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant firstly complained that (i) the decisions to order her to undergo a psychiatric examination and to arrest her and (ii) her detention for a total period of eighty-three days were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court considers that these complaints do not raise any separate issue which is not covered by the finding of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the D.G. judgment cited above, \u00a7 107). "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b7375632-a6be-4b2c-bc0d-5e838e326f03", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicant argued that the domestic courts had violated Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained that in a similar case involving a fully-bodied father the courts would have not set contact at two hours per visit and four visits a month and without the possibility of the child in question being taken to the father\u2019s home. The domestic courts had not only failed to assist the applicant, who was disabled, but they had discriminated against him with their decisions. In cases involving non-disabled parties, the Polish courts underlined that the child should be aware that he or she had two parents and should have the possibility of spending time with both of them. In the applicant\u2019s case, this right was refused to him."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0b34c96e-ba42-466c-820d-464bf411b6fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government also noted that in the Marzari case (see Marzari v. Italy (dec.) no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999) the Court held that, although Article 8 did not guarantee the right to have one\u2019s housing problem solved by the authorities, a refusal of the authorities to provide assistance in this respect to an individual suffering from a severe illness could in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention because of the impact of such a refusal on the private life of the individual. In that connection they first emphasized that the applicant, as an indigent person who faced eviction, had never contacted the Zadar Welfare Centre or requested to be provided with accommodation even though in the proceedings before the Court she claimed that she had no family members who could support her and provide her with a place to live. Nevertheless, the Government stressed, the competent social services were familiar with the applicant\u2019s situation, and were prepared, in the event of her eviction, to offer her social assistance by accommodating her in a nursing home for the elderly and the infirm or in a foster family. The administrative proceedings in which such assistance would be granted would be instituted by the Zadar Welfare Centre of its own motion, which would choose the accommodation facility and determine how the costs of such accommodation would be met. Those proceedings could also be instituted upon the applicant\u2019s request. Pursuant to the Social Welfare Act the costs of such accommodation were to be covered from the applicant\u2019s income. If her income was insufficient to cover the full cost, the difference had to be covered by those who were obliged to support her or, if they failed to do so, by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. In support of their allegations the Government submitted two reports of 21 August 2009 and 17 May 2011 prepared by the Zadar Social Welfare Centre for the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare concerning the applicant\u2019s situation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "78e41a91-cc92-433e-9bbf-6d448d529139", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants claimed that the Swiss authorities had not complied with their obligations, inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention, to allow R., L. and B. to reside legally in Switzerland, thereby enabling them to enjoy family life in that country. They submitted that their interest in their children being allowed to reside in Switzerland outweighed those of the respondent State in refusing that permission. They insisted that the three children, who had been living in Switzerland illegally since 15 August 2009, were well integrated in the respondent State and especially in the school system. Therefore, no public interest of the respondent State would justify the refusal of residence permits for the children."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1d3d54aa-6caf-4dd9-b211-058d2e7a9b62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant further complained about the fact that on the night of 19 September 1999 the police officers had invited reporters from the \u201cAntena 1\u201d television channel to film him handcuffed, covered in blood and with his clothes torn. He also claimed that the footage taken on this occasion had been repeatedly broadcast without his consent. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7755f1c4-01c4-4cd2-8c06-bff9afbe4c73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant submitted that the authorities\u2019 refusals to transfer him to a prison closer to his home address had amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. He emphasised that he had in fact been denied any opportunity of seeing his elderly mother for many years."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "58435da5-4a64-41b3-a3dc-45d7bc09f35f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that his right to freedom of movement had been infringed and his private life affected as a result of the authorities\u2019 refusal to issue him a passport. While the applicant himself expressly referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in this regard, the Court considers that the substance of the complaint more properly falls to be examined under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2012, with further references), which reads as follows, in the relevant part:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "838d6f73-7129-4b7a-b10d-0eefe5ac4625", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant also complained about the same facts under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association) of the Convention. However, in the light of the considerations and conclusion above (paragraphs 30-35) in relation to the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine them separately under Article 10 or 11."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "062a673a-7aa4-45f7-9aca-495fe2fa6b78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government argued that the application was inadmissible for two reasons. First, as in the case of Abulail and Ludneva v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 21341/07, 13 November 2014), the first applicant had not raised in the domestic judicial proceedings a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Second, he could have brought a tort action against the State, in view of the fact that the decisions concerning his detention pending expulsion had been quashed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "71f016bf-a469-4868-aa22-f1bf34013235", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicants alleged that the failure to treat their daughter correctly and in time, which had led to the deterioration in her health and her subsequent death, and the manner in which the District Court had dealt with their action were in breach of their right to respect for their private and family life under Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0aab5d2b-7923-41cf-926d-38fe89dc068b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that the disclosure of information of a medical nature by the CFD to her employer constituted a violation of her right to respect for private life as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention. She also alleged that the proceedings in which her action against the CFD had been examined had been unfair because the courts had adopted arbitrary decisions and failed to give reasons for them. Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, on which the applicant relied, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "190507a3-2d17-4aa6-ba85-54dac84fbcd5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government submitted that in his initial application to the Court and in his subsequent written submissions before the Chamber, the applicant had not alleged any failure on the part of the State to adopt sufficient legal rules and measures to regulate motor vehicle traffic on public roads. Nor had he mentioned any aspect falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40d3f15e-966e-4c6c-a516-d67d4bec96a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants submitted that the District Court had not rejected the petition for visiting rights on the ground that the visiting rights would endanger the child\u2019s welfare. The request had instead been rejected on the ground that not granting visiting rights to the foster parents would not endanger the welfare of the child. Such a criterion was not in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Regional Court and the Supreme Court had not examined what would really be in the child\u2019s interests but had concentrated on the issue of the applicants\u2019 standing in the proceedings. They had found that because of the considerable period of time which had elapsed since the proceedings had started the applicants could no longer be considered F.\u2019s foster parents. Such an approach was unacceptable. It was the responsibility of the Austrian courts that the proceedings had been conducted at such a slow pace and that they had consisted of a continuing exchange of submissions between the parties, the District Courts and various youth welfare bodies, whereas the authorities should have acted particularly speedily given what was at stake for the applicants and the importance the element of time has in such proceedings. Once the District Court had made its decision, the visiting rights had been refused with the argument that it had been a very long time since the child had been with the applicants. Thus, the delay caused by the Austrian courts had been used as an argument for refusing the visiting rights. The applicants did acknowledge the importance of the child\u2019s welfare but considered that regard should also be had to the interests of the foster parents."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "72b28744-1cd2-4de9-a54c-e47f365ec97b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicants complained, alleging a violation of their respective rights to respect for family life on account of the lack of practical opportunities for prison visits stemming from decisions to allocate prisoners to remote penal facilities and their subsequent inability to obtain transfers to other facilities. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ad2be260-8ff2-4bcd-9799-9831669416a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants further complained that there had been an unlawful interference with their child\u2019s right to respect for his private life in view of the dismissal of their action for damages by the lower domestic courts. In particular, they disputed the reasoning given by those courts, namely that the mental maturity of their son, who was only one day old, was not sufficiently developed for him to perceive the alleged infringement of his personality rights. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c27b8a72-d0fd-42f8-a7d4-6d02402bf881", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his deportation to Israel or the Gaza Strip, directly or indirectly, would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment and/or death, bearing in mind that he and his family had been targeted by Israeli forces before and that he was wanted in Israel. He further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his removal from Turkey would constitute an interference with the family life that he had established with his wife in Turkey."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e70be090-0710-4a8a-b442-c1aec60a03d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government alleged that there had been no violation of the applicant\u2019s Article 13 rights, submitting that under section 78 of PACE the judge could have regard to Article <mask> of the Convention when exercising his discretion to exclude evidence from trial proceedings. However, it did not appear that the applicant had ever submitted during his trial that the intercepted messages should be excluded from the evidence under section 78 on the basis that they had been obtained in breach of Article 8, and added that in the circumstances it cannot be said that such a submission would necessarily have failed. In this way, the Government claimed that the present case was distinguishable from the above-mentioned Khan case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "76cbb840-73ed-44a9-bf2b-aba2259fd920", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicant companies asserted that they had been directly and personally affected by the secret surveillance of the third applicant, who had been a member of their supervisory boards. They had thus been de facto victims of the violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. It was impossible to differentiate between company officials and the companies themselves. Furthermore, after submitting its observations to the Court, the second applicant company notified the Court of a new fact \u2013 according to information provided by the relevant mobile service operator, the telephone number which had been subject to secret surveillance had been registered to the second applicant company between 2003 and 2008, and not to the third applicant. In any event, the secret surveillance had been carried out in the context of the criminal investigation against the applicant companies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fe878fc5-fc5a-4f90-af53-e0d811b49ee5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant argued that she had properly exhausted available remedies and that any other remedies would have been redundant. She further argued that the level of noise had been such as to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. The exposure of the applicant and her family to the excessive noise had persisted over a period of some eight years and occurred nightly. It had caused the applicant, her husband and their daughter severe medical problems."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "893ad77b-2125-43a6-87fd-1321b565d90f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant argued that V.L.\u2011\u017d. had not been entitled to protection of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention because of his alleged collaboration with the Nazi regime (see paragraph 55 above). However, the domestic courts found those allegations to be unsubstantiated by any available facts, and the Court accepts their conclusion as well-founded (see paragraph 71 above). It therefore considers that nothing in V.L.-\u017d.\u2019s prior conduct deprived him of protection against false and defamatory statements."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f1c43c2c-f3c8-42ef-83fc-764208e7f2ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Aslambek Ismailov, Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev concerns the same matters as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, \u00a7 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, \u00a7 25, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1997, \u00a7 50 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "53c8d227-a1e4-4e22-957f-fcc6a87f136a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that he had been dismissed from his position of Vice-President, three years and ten months before the statutory date of his term\u2019s expiry, by means of an ad hominem legislative measure. In the initial application of 20 June 2012 he invoked Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and contended, in particular, that his dismissal had ruined his career and reputation as well as his social and professional relationships and had also resulted in his unjustified deprivation of the peaceful enjoyment of the benefits that would have been due to him during his term of office. In a memorial summarising his arguments following the disjoinder, on 19 March 2014, of the present complaint from the initial application (see paragraph 1 above), the applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and explicitly argued that the termination of his mandate had violated his right to respect for private life, including the development of relationships of a professional nature."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "172fd186-b188-4ce8-8910-4540386001b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant furthermore underlined that the mani pulite campaign had been conducted in an unfair way and pursuing a political aim. In particular, a number of violations of the secrecy covering the investigations were committed in order to attract the attention of the media. He concluded that by releasing the interceptions into the public domain the Italian authorities had failed to respect the positive obligations imposed on them by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2853c163-1b95-4c18-a2ba-6375ce40943f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government noted that the necessity of the measure had been assessed twice, with a possibility of rejection \u2013 first by the Attorney General and subsequently by the Vilnius Regional Court. The contested operational measure had been necessary and had been applied in the interests of national security, public safety and the prevention of crime. The authorities had had operational information about the applicant\u2019s possible involvement in criminal activities. The applicant had close connections with J.B. and persons from J.B.\u2019s milieu. Most importantly, in the course of the operational investigation in respect of J.B., the authorities had learned about his threats to the State President. That information had later been confirmed when intercepting the applicant\u2019s telephone conversation with J.B., in which the latter used psychological pressure and demanded that his requirements be reported to the head of State. Subsequently, J.B. had been convicted of having threatened the State President. The Government also observed that both J.B. and the applicant had had close relations with the State President and had played a significant role in the political activities of the President\u2019s political party and his electoral campaign; at the time of surveillance the applicant had been a member of the Vilnius City Municipal Council. In this connection the Government also referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Craxi v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25337/94, \u00a7 64, 17 July 2003), submitting that politicians inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny by both journalists and the public at large. Therefore, even acknowledging that no investigation had been carried out by the SSD in order to reveal the circumstances in which the journalists had obtained the recording of the intercepted conversation, the question of fulfilment of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention could not arise."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2611f14d-acc5-49a2-b395-b4aaec53e47a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicants replied that they had used the remedies which could directly provide them with adequate redress. Those that they had left unexplored were neither adequate nor effective. The eviction procedure under section 45 of the 1951 Property Act was only applicable to a flat\u2019s owner, whereas in the present case the nuisances had been created by tenants. In any event, that procedure was quite burdensome when compared with the quick and effective remedies that they had used. A claim under section 109(1) of the Act would not have been effective either. Firstly, that provision was very general. Secondly, as was evident from the domestic courts\u2019 case\u2011law, any claim under it would have been premised on showing that the activities in a neighbouring flat were unlawful, which could be determined only in separate proceedings concerned with the legality of the works in the flat. The domestic case\u2011law also showed that that such a claim could be successful only if it touched upon the technical aspects of a reconstruction in a neighbouring property. Moreover, such a claim protected directly the integrity of a property, not the private lives or homes of those living in it. By contrast, section 38 of the 2001 Territorial Organisation Act and of regulation 10(3) of the Regulations on the Manner of Carrying On Commercial Activities on the Territory of the Municipality of Sofia were intended to safeguard precisely the interests protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. By asking the authorities to apply those provisions, the applicants had had recourse to the most appropriate avenue of redress."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b334bd9f-8133-4843-948c-44c5b7742d03", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government submitted that the domestic courts had in essence established a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, they had decided the amount of compensation based on their direct knowledge of the case and on the basis of the parties\u2019 arguments and evidence. The applicant had been awarded compensation in respect of this breach of Article 8 and consequently no longer had victim status. The award made by the domestic courts had been reasonable in the light of the relatively short period of the applicant\u2019s in-patient treatment and the lack of evidence of any long-lasting effects on the applicant."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ff2a0fcd-2a2a-4080-b7a6-1b4ed20c950b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government argued that that the applicant had failed to bring his complaint before the Court within the six-month time-limit. In the Government\u2019s view, the final domestic decision had been the judgment of the Dubrovnik County Court of 28 May 2009 and not the decision of the Constitutional Court of 26 November 2009 on which the applicant had relied when he had lodged his application with the Court. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant should have been aware of the case-law of the Constitutional Court to the effect that constitutional complaints brought by subsidiary prosecutors in criminal proceedings were inadmissible. Finally, the Government argued that in respect of any complaint concerning the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention the six-month time-limit had to be calculated from 17 April 2009, the date on which the criminal prosecution against the applicant\u2019s assailant had become time-barred."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "06630859-6fb7-4092-94c2-488e7668fb69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that it had not been confirmed that the impugned letter was indeed intercepted, and if so, whether it was intercepted and opened by the authorities. They referred to the fact that the notice on the envelope which indicated that the letter had been opened and read was not signed. Should the Court accept that this was indeed the case, the Government decline to take a stand as to whether this amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for correspondence within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5fd49ed7-d30b-4606-91e3-96d95afdc48b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicants alleged that the disappearance of their relative had amounted to a violation of their right to respect for family life. They also complained that the search carried out at their house on 4 February 2003 had been illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also referred to the unlawful seizure of their property during the search and relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "55ba88ce-4a3f-4069-b01d-f13a7c1ba8d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government noted that the respondent State's positive obligation, which was inherent in the effective respect for family life, was not absolute. Referring to the Court's case-law, they admitted that domestic measures hindering the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company amounted to an interference with the rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Such interference constituted a violation of that provision unless it was \u201cin accordance with law\u201d, pursued an aim or aims that were legitimate under paragraph 2 of Article 8 and could be regarded as \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. The Government further stressed that in assessing whether or not a refusal of access to the non-custodial parent was in conformity with Article 8, the interests of the child predominated."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3e133d18-4d75-494d-91e3-a4f5e9886dcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant submitted, relying on the Court\u2019s findings as to the existence of family life for the purposes of Article 8 in Boughanemi v. France (judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, pp. 607-08, \u00a7 35) and C. v. Belgium (judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 922-23, \u00a7 25), that the only important factor in determining the existence of \u201cfamily life\u201d was the tie between himself and A. already created by the mere fact that he was her biological father, without the need to rely on additional circumstances to demonstrate the existence of other bonds between them. According to the applicant, family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention existed ipso jure between him and A. on the ground of his biological fatherhood."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2033c0c7-78e5-4bf9-a880-679f588578ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government accepted that the ruling by which the applicant was partly deprived of her legal capacity had amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in their view the interference had been based in law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been proportionate to the aim sought. The legal basis for the interference had been section 159 of the Family Act. The ruling in question had been adopted in order to protect the applicant, as it had been established that she was not able to look after her own rights and interests in terms of disposing of her assets and making decisions concerning her medical treatment. The applicant had run up debts of about HRK 40,000, whereas her monthly pension amounted to about HRK 3,950."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f6e8de5c-cede-4066-96d4-4f0fd6223c52", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to prove any non-pecuniary damage beyond that for which the domestic courts had already awarded compensation. In their submissions to the domestic courts the applicants had never referred to any case-law of the European Court to prove that the award needed to be increased. The Government argued that the present case did not differ in any significant manner from that of Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I), in which the Court had found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the State\u2019s insufficient funding of haemodialysis."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "64843b2d-1232-46eb-8bfa-9ba3e21a9c9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They firstly pointed out that he had failed to submit his complaints about the insufficient contacts with his child to the social services which could have taken necessary measures to remedy his situation. Secondly, they stressed that he had failed to make the same complaints he had raised before the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention in his constitutional complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "249f9d61-fc2e-4f6c-8171-86deec675d32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government pointed out that for both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the point of departure had been that, while establishing a family-law relationship between the applicant and S. through recognition might serve interests protected by Article <mask> of the Convention, it might also harm S.\u2019s interests as protected by that provision; a balance had therefore to be struck between the competing interests of the applicant and the child."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "98b9c5c9-bdc6-4ab7-8100-4b074c4978fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been allocated a replacement flat in lieu of the one over which he had had an occupancy right and which had been destroyed during the war. However, the Convention does not guarantee a right to be provided with a home (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2001\u2011I). The interests protected by the notion of a \u201chome\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 include the peaceful enjoyment of one\u2019s existing residence. Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a2fcb471-11b1-44b0-b95c-73b8a72ac265", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant originally complained under Article 10 about the refusal of the domestic courts to issue him with copies of the minutes of the hearings in the criminal proceedings against him and of the video of his arrest. The Court considered that it was more appropriate to examine this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his telephone conversations had been illegally recorded by the person who had set him up. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f0f7b0b5-e036-4d35-ab54-2f4fa8fa11ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained about the search of his house. As in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, he alleged a breach of his rights as a result of (i) the court's decision to order the search and the search as such, and (ii) procedural shortcomings in the way in which the police had proceeded. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which in its relevant part provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1e01151f-337f-415e-9c31-178ff343380c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant submitted in reply that a person\u2019s name was part of his private life. Article <mask> of the Convention conferred on an individual the right to decide whether and under what conditions third parties could use his name for advertising purposes. He emphasised that such protection also covered an individual\u2019s forename where its use would make it possible to identify the individual concerned, as in the present case, because otherwise the company would not have confined itself to using his forename. He further pointed out that in the instant case he was relying not so much on his right to protection of his reputation as on his right to his own name and the freedom to make his own decisions as to who should be allowed to use it for advertising purposes. Moreover, he had not forfeited his right to protection of his reputation simply because he had published his book. Therefore, the applicant contended that this complaint fell within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3027ceec-c5fe-4649-b978-1726c3ab0638", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his home. However, they considered it to have been in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government observed that the search of the applicant\u2019s home had been based on the judicial ruling of 19 May 2004 and that it had been necessary for the prevention of crime. While the aforementioned ruling had concerned a criminal investigation in respect of a different person, Mr B., it had become known to the investigator that the applicant might have been involved in the production and sale of illegal drugs. Accordingly, it had been legitimate to verify this information by way of a search. Lastly, the Government emphasised that the lawfulness of the search in question had been reaffirmed by the courts of three levels of jurisdiction in the course of the trial and appeal proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eeac7236-d36b-412b-a7ae-e4af48c47a09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant argued that the administrative removal order and its possible enforcement constituted an interference with his \u201cfamily life\u201d. The applicant was living with his common-law wife Ms A. and had fathered two of her children; both had his patronymic; the son also had his family name on his birth certificate. The national courts did not examine the matter relating to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "014c5e34-7d21-4007-afd2-8ca80b7d330e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that on 30 December 2001 police officers had entered the front garden of her house by climbing over the fence without any proper authorisation and had accordingly violated her right to respect for her home. She also complained that on an unspecified date prior to 30 December 2001 the police officers had entered her house in her absence and carried out a search without any authorisation. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "904b316e-10cf-4ad2-939d-acd86b1d68c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government maintained that the application was inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of claiming damages from the state due to the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to, inter alia, the Swedish Supreme Court\u2019s decisions and judgments of 9 June 2005 and 21 September 2007 as well as the Chancellor of Justice\u2019s decision of 23 June 2009 (see paragraphs 45-47), in which individuals had been awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage due to the violation of different Articles of the Convention. They also pointed out that the Svea Court of Appeal had, in a judgment dated 12 January 2006, concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that non-pecuniary damages should be awarded on the basis of the principle established in the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment NJA 2005 p. 462. In the Government\u2019s opinion, Swedish law thus provided a remedy in the form of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of any violation of the Convention, including under Article 8, at the time when the application was lodged with the Court. The application was lodged with the Court one and a half years after the delivery of the first of the mentioned Supreme Court judgments and one year after the Svea Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment concerning Article 8 in particular. Accordingly, the legal position under domestic law had to be considered to have been sufficiently clear at the time when the present application was introduced before the Court."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1e083e4d-f372-4969-9de0-dd90952eee8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["174.  The applicant alleged that her right to respect for her private life had been breached, as on 28 May 2003 the State authorities had called the press, who took photographs of her when she was being transferred by force to the Socola hospital and published them in various newspapers. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fd5a9cea-bea0-45fa-94b3-622884ee905d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government referred to the Constitutional Court's judgment of 3 October 1989 and to the case-law of the Commission (see Zukrigl, decision cited above, and H.F. v. Austria, no. 22646/93, Commission decision of 26 June 1995, unreported), pointing out that the Commission had found no indication of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 in respect of Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code. As to Sutherland (cited above), the Government pointed out that there was an important difference, namely that under Article 209 the adolescent participating in the offence was not punishable. Moreover, they referred to the fact that, in 1995, Parliament had heard numerous experts and had discussed Article 209 extensively with a view to abolishing it, but had decided to uphold it, as the provision was still considered necessary, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, for the protection of male adolescents. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1bdfd1c3-2daa-4276-8565-286379283ccf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government requested that the case be \u201cstruck out\u201d, as the applicants could no longer claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that they had obtained the visas. They explained that the French authorities had agreed in principle to family reunification (see paragraph 9 above) and that it was only the discovery of the irregularities in the civil-status documents submitted in support of the visa applications which had delayed the issue of these visas. They had been issued as soon as the Yaound\u00e9 tribunal de grande instance\u2019s judgment of 3 June 2010 had been brought to the authorities\u2019 attention. Examination of a possible violation of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had thus ended at the stage of evidence of the documents\u2019 authenticity; verification of the genuine nature of the applicant\u2019s filiation had been essential standard practice, was in accordance with the legislation and could not be contrary to the stipulations of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "04bc94e7-3e70-4a7c-a943-f66e8fd3106f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant further expressed doubts as to the \u201clawfulness\u201d of the interference. Firstly, in her view, section 38 of the Aliens Act was to be read in conjunction with section 49, which stated that international treaties took precedence over domestic legislation. The Latvian authorities should therefore take account of Article <mask> of the Convention, which guaranteed the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private and family life and constituted a reason for not deporting her. Secondly, the applicant challenged the Government\u2019s argument that her registration of a residence in Russia had automatically cancelled out \u2013 or \u201crendered invalid\u201d \u2013 her residence registration in Latvia. On the contrary, her residence permit had been valid until 9 April 1998, when the Directorate had removed her name from the register of residents and issued an order for her deportation; hence, her residence in Latvia had been perfectly legal until then. Lastly, the applicant contested the view that the effects of the provisions in question were foreseeable. In her opinion, it was not obvious who was or was not covered by the Non\u2011Citizens Act, a fact demonstrated by the numerous sets of judicial proceedings which had been brought on that very subject."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dcc1e5b9-9264-436f-8eb5-12a23b1f8570", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government accepted that A. had not been detained for psychiatric treatment after his conviction on 7 January 2002. They further recognised that despite the District Court having been notified by a letter dated 15 January 2002 that A. had been released from hospital on 14 January 2002 the District Court had only ordered his detention for treatment on 22 January 2002, following the applicant's filing of a new criminal complaint. This, by the Government's own admission, rendered the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention \u201cnot manifestly ill-founded\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "817c0520-0ebc-4a3d-a1f5-6af090034410", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant claimed that he had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of his right to respect for his private life when compared both to fathers whose paternity had been established on other grounds and to mothers because, unlike him, they were entitled to request the Prosecutor General to challenge paternity on their behalf. In connection with this complaint the applicant also alleged a lack of an effective remedy. He relied on Articles 13 and 14, read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "349954e8-03ce-4847-89af-f291dc1185f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicants alleged that the intrusion by Russian servicemen into their house on 9 April 2003 had infringed their right to respect for their home. They also complained under the same head that their right to respect for family life had been breached as a result of Akhmed Shaipov\u2019s abduction. They relied in this respect on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cad019a0-29e7-4728-b730-03a0baab7630", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant alleged that the authorities had allowed the so-called \u201cWildstein list\u201d, containing names of persons whose files had been collected by the Institute, to be leaked and made public. In addition, she averred that the State had failed to take adequate steps to inform the public about the actual character of the impugned list. These facts, in her view, amounted to a breach of her right to respect for her private life under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8623768b-6a2a-4295-a162-8a551ca7c146", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["171.  The Government further argued that the alleged interference with the applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorist operations in the territory of the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strike of 12 September 1999 had been performed, had been carried out on the basis of the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998 and \u201crelevant regulations of State bodies\u201d. They further insisted that the strike resulting in the damage to or destruction of the applicants\u2019 homes and property had been necessary in order to suppress the criminal activity of members of illegal armed groups and to prevent terrorist attacks they had been preparing. Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicants could have obtained compensation for the alleged damage in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c8fd1d55-f13c-4afa-9bd1-853f8ab91146", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government maintained that the cemetery had been built in the interests of the villagers of Tatariv, as there had been absolutely no other place in the mountainous region near the village that could be used for a cemetery. They further stated that while it was true that the cemetery had been built in breach of environmental health laws and regulations as it had lacked the health protection zone required by law, the authorities had done all they could to prohibit burials and to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be re-housed, even though such an obligation to resettle had not existed in law. According to them, he had continuously rejected such proposals. In this respect they supplied letters of 10, 15 and 16 December 2009 from Tarariv Council and the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional State Administration, in which the municipal authorities stated that the applicant was not interested in resettlement (see paragraph 34 above). The Government accepted that the fact that the cemetery was placed on the VL plot engaged State\u2019s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a8284324-add5-47e4-bdb7-b1de8c8c6565", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that the authorities had taken all the necessary steps that could reasonably be demanded of them. They stressed the complexity of the matter and the fact that the parties were in conflict. They submitted that the courts concerned had held many lengthy hearings and heard witnesses. The Government concluded that the length of the proceedings to change the residence order, instituted by the applicant on 8 April 2008, did not amount to a breach of the applicant's right to respect for his family life under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6dc4839d-a2d4-4cb0-8ac9-3a65d356ee7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings and of an infringement of their right to private life. They argued that the domestic courts had erred in finding that the land had been assigned and sold to them unlawfully. They also submitted that the domestic courts should have rejected the former owner\u2019s civil claim as time-barred. The Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint solely under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "517f58e6-6fdd-4853-9864-c39f7c19a9a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant submitted that, under the Court\u2019s case-law, she should not be required to have recourse both to civil and criminal remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. If there was more than one remedy available, the applicant need not exhaust more than one (see Ya\u011fc\u0131 and Sarg\u0131n v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, \u00a7\u00a7 42-44, Series A no. 319\u2011A). She further referred to a judgment in which the Court had found that the applicants, having exhausted all possible means available to them in the criminal-justice system, were not required, in the absence of a criminal prosecution in connection with their complaints, to embark on another attempt to obtain redress by bringing an action for damages (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5fd8a052-88cd-4b8e-b985-7bcfbaf9ec74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["233.  The Government stressed that Article <mask> of the Convention did not include the right to buy a home, but only protected a person\u2019s right to respect for his or her present home (see Sori\u0107, decision cited above). As the SZ protected the legal status of former holders of occupancy rights, by guaranteeing them tenancy for an indefinite period and a non-profit rent, the applicants\u2019 direct possession of the dwellings was not in any way disturbed by the impugned provisions. As the Constitutional Court pointed out, the holders of occupancy rights and their spouses and close family members had the right to continue to live in denationalised dwellings in conditions comparable to those in other European countries (paragraph 65 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "654cc1d9-1fb3-457f-a1df-e84d5439338b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government accepted that the impossibility for the applicant to have his father's paternity established after the expiry of the five-year time-limit had constituted an interference with his private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned measures had had a basis in Finnish legislation, namely in section 7, subsection 2, of the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "be748814-0adf-4f31-8bba-605976b583c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants stated at the outset that the Court was required to rule solely on the disputed measures taken by the Italian authorities in respect of the child, and then only on the basis of Article <mask> of the Convention, for the purpose of determining whether there had been a violation of the applicants\u2019 private and family life. In their view, given the Chamber\u2019s decision to declare inadmissible the complaint concerning the refusal to register the child\u2019s Russian birth certificate in Italy, the Court was not required to rule on whether a State\u2019s decisions to authorise or prohibit the practice of gestational surrogacy on its territory, or the conditions for recognition of a parent-child relationship in respect of children legally conceived in another country, were compatible with the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "677df1b1-d3cf-49c2-9782-dbb57e1bfdde", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained of a violation of her private and family life on the ground that, firstly, the body of her stillborn child had been taken from her and buried without her knowledge in a communal grave in the cemetery and, secondly, that it had been transported from the hospital to the cemetery in an inappropriate vehicle. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9167e0ca-dd61-48d0-be38-56106990fb19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["230.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had never raised any of the specific allegations in the present complaint before any domestic authority and had never relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, or provisions of domestic law of the same or a similar nature, in his applications to the domestic authorities. The Government noted that, under the CCrP, it was open to the applicant to complain to the domestic courts about any actions of the prosecuting or investigating authorities violating his rights. The Government acknowledged that visits to the applicant by his family (but not his lawyers) had indeed been restricted during the pre-trial investigation in the interests of justice, and that the CCrP provided a relevant legal basis for this. However, according to the Government, neither the applicant nor his family members had been prohibited from corresponding in writing."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9de6448c-97a0-467f-a6f2-4ab51ae92a0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government contested that claim. In particular, they submitted that the Court, when deciding on his earlier application in respect of the same return proceedings, had already awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Ad\u017ei\u0107, cited above, \u00a7 103). They urged the Court to take that sum into account."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "57c36f9d-231f-400f-8772-8dd2ea55302a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention since the criminal proceedings against him had not established his guilt. He lastly complained under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of his separation from his family as a result of his detention and the adverse effects it had on his family. He submitted that throughout his period in detention he received no news about his family."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "99510861-9e9c-49c4-ac50-a835f36156ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government admitted that the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. As regards Mr Presnyakov (application, no. 25624/15), the Government noted that he could not claim to be a victim of the violation alleged. He had not had the flat registered as his place of residence. Pursuant to the official documents, he resided elsewhere. Nor had he been a party to the civil proceedings concerning the determination of the applicants\u2019 rights in respect of the flat."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "eecf2c97-9b7d-4f94-a801-1573605c0ae6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government accepted that Article <mask> of the Convention protected legal professional privilege. They submitted, however, that there had been no \u201cinterference\u201d by the authorities with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life, home or correspondence within the meaning of the second paragraph of that provision, as he did not complain of any concrete event that had affected him personally."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "69e05e75-2d29-41e9-a6d8-c92c25a24ea9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government conceded that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. It is well\u2011established in its case-law that the storing of information relating to an individual\u2019s private life in a secret register and the release of such information comes within the scope of Article 8 \u00a7 1 (see, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, \u00a7 48, Series A no. 116; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2000\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a353cfe4-0525-4ffd-80db-c9b83c88b14d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicants claimed that their removal from Latvia had violated their right to respect for their \u201cprivate life\u201d, their \u201cfamily life\u201d and their \u201chome\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that their removal had not been required by Latvian law or by the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of the Russian troops, interpreted correctly, and that in any event the resultant interference with their above rights had pursued no legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society. The applicants also stated that, on the basis of the Latvian courts' incorrect interpretation of the Latvian-Russian treaty on the withdrawal of the Russian troops, they had lost their legal status in Latvia and had been forced to leave the country as a result of political changes rather than of their own actions."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "45559501-a0ef-48ca-a48a-edd41ca551ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply in this case because the applicant had not been directly affected by the contested measure and because even if he had been affected, he had willingly renounced his right to privacy by publicly exchanging the files in question (see paragraphs 92 and 93 above). In order to answer those questions, the Court must consider whether the applicant, or any other individual using the Internet, had a reasonable expectation that his otherwise public online activity would remain anonymous (see paragraphs 115 to 118 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "213ea94f-c7f1-42a1-9893-ddccfc6c4ac3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained that the neighbour who had converted the attic above her flat into another flat had failed to carry out the necessary soundproofing work and that she had therefore been disturbed by the noise coming from the flat above her. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2615a4f9-d501-4b72-babf-929e47faafc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government challenged the sums claimed by the applicant. In particular, they considered that there were no grounds for her request for reimbursement of the costs incurred during the second set of proceedings before the Latvian courts, as the effective aim of those proceedings had been to challenge a final decision. Hence, the proceedings in question had been extraordinary and were not to be taken into consideration for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Similarly, in its partial decision of 15 February 2001, the Court had declared only one of the applicant\u2019s complaints admissible \u2013 the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention \u2013 and had rejected the remainder. In the Government\u2019s view, that fact should be taken into account in calculating the amount to be reimbursed under Article 41 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fb015ef7-9f4d-4fc9-9e85-abce33963d90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicants stated that they could no longer enjoy family life with their sons following their abduction by the State authorities. They also claimed that the search carried out at their house on 26 April 2003 had been illegal, which constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "905b57ae-b8d2-4098-b492-a28df192824c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["465.  The applicants complained that they could not correspond freely with their families and with the Court. In particular, they asserted that they had not been able to apply to the Court freely, and that in order to do so they had had to call on the assistance of their wives. They further complained that they could not receive visits from their families except with the prior agreement of the \u201cPresident of the MRT\u201d. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4e274b84-ef87-4845-9872-3bcff149e4d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["823.  The Government maintained that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government emphasised that any limitation of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 was related to their criminal conviction and was inherent in the very concept of criminal punishment. The Government described the geographical position of the Krasnokamensk colony (where the first applicant had been sent) and the Kharp colony (where the second applicant had been sent) and transport routes linking them to Moscow, where the applicants\u2019 families lived. They concluded that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 private lives on account of their placement in those particular penal colonies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "72d596dd-f0bd-4cea-9585-3948d70fad05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["822.  The applicants complained that they had been sent to serve their prison terms in very remote colonies situated thousands of kilometres from their homes. In their words, this had seriously hindered their contacts with the outside world, and, in particular, with their families and their lawyers. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e210ce3e-928a-4624-8d19-d840da4440b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government argued that, while the adoption of M. constituted interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life under Article <mask> of the Convention, the interference was justified under paragraph 2 of that Article. It had a legal basis, namely Article 181 \u00a7 3 of the Civil Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the applicant's minor daughter, by protecting her health, including her psychological well-being, and her legal interest in consolidating and formalising de facto family ties with her adoptive father. According to the case-law of the Austrian courts, the well-being of the child concerned was in itself not sufficient to justify overruling a parent's refusal of consent under Article 181 \u00a7 3. Only persistent conduct absolutely contrary to family values on the part of a parent could justify such a decision. In the present case, the applicant had demonstrated such conduct by repeatedly threatening and grossly insulting the child's mother in the presence of the child, at that time very young, during previous contact visits. As result, the child had suffered from anxiety and severe somatic disorders. The applicant had acted as the child's father only in the first months of her life. After the breakdown of his relationship the applicant, by his conduct towards the child's mother who had custody of the child, had made the exercise of his rights and duties as a father impossible. His refusal to consent to the adoption prevented the husband of the child's mother from taking on a role which he himself could no longer fulfil. Furthermore, he had discontinued maintenance payments for the child five years prior to the adoption being granted, thereby leaving it to others to care for his daughter. When questioned about the reasons for his refusal to give consent, the applicant had merely stated that he wished to visit his daughter and that her mother was preventing him from doing so. Such submissions could not be regarded as decisive reasons. Furthermore, the applicant had insisted on evidence being heard from the child in his own and the other parties' presence, apparently without caring much about the stress that would inevitably be caused to the child. The applicant had been sufficiently involved in the decision-making process. As it had transpired after several unsuccessful attempts that the applicant, for personal reasons, was unable to attend a hearing by the court competent to deal with the case, he had given evidence before another court under letters rogatory. Moreover, he had expressly stated at the beginning of the proceedings that he did not wish to be further involved in the proceedings and that his written submissions should be regarded as his statements."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9ef18b5a-820d-4e46-a262-d2aeeb5ce970", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant further submitted that the monitoring of the correspondence sent to him by the Court on 23 February 1999 was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that under Article 103 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences 1997, which entered into force on 1 September 1998, the prisoner's correspondence should have been delivered to him without delay and was not subject to censorship. Furthermore, contrary to \u00a7 37(4) of the Rules of Detention on Remand 1998 the letter of 23 February 1999 was not opened in the applicant's presence."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7f934d17-33df-4502-a445-9d31f0692478", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that the decision on his administrative removal from Russia had violated his right to respect for his private and family life. He argued, in particular, that the severity of the punishment, which had disrupted his family life, had been disproportionate to the gravity of the administrative offence of which he had been found guilty. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d402e9aa-81a9-4850-886b-55e95d69c480", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest in 1996 and that the length of his detention in police custody in 1996 and 2002 had been excessive. The applicant further complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3, Article 6 \u00a7 2 and Article <mask> of the Convention that (i) there had been no reasonable suspicion to justify his being remanded in custody, (ii) the length of his detention had been excessive, and (iii) his right to respect for family life had been breached due to the excessive amount of time he had spent in detention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "3d24670c-059b-4ed5-841f-35439728d9be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22. The Government first contended that, taking into account the young age of the girls when they were placed with the applicants\u2019 family, it was not possible to state unambiguously that the ties between the girls and the applicants were strong enough to be qualified as \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Therefore, in the original award of permanent custody of both children to S\u0160 and V\u0160, the State had not interfered with the applicants\u2019 rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6138095a-447e-470d-957a-1de35fc5857e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government contended that the applicant had not expressly complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaint had only concerned the alleged unlawfulness of the recordings, the lack of proper authorisation and the procedure followed for the transcription of the conversations recorded. In their view, those arguments pertained to the sphere of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6435d4a4-45e8-4953-bfd8-c2efd4b561b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government argued that the present case did not disclose a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that that the domestic courts had underlined on numerous occasions that the applicant\u2019s disability was not, per se, a motive for the dismissal of his application for an extension of contact. However, taking into account the best interests of the child, it could not go unnoticed that the aforementioned disability had given rise to a communication barrier between the applicant and his son, since the applicant used only sign language and the child communicated orally. Therefore, the form of contact should be adjusted to reflect the situation of the family."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "76a6dba5-c667-4458-a587-1d361cedab77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicant further alleged that the authorities had failed to take adequate measures to secure her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, the Government had not sought to justify the interference with her Article 8 rights with any valid reason. Secondly, they had failed to implement effective measures in order to prevent or minimise environmental pollution. In spite of compelling evidence of unacceptable levels of pollution from the Severstal plant, in breach of the domestic limits, the Government had merely asserted that \u201cno question arose of limitation, suspension, or discontinuation of its activity in connection with environmental pollution\u201d."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8ff64a36-ec6f-47a3-acce-b3b11ff199ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicants contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life and home had been violated as they had been forcibly displaced from their village and had been prevented from returning. They maintained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had lost the possibility of using and enjoying their property on account of the restrictions imposed by the authorities on their return to their village. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy for their various Convention grievances."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8f409026-5ba7-45b0-98d2-4647cba623e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant submitted that prior to his deportation he enjoyed family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention with his spouse, his three children and with his grandchild. He had co-habited with his spouse since 1980 and they have been married for twenty-two years. Their three children were born in the United Kingdom and have always lived in the family home. Even though the eldest child was an adult when the applicant was deported, he was not an independent person who had started his own family life. Rather, he was a student who still lived in the family home and who depended financially and emotionally on his parents. His daughter lived with him and prior to the applicant's deportation he relied on both of his parents to help him raise her while he pursued his studies. Following his deportation he relied solely on his mother."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "292541e7-883d-487d-b138-87f9b52b41af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government further asserted that, if the complaints made under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention were to be considered together under Article 8 of the Convention alone, the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in that they had not sought redress before the ordinary courts by way of an action for protection of personal integrity under Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code. In line with the Court\u2019s decision of 31 August 2001 in the case of Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (73693/01), this action was an effective remedy in the Convention sense and the applicants ought to have resorted to it in order to comply with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fbcce0e6-d995-457f-9b7e-6acab3e87a96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants did not dispute that the interference in question had had a lawful basis, namely Article 9 of the Civil Code, nor that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely \u201cprotection of the rights of others\u201d with regard to the Prince\u2019s right to private life and to his own image. Nonetheless, they expressed a reservation in this respect, and alleged that the domestic courts had interpreted in too broad a manner the concept of private life within the meaning of Article 9 of the Civil Code and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "44bf876f-6d7f-482b-a0ed-ff76b24789a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicants also complained that the way in which the domestic courts had dealt with the actions of 27 May 1996 and 14 January 1997 for the deprivation of Mr P.\u2019s parental rights over the second applicant and the action of 27 March 1997 relating to the second applicant\u2019s adoption and, in particular, their failure to decide on the merits of these actions amounted to a violation of their right to respect for their family life. They alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "68112570-0e65-41b9-9255-60f563600f6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decisions to order the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been proportionate to that aim. They further pointed out that the eviction order had not been enforced and that the applicants continued to reside in the flats."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "caa06d3d-59fe-489a-9b9c-42ac8b0830be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the censorship of the applicant's letters related only to his correspondence with private persons, the censorship being allowed by the valid decisions of a prosecutor in accordance with the applicable domestic law. The decisions had been taken in order to protect the witnesses and victims in a number of sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant, and as such the censorship had been justified by the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d44c3627-fac6-46e2-9ecd-27682fa00fe4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the child, P., did not constitute a family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted, in particular, that the applicant and the child\u2019s mother had ceased living together when the latter had become pregnant, and that the applicant had never lived with the child and had barely seen her. Moreover, he had demonstrated no interest in the child, either before her birth or afterwards; he had lodged a claim to establish his paternity in respect of the child only a year after the child had been born and had never paid child maintenance or otherwise supported the child, which had prompted the child\u2019s mother to bring a claim for child maintenance and the termination of the applicant\u2019s parental rights. Furthermore, the child had continuously lived in a family unit and was brought up by her mother\u2019s husband, A.K., with whom she had established family ties."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2f58bd92-062f-4763-a697-11bff45712f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["121.  The Government further submitted that the information concerning the case had been made public by the first applicant. She had informed her friend of her predicament by way of a text message sent to her friend during the night of 25 May 2008 and by instant messaging, asking for assistance and also thanking her for informing the school. Later on, the Family Court, when deciding on the first applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty, had had regard to correspondence from the first applicant\u2019s school referring to this evidence (see paragraph 34 above). In the Government\u2019s submission, this correspondence confirmed that she had taken the initiative and voluntarily provided information about her private life and her intention to have an abortion. Information made available voluntarily by the persons concerned was not subject to protection under Article <mask> of the Convention (see N.F. v. Italy, no. 37119/97, \u00a7 39, 2 August 2001)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "27047487-7bec-4860-8f12-4d7c4145d180", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants complained that the custodial sentence imposed on the first applicant by the judgment of 10 July 2008; the Centre\u2019s failure to determine the first applicant\u2019s rights to have contact with the child for several months during and immediately after her imprisonment; and the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment revoking her custody of the second applicant, violated their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0a8563ff-9f24-4978-b4d6-a53f32b99e4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government maintained that the special operation carried out under the Suppression of Terrorism Act was legal and met all the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stated that in general, according to section 12 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act, a decision to conduct a counter-terrorist operation was delivered by the head of the federal executive body responsible for security. The search of the applicants\u2019 home had been carried out as part of such a counter-terrorist operation, aimed at apprehending Mr Ali Taziyev. Under the Act, persons performing counter-terrorist operations had a right to enter houses and plots of land and were exempt from liability for any damage caused."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e2996bf4-24fd-484d-b63f-be6476f40c7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant also contested the argument that there was a public interest in the article at issue. Even if there were a public debate about the occurrences at the seminary or about the moral standards proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in respect of homosexuality, this did not justify attacking him in a defamatory manner, giving his full name and publishing a picture taken at a private party. He alleged that to permit reporting on his private life and publication of his picture just because he was a priest deprived him of the protection which was afforded to any other person under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e6d41965-e43c-427d-aae9-8355a6cc7723", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government further disputed the second applicant\u2019s victim status under Article <mask> of the Convention claiming that, while the second applicant was the owner of the flat in which the search was performed, it was exclusively the first applicant who used the flat for his professional purposes. There were no personal belongings or any items relating to the business activities of the second applicant which could suggest that her private life was somehow connected with the flat. The Government lastly submitted that in the absence of any arguable complaint under Article 8 of the Convention no issue could arise under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "160366ab-016c-441c-b1db-2acd5f9bc7cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government accepted that the impossibility for the applicant to have her father\u2019s paternity established after the expiry of the five-year time-limit had constituted an interference with her private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned measures had had a basis in Finnish legislation, namely in section 7, subsection 2, of the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b0910097-4092-49f5-98f3-652b48fdaf07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant further complained that as a result of defects in the court procedure and because of the outcome of the court proceedings, his right to respect for his private and family life had been breached. He relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 8 of the Convention. These complaints were communicated to the respondent Government only under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c4987816-a870-4644-9f50-2131e94142e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["170.  The applicants also alleged that the failure to carry out effective enforcement proceedings on the part of the Greek authorities had deprived them of their financial entitlement, which had been granted by several court judgments, and this constituted deprivation of property for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by failing to assist them effectively in the recovery of the maintenance payments the Polish and Greek authorities had deprived them of a source of income which constituted a financial basis for their family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5343285c-c2b1-48af-8470-7a26f92449ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant complained that his right to respect for private and family life, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been breached in view of his proposed deportation and the uncertainty of his situation owing to judicial proceedings which started in 2004 and ended only in 2010. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further argued that the delay in resolving his case had been caused by political pressure on the courts."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b0652814-cf31-4a73-b40e-7ec0123ac24e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The applicant further complained of the fact that there had been an interference with his right to respect for his home. In particular, he contended that the search on 26 August 1999 of the apartment in which he was living was performed in contravention of domestic law, because there was a lack of legal justification and it was performed in his absence. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, as relevant:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b83f105c-26db-4d28-8f7e-dedbf074c85e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that the facts complained of by the applicant did not disclose a violation of the Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had moved into the flat and resided there in the absence of any legal basis. The applicant had not acquired ownership of the flat and, therefore, had not had a right to reside there. The applicant\u2019s eviction had been in compliance with applicable laws and pursued a legitimate aim. The vacated flat was to be re-assigned within the municipal social mortgage programme. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the applicant had moved to another flat where she resided to date."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d65636de-2f4a-4dcb-bff6-12ded7c976ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government, referring to Ternovzky (cited above, \u00a7 21), also considered that the first and the fourth applicants had not been personally affected by the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, since they had not been pregnant or planning to give birth at home at the time of the introduction of the application before the Court. The first applicant had given birth on 11 July 2012, that is to say, before submitting her application to the Court on 19 October 2012 (see paragraphs 1 and 7 in fine above). The fourth applicant\u2019s claim that she had not dared to become pregnant for the fourth time, even though she had been of \u201creproductive age\u201d (see paragraph 25), was surrounded by uncertainty and therefore rendered her application an actio popularis."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0b56d5d4-acc1-472b-998e-3572d5106b84", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained about Article 209 of the Criminal Code and about the conduct of criminal proceedings against him under this provision. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, he alleged that his right to respect for his private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "76f6ad2c-29ba-4cf7-bdc2-a1057a0ca1d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claims regarding his own rights were fully heard by the German courts. The mere fact that these courts rendered decisions of inadmissibility did not mean that they did not deal with the substance of the applicant\u2019s claim. The Cologne Administrative Court examined the alleged violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and quoted the relevant case law of the Court. It followed that the applicant\u2019s procedural rights had been sufficiently safeguarded in the domestic proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "40ed32ed-68df-4534-9223-4f6c874ed00d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant submitted that the interference with her right to freedom of expression had not been justified in law because no law required children to accept rights and obligations related to their parents\u2019 freedom of expression. She also submitted that the interference had not sought a legitimate aim because V.L.-\u017d. had been \u201ca minister of the Nazi Government of Lithuania\u201d and had therefore not been entitled to protection of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant asked the Court to apply Article 17 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a9e85481-d0bb-4df3-8c34-cb514a9ab5c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained that by allowing the second reclamation scheme to proceed, the authorities had failed to comply with a number of legal requirements and to strike a fair balance between the various interests at stake, consequently putting his and his family's health at risk and preventing him from enjoying his home. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e23455e6-4d7d-483f-b8aa-d12d34ad3220", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant first of all noted that, whereas the original purpose of the FNAEG had been to store DNA profiles of sex offenders, it now covered a wide range of offences, whatever their degree of seriousness and the extent of the public disorder which they entailed. The impugned information storage could not be considered legitimate in the case of all the offences listed in Article 706-55 CPP, ranging from crimes against humanity to acts committed in the framework of trade union violence. The generalised, undifferentiated nature of the data recording method rendered it contrary to the principles of Article <mask> of the Convention, as it was neither justified by the aim pursued nor necessary, given the absence of discretionary powers and of any possibility of adjustment depending on the actual offence committed."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "97dc855c-efa9-4730-ad81-3cf82b876ef6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government refrained from expressing their opinion on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 8. They argued, however, that only two out of five letters had apparently been opened as only two letters had been stamped. As regards the remaining three, the Government submitted that the stamp \u201ccensored\u201d cannot prove that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his correspondence in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cc9c90a2-9d75-4df0-9b22-fbefeaa34548", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained that he had lost all contact with his daughter because of the two court decisions delivered in his absence by default and because of the subsequent refusal of the domestic courts to set them aside. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ff5be648-9538-4c7d-87e0-32b415b0d1e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained that the denial of his access rights in respect of his son had been based on his adherence to the religious denomination Hit Gy\u00fclekezete, amounting to a differential treatment in respect of the enjoyment of his right to respect for family life. He claimed in this respect a violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, both taken alone and read in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4805e2eb-c75c-4109-95cf-d07fca875f45", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the eviction order of 14 April 2010 had infringed their right to respect for their private and family life. On 15 August 2017 the applicants asked the Court to take into account that there had also been an interference with the right to respect for private and family life of children born after the application had been lodged with the Court in 2011 (see paragraph 30 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "379ef223-70f0-466a-adcd-d9ccf8b071b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants disagreed with the Government\u2019s submissions. They observed that, in Schalk and Kopf (cited above, \u00a7 94), the Court had clearly departed from the Commission\u2019s earlier case-law in stating that the relationship of a cohabiting same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership fell within the notion of \u201cfamily life\u201d. In their submission, the refusal to issue the second applicant with a residence permit had deprived them of any possibility of living in Italy as a couple and had resulted in a legal obligation for the second applicant to leave the country. In their view, it followed that the facts of the present case fell within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, thus Article 14 was also applicable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "556a7e87-79c8-4429-9a38-79894144ce19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained of the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18, and of his conviction under that provision. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, he alleged that his right to respect for his private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "72dfd301-0734-4fc9-8e21-94d3b43fb0a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention. The Government relied in this connection on two facts. First, they referred to the request from Mr Braginskis for the reopening of incapacitation proceedings (see paragraph 55 above). Second, they informed the Court about the legislative amendments that had taken effect on 13 February 2012, under which the applicant himself could seek restoration of his legal capacity before the domestic courts (see paragraph 69 above). The Government considered that this remedy was capable of resolving all matters raised in the applicant\u2019s complaints, since these complaints alleged that the violations of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention had resulted from his inability to decide for himself whether to stay in the \u012ale Centre and his inability to represent his interests and defend his rights."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2f7c34f3-fbb0-41c6-badb-1c2f2a0253ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been called as a witness in the pre-trial investigation because he was the director of company A., a company which had received a payment from company M. that had been deemed suspicious by the latter company\u2019s director. He could therefore have provided testimony about the relationship between those two companies and the circumstances related to that payment, and not necessarily any facts which were directly related to his wife. The Government thus argued that the applicant\u2019s family life had not been affected and Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "77e2c3bd-ad33-4c28-a611-20834d58b539", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government replied that the first complaint, concerning access rights, was not part of the subject-matter of the present proceedings before the Court. Given the sums awarded by the Court in this type of case, the Government indicated that they would be prepared, if the Court found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, to grant the applicant, in addition to the redress for non-pecuniary damage provided by the publication of the Court's judgment, the sum of EUR 7,000 under this head."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c66f3121-2d82-4218-9b81-5db2e3d36c28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government denied that there had been any violation of this provision, on the same grounds as those advanced in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Chapman v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 27238/95, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2001\u2011I), they also added that Article <mask> of the Convention did not guarantee the right to be provided with a home."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "29971946-1c3b-4d57-ac34-b6b4a53217a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["147.  The Government advanced another argument to justify the difference in treatment complained of. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, they asserted that the margin of appreciation was a wide one in the sphere of adoption law, which had to strike a careful balance between the interests of all the persons involved. In the present context it was even wider, as there was no European consensus on the issue of second-parent adoption by same-sex couples."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ed1707a4-6360-4ce6-93a0-c675f4848ffd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bbe99dbd-08db-43b1-b6ce-3f23388bf0dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts\u2019 decision to refuse him contact with the child violated his right to respect for his private and family life under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further submitted that the domestic courts\u2019 failure to investigate sufficiently the relevant facts concerning his relationship with his daughter, in particular his paternity, violated Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0f80820f-9630-41ba-a86d-06dcc03ea410", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant claimed that his full incapacitation had been an inadequate response to the problems he had experienced. Indeed, under Article <mask> of the Convention the authorities had to strike a fair balance between the interests of a person of unsound mind and the other legitimate interests concerned. However, as a rule, in such a complex matter as determining somebody\u2019s mental capacity, the authorities should enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (also see paragraph 125 below). This is mostly explained by the fact that the national authorities have the benefit of direct contact with the people concerned and are therefore particularly well placed to determine such issues. The task of the Court is rather to review under the Convention the decisions taken by the national authorities in the exercise of their powers in this respect (see Shtukaturov, cited above, \u00a7 87)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "669bbac4-76a1-4365-b2cd-7f04662baaef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicants argued that since the domestic law did not define any clear criteria and procedure for allocating a convicted person to a penal facility by the federal penal authority, which was left completely to the discretion of the latter, no court action under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure had offered them any prospects of success. Therefore, they had not had any domestic remedies to exhaust. The applicants considered that their allocation to penal facilities far from home constituted a continuing situation, because they continued to suffer the negative consequences of the interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the six-month time-limit for lodging their complaint with the Court had been complied with. The applicants submitted on the merits of the case that their placement in penal facilities far from their home region had amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their family life. The interference had not been in accordance with the law, since the law did not satisfy the \u201cquality of law\u201d requirement, and had not pursued a legitimate aim. Even if there had been no appropriate penal facilities in the Chechen Republic there should have been such facilities in the adjacent regions. The applicants pointed to the existence of at least one facility in the Chechen Republic, IK-2, which, although a normal-security prison, had a high-security wing. Furthermore, it was unclear how their allocation to remote penal facilities could have served to protect public safety in the Chechen Republic. Even assuming that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim, it had been disproportionate as it had unnecessarily limited their opportunity to preserve family and social ties after their conviction."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "74ad7b4a-56c1-451b-9340-9c04e7e53848", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government repeated the same arguments as those advanced with regard to Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraphs 37-41 above). In addition, the Government relied on the Commission's decision in the case of X. v. Sweden (cited above) and the Court's judgment in the case of Stubbings (cited above). They contended that the three-year limitation period commencing from the date of entry into force of the Law, rather than the date of acquiring knowledge of the father's identity after attaining majority, did not restrict or reduce the applicant's access to court in such a way or to such an extent as to impair the essence of her right."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8d7673d0-deb5-4790-b598-9720c38471d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant submitted that the authorities\u2019 positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention were activated immediately when the situation of a child at risk was brought to their attention. In her case, this had applied from the moment the police had entered her home to arrest her parents. The police had questioned the applicant and had seen her identity document, from which it had been clear that she was a minor. When her parents had been arrested, there had been no one else in the apartment who could have been asked to inform the competent authorities to arrange for the applicant\u2019s care."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "77d08880-6378-4a8b-86a6-4d1fd94f50d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in determining what was in the best interests of the child as they had the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned. The refusal to order X\u2019s return from her grandparents had been within the authorities\u2019 wide margin of appreciation and based on the best interests of the child, as established by the childcare authority. The domestic authorities had taken into account X\u2019s wishes to live with her grandparents, her strong attachment to them and her feeling that their home was her own. The present case was therefore similar to the case of Hokkanen v. Finland (23 September 1994, Series A no. 299\u2011A), where the Court had found that the domestic authorities\u2019 decision to transfer custody over the applicant\u2019s daughter to the girl\u2019s grandparents had not breached Article <mask> of the Convention. The present case was also similar to the case of Yousef v. the Netherlands (no. 33711/96, ECHR 2002\u2011VIII), where the Court had accepted the domestic authorities\u2019 decision that the child\u2019s interest were best served by allowing her to remain with her grandmother, with whom she had been placed after her mother\u2019s death, in accordance with the latter\u2019s express wishes, and where she received the care needed, rather than by giving custody to her father."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e71351ff-79f2-44ec-bfde-38d8dcd9e5b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["402.  The applicants submitted that the deliberate destruction of their homes, property and possessions and the resulting arbitrary expulsion from their homes and village represented a serious violation of their right to respect for private and family life and of their right to respect for their home, as well as a serious interference with their way of life. They further claimed that the destruction of their homes and family life was part of a practice and that, therefore, they had suffered an aggravated violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c32c5c90-6a36-43d6-8910-46d3e931669f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government maintained that the right to a public hearing was not absolute and that an exclusion of the general public was admissible, inter alia, for the protection of the private lives of the parties or when required on grounds of private and family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that succession proceedings were not open to the general public in order to protect the private sphere of the parties. The legislator, thus, took into account that family relations and the pecuniary situation of the parties belonged to a person's private sphere which deserved protection from the disclosure of details. They concluded that the parties' right to protection of their private lives guaranteed by Article 8, and also by Article 6 \u00a7 1, justified an exclusion of the public for such proceedings were not of public interest. Moreover, the Government submitted that in the present case there had been a number of hearings at which the parties could duly put forward their arguments and that the applicant's submissions that there had been no fair hearing were unfounded. Finally they argued, referring to this Court's decision in the case of Varela Assalino v. Portugal (no. 643369/01, 25 April 2002), that the primarily \u201ctechnical nature\u201d of the issues to be determined in the present proceedings, namely the question of whether or not the farm qualified as hereditary, had justified the absence of a hearing altogether and that this, therefore, was true all the more for the lack of publicity at the hearings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a8213a64-2ee5-435d-8850-893ad49f9ee0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicants disagreed. In response to the Government\u2019s arguments concerning their complaints\u2019 admissibility (see paragraph 17 above), they pointed out that while in the domestic judicial proceedings the first applicant had not expressly referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, he had nevertheless clearly relied on the fact that his family was in Bulgaria. As to the Government\u2019s argument that he could have brought a tort action, this possibly referred to the proceedings relating to his detention prior to expulsion, which was not at issue in the current proceedings."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f42b3d4a-76cc-42a4-ba10-0ad1c8d53a01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants also contested the respondent Government's allegation that the Latvian authorities had annulled their legal status in Latvia on the further ground that when applying for permanent residence the first applicant had submitted false information as to Nikolay Slivenko's occupation. The applicants stated that the first applicant had never lied to the authorities about her husband's status, and that the document submitted in this connection by the respondent Government was falsified (see paragraphs 19-20 above). In this respect the applicants also pointed out that during the subsequent proceedings concerning the legality of their stay in Latvia the immigration authorities had not referred to any false information submitted by them, and the Latvian courts had not established that the applicants had at any point submitted the information mentioned by the respondent Government. The applicants concluded in this respect that they ought to have been allowed to stay in Latvia, that the deportation order of 20 August 1996 had constituted an interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and that that interference had not been authorised by law within the meaning of the second paragraph of that Article."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "12a58eaf-6871-4096-98ed-862a93ed9bd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government raised the objection that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the facts of the case because there had been no \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of that provision between the applicants and Carolina Pujol Oller. In that connection, the Government referred to the lack of a genuine relationship between the grandmother, Carolina Pujol Oller, who had died in 1949, and the first applicant, who was adopted in 1969. In the Government\u2019s submission, the Court had always adopted a pragmatic approach to the concept of \u201cfamily life\u201d in order to protect de facto rather than de iure family life. In that sense, the existence of a formal family tie was insufficient to attract the protection of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "77d5cded-0fb7-4c92-a208-dfd6f149a34e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant argued that he had exhausted the remedies available to him. He had lodged numerous complaints with the prosecutor\u2019s office and the Regional Court. He had also brought his grievances to the attention of the appeal court. The applicant submitted that, because of the authorities\u2019 failure to ensure his access to the court\u2019s decision authorising interception of his telephone communications, he had been unable to verify whether such interference with his rights had been in accordance with domestic law which required that the authorities\u2019 decision to intercept the telephone communications was based on a reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in crimes. He also argued that the certificate contained in the criminal case file and relied on by the Government had not been sufficient proof that the interception of his communications had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant submitted that owing to the authorities\u2019 failure to ensure he had access to the decision of 6 December 2004 he had been unable to challenge the admissibility of the evidence obtained through his intercepted telephone conversations."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a01bd057-6aec-4b16-ad4f-b6807bde5c86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant submitted that the combined effect of Part II of RIPA, the Revised Code and the PSNI Service Procedure did not provide, in relation to covert surveillance of lawyer/client consultations, the \u201cadequate and effective guarantees against abuse\u201d required by Article <mask> of the Convention, especially when compared with the clear and precise statutory guidelines outlined in Part I of RIPA in respect of the interception of communications (see Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2237ac1d-3ffb-4fa0-b35d-958e3c66c767", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained of a breach of his right to respect for his family life under Article <mask> of the Convention because of the dismissal of his Hague Convention request. In particular, the applicant alleged that the domestic courts had misapplied the Hague Convention and had allowed the child to become alienated from him by failing to decide the case speedily. The Polish courts had also erred in entertaining E.N.\u2019s divorce petition and issuing interim orders on the issues of the child\u2019s residence and child support."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e6fd2a76-c6a7-448a-b42e-0c1f67c404e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government accepted that, taken as a whole, the applicant\u2019s examination pursuant to Schedule 7 of TACT gave rise to an interference with the right guaranteed to her under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case, in addition to being stopped and questioned, the applicant and her luggage were searched. In Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, \u00a7 63, ECHR 2010 (extracts) the Court held that the use of \u201ccoercive powers\u201d to require an individual to submit to a \u201cdetailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings\u201d amounted to a clear interference with the right to respect for private life. While the Court expressly recognised the potential distinction between the \u201cstop and search powers\u201d under section 44 of TACT and \u201cthe search to which passengers uncomplainingly submit at airports or at the entrance of a public building\u201d (see Gillan and Quinton, cited above, \u00a7 64), Schedule 7 powers were clearly wider that the immigration powers to which travellers might reasonably expect to be subjected. In view both of this fact, and of the Government\u2019s concession, the Court would accept that there was an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "86d37a64-f335-4b8b-9232-d590ebab50d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["7.  The applicants called into question the Rules as such, arguing that the supervision of their telephone conversations in Kurdish was in itself incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The majority likewise appear to consider that no formality should be imposed on prisoners in this connection. We cannot agree with that approach, especially in view of the offences for which the applicants had been convicted (see in that connection the Government\u2019s observations in paragraph 43 of the judgment). In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that when the competing interests at stake, namely the right of prisoners to respect for their correspondence and the need for the authorities to maintain security in prisons and prevent crime, are weighed up, there is no appearance of any unreasonable imbalance in the impugned Rules."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8334e870-2218-40b1-8841-1acb401c0123", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicants maintained that there had been a violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, they had been attacked by the authorities from the outset and all of the proceedings had been unfair and based on insufficient and flawed investigations. As a consequence, the domestic decisions and judgments had lacked a solid foundation."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b587aee8-ac90-487f-aee4-46d2088df00f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decisions to order the applicants\u2019 eviction had constituted an inference with their rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that such interference had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and that it had been proportionate to that aim."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "45db1ce8-9637-47d6-8ae7-f5fcab046db8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["351.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention does not guarantee a right to serve a prison sentence in the facility close to one\u2019s place if residence. In the alternative, it was submitted that there was no interference in the circumstances of the present case since the applicant received numerous visitors all through his detention, in particular in Radom Remand Centre and W\u0142oc\u0142awek Prison, which were situated respectively 100 and 160 km from his hometown. Lastly, the Government submitted that, should the Court consider that an interference had indeed taken place in the applicant\u2019s case, it was in any event justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a0610db7-de2b-4973-ba36-387764568d2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government further maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention did not impose on a State a general obligation to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to authorise family reunion in its territory. The Government stated that it had been the applicants who had left their children behind in their home country. Furthermore, the grounds on which the first applicant had applied for asylum in 1997 had disappeared, as was illustrated by his frequent journeys to Kosovo even before 2007. Under those circumstances it could not be concluded that the issuing of residence permits for the three children in Switzerland was the only way to reunite the applicants\u2019 family."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ff5d92f5-7101-4896-80af-b9912a1da3c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, complained that the enforcement courts had failed to secure respect for his family life. In addition, in his observations of 3 November 2016 in reply to those of the Government on the admissibility and merits of that complaint, he submitted that he also wished to rely on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "299cbcdb-62e3-42ee-b671-eefea80c4dc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the prison authorities had not allowed him to have long visits from his wife. Even assuming that the applicant had such a right under Article 8 of the Convention, it is noted that he did not use any of the remedies available to him under domestic law to challenge the refusal of the prison authorities to allow him long visits from his wife. In view of the above, this complaint must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a50af1c4-cd7d-4594-b702-0e4862944f1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicants complained that their allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, they complained about restrictions on visits and telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicants submitted that they had had the right to use a telephone only twice a week and that they had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate their telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2bf67d1b-7aaa-45b1-b95b-8789062d86ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["183.  The applicant further argued that her ability to build and sustain relationships had also been limited due to restrictions placed on her capacity to receive visitors and telephone calls. The applicant has had very little contact with members of the community outside the facility. Outsiders\u2019 visits are generally limited and most visitors may not be received in private. The director of the K\u0117dainiai Home had in the past restricted visits from outsiders after the applicant\u2019s institutionalisation, upon a request from her guardian. The list of visitors maintained by the K\u0117dainiai Home showed that between 2 August 2004 and 25 December 2006 only the applicant\u2019s adoptive father had visited her, with few exceptions. Before the applicant got her own mobile phone, she had had to use the facilities provided by the institution. At that time, she had only been able to receive calls through the K\u0117dainiai Home\u2019s switchboard. She relied upon the right to respect for private and family life under the above-cited Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bd71a4d8-e496-4e17-b8ec-160e6a168306", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government acknowledged that the censorship of the Court's letter to the applicant constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed, however, that the measures taken by the authorities had remedied the situation. In particular, the responsible persons had been identified and the need for them to be made aware and to avoid similar incidents in future had been acknowledged. The acknowledgment of that \u201cinsignificant\u201d breach of the applicant's rights had constituted, in their view, an adequate redress and thus, he was no longer a victim of the alleged violation. On the merits, they argued, with reference to a certificate issued by colony LIU-2, that throughout his detention before and after conviction the applicant had sent 296 letters and complaints to various public authorities and had received 204 replies, including his correspondence with the Court. In the Government's view, that fact refuted his allegation that LIU-2 had interfered with his correspondence with the Court. Relying on the results of the domestic inquiries, they submitted that Z. had automatically unsealed the Court's letter. Having seen that the letter and the enclosed documents were in the English language, she had immediately passed the envelope and all enclosed documents on to Kh., head of the applicant's brigade. She had never withheld any documents. The Government stressed that Z. had had no command of English and could not have grasped the contents of the documents. Had she seen the European Court's logo, she would not have unsealed it. Kh. and V. also submitted that they had immediately passed the envelope on and had never removed any documents from it."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "349a2448-0725-4fc0-a945-0781424467f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained of the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18, and of his convictions under that provision. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, he alleged that his right to respect for his private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b40436db-b846-41d7-b8ec-42e5aeb63780", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government lastly argued that the alleged interference had met the requirement of being necessary in a democratic society. They took the view that to find such documents inadmissible would prevent courts from ruling on situations that might present a risk for the health, morals or stability of other family members, especially where there were alcohol-related problems. They added that the fact of excluding documents obtained by duress or fraud fulfilled the State\u2019s positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further indicated that the Court of Appeal had maintained the applicant\u2019s right of contact in respect of his children pending the results of the expert\u2019s report, and inferred from this that any interference would thus, in any event, have been proportionate. Lastly, they observed that such interference, when compared with that in Z v. Finland (cited above) and M.S. v. Sweden, (27 August 1997, Reports 1997\u2011IV), appeared far less significant and was circumscribed by the requisite safeguards."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "dc1ff7d0-bcd4-4c83-9c7f-0f642abd654f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government excluded the latter possibility, contending that the guarantee of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 presupposed the existence of a family (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31). Although the case-law did not require cohabitation between the various members of the \u201cfamily\u201d, there had to be at the very least close personal ties. The existence of ties demonstrating an emotional relationship between two beings and a desire to pursue that relationship was essential so far as the Convention institutions were concerned. The Convention institutions had even held that in the absence of close personal ties between those concerned a mere biological link was insufficient to constitute family life within the meaning of Article 8. Thus, the Commission had expressed the opinion that the situation in which a person donated sperm only to enable a woman to become pregnant through artificial insemination did not of itself give the donor a right to respect for family life with the child (see M. v. the Netherlands, no. 16944/90, Commission decision of 8 February 1993, Decision and Reports 74, p. 120). In the instant case, the Government maintained that no family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention existed between the applicant and her natural mother, as the applicant had never met her mother, while the latter had at no point expressed any interest in the applicant or regarded her as her child. The applicant's natural mother had expressly manifested an intention to abandon the applicant and had agreed to her adoption by others. Only the applicant's family life with her adoptive parents could come within the scope of Article 8."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cd458f97-3691-47c0-86ff-25bf59edcada", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained that her placement in a correctional boarding school had not been in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and that she had been unable to have that measure reviewed by a court at regular intervals, as provided for by Article 5 \u00a7 4. She added that the automatic monitoring of her correspondence and telephone calls at the correctional boarding school in which she had been placed was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cf02595e-823f-4a89-9d60-f2186939687a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant also submitted that the presence of the prison officers during his visits had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison officers had overheard his conversations with doctors and, during his own examinations, there had been no screen between him and the members of the escort team. The applicant claimed the medical examination room had only measured about 10 square metres."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "70ae3c3c-e16b-4d9e-8254-81793ddb5ec2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The Government considered that the applicant had not made out an arguable claim under Article <mask> of the Convention and submitted that he had not adduced any proof in support of his allegations about the interception of telephone conversations. They were of the view that the application did not contain sufficient elements as required by Rule 47 of the Rules of Court enabling it to be established whether the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, namely exhaustion of the domestic remedies and compliance with the six-month deadline, had been met. In this connection, they cited the case of Sysojeva and Others v. Latvia ([GC], no. 60654/00, \u00a7 125, ECHR 2007\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bd023d6d-a9e0-4fa9-b4f9-fdc72b30c180", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant referred to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, complaining in substance about the excessive restriction and, subsequently, suspension of his contact rights, the non-enforcement of the contact schedule and the delays in the divorce, child custody and maintenance proceedings and the administrative and non-contentious child contact proceedings. The Court, being the \u201cmaster of the characterisation\u201d to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, \u00a7 88, 31 May 2005), considers that these complaints are closely linked and fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "a741a1f6-97cd-4910-b765-fb74ab649b84", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained about the courts\u2019 judgments in the proceedings under the Media Act refusing him compensation in respect of the publication of the article and photograph appearing in the issue of Profil of 12 July 2004. He alleged a violation of his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b9f00c52-f9c9-42da-86b6-660fb19653b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained of a breach of her right to protection of her reputation and dignity as a result of what she submitted had been insulting and defamatory articles published in the Romania Liber\u0103 newspaper on 13 and 22 February 2002. She also complained about the dismissal by the court of last resort of her criminal complaint and civil claim in this respect. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8f753fab-19d0-42e8-b79e-91e94e247b39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained on his own and his children\u2019s behalf that they had been unable to enjoy family life together due to the length of the custody and contact arrangements proceedings and due to the judge\u2019s refusal to enforce provisional contact arrangements. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it, the Court considers that these issues fall to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention (see V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, \u00a7 115, 13 March 2007, and Karad\u017ei\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, \u00a7\u00a7 33-63 and 67 , 15 December 2005)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2868d441-07be-44e8-96cd-10f9690bdccb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in the reasons for his complaint to the Constitutional Court, but he did not include this particular complaint in the text of the finding which he requested the Constitutional Court to make. The relevant domestic law prevented the Constitutional Court from expressing its view on that issue (see paragraphs 39 and 46-48 above). In respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant did not, therefore, use the constitutional remedy in accordance with the formal requirements, as interpreted and applied by the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "11a68a4c-280b-4958-abd1-f3affafe86c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s case should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1(a) of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant had indicated in his observations of 19 March 2007 that he did not wish to pursue the application in so far as it related to the issue of the alleged interference with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "894fef1d-fe70-4d05-8118-b5299c2954a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government accepted that the applicant\u2019s entitlement to a State retirement pension, which was a contributory benefit, was a \u201cproperty\u201d right for the purposes of this provision. However, for the reasons given under Article <mask> of the Convention, the refusal to recognise the applicant\u2019s acquired gender for the purposes of the State pensionable age on 31 October 1997 was within their margin of appreciation and not in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Her complaints were in any event more appropriately examined under Article 8 and no separate issue, in their view, arose."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "49789a0c-fe9c-417f-83d3-803b31eeb35d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicants lastly argued that the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of the broadcasting of the video of the sauna scene and the defamation had not been adequate and proportionate to the severity of the breaches of their right to respect for their private lives. In support of this contention the applicants cited cases in which the Court had found breaches of Article <mask> of the Convention and in which the awards had been considerably higher than those made by the Supreme Court of Justice in their case. In their view, as a result of the insufficient amount of compensation awarded by the Supreme Court of Justice they still had victim status under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "50e39c8d-dfa8-41bf-a905-1e83207bddde", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["361.  The Government argued that the relations between the US applicants and the children they sought to adopt constituted neither \u201cfamily life\u201d nor \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention for the following reasons: (i) not only was the adoption procedure not at an \u201cadvanced stage\u201d, but in cases nos. 23890/13 and 37173/13 it had not even been started in accordance with the Russian domestic procedure; (ii) the children were not financially dependent on the US applicants and were fully provided for by the Russian Federation; and (iii) taking into account the children\u2019s age and the psycho-neurological disorders that most of them suffer from, and in view of the fact that meetings with the US applicants took place on a few days only and always in the presence of orphanage staff, it was not possible to ascertain the existence of stable psycho\u2011emotional \u201cfamily links\u201d between the children and the US applicants. The Government relied in this regard on the expert opinions of A.M., Director of the Charity Fund for Prevention of Social Orphanhood (\u0411\u043b\u0430\u0433\u043e\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0444\u0438\u043b\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430), and Dr G.S., the Head of the Laboratory for the Management of Social Systems for the Protection of Childhood at the Metropolitan Academy of Finance and Humanitarian Sciences (\u0421\u0442\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0444\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u2011\u0433\u0443\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0430\u043a\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043c\u0438\u044f)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c32d7f97-1060-47fb-923e-005075744c16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government submitted that even if the expulsion order interferes with the applicant's family life, it discloses no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Given the seriousness of the offence which the applicant committed in Denmark the measure of expulsion was called for in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Government drew attention to the fact that the applicant has very strong ties with his country of origin since he was already an adult when he left Iran and had his entire school education in Iran. He masters the local language, he served part of his compulsory military service and he has family there. In comparison, the applicant does not have strong ties with Denmark. At the time the expulsion order was made he had resided for only eight years in Denmark. Moreover, in the Government's view, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant's spouse, the children of the marriage, and the spouse's child of another relationship will not be able to accompany the applicant to Iran."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "88baf515-9c75-4fb7-b7b1-b3fba82800b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government maintained that child benefits did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the State\u2019s general obligation to promote family life did not give rise to concrete rights to specific payments. The statutory provision of Section 1 \u00a7 3 of the Child Benefits Act and its application in the present case did not discriminate against the applicant in the exercise of his right to respect for his family life."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7b2eadfe-fd85-44b1-b81d-7ce85ffe4637", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government submitted that, having regard to the broad discretion boundaries of the State in resolving family disputes and the right of a court acting in the best interests of the child to dismiss a parent\u2019s claim for determining the order of his or her involvement in the child\u2019s upbringing, the judgment of the District Court of 14 May 2013 had been lawful and justified. There had therefore been no violation of the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant\u2019s procedural rights in the proceedings at issue had also been respected. The examination of the case in the absence of the parties had been possible as their failure to appear had not been due to valid reasons. In particular, the applicant had not presented any evidence to prove that he had been out of town on a business trip. Besides, the domestic courts had repeatedly examined disputes between the same parties, studied documents and expert opinions on the mental state of the applicant and his son and had heard the parties. The District Court had therefore had all the necessary material for reaching a fair and reasonable judgment. In additional observations the Government pointed out that during the proceedings which had taken place in 2015 the domestic court, having questioned the applicant\u2019s son and examined all other pertinent circumstances, had dismissed V.\u2019s application for restricting the applicant\u2019s parental responsibility and banning him having communication with the child. They further noted that during the monitoring visit carried out by the childcare authority at the child\u2019s place of residence on 30 September 2015 it had been established that V. had not been preventing N.\u2019s communication with the applicant. N. submitted, in particular, that he had been seeing his father during breaks between classes at school and communicating with him by telephone and Skype."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5a60ba12-1001-429a-8603-4d6c4573fe65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in a case, where, as here, the relevant family link had been established at a time when the applicants could not have had any reasonable or legitimate expectations as to the prospects of establishing and continuing a family life in Norway, and where they had failed to show that there existed insurmountable obstacles for establishing a family life in the first applicant's home country. The period of married life that existed while the Immigration Authorities considered the first applicant's application for family reunification with the second applicant, could not have given the applicants any reasonable or legitimate expectations as to the prospects of establishing and continuing a family life in Norway. It was undisputed that the first applicant, at the time of his application for family reunification with the second applicant, had been residing and working unlawfully in Norway for several months, thus disregarding the order to leave the country notified to him on 11 September 2002. The first and second applicants had both been aware of this."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d2bc8659-84ac-4ade-9245-adb6ffce5d33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicants submitted that their complaint raised serious issues of law and fact and should be considered admissible. They further argued that the search conducted in the offices had fallen short of the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. The judicial decision authorising the search had not specified in detail the scope of the search or the measures aimed at excluding information concerning other clients of the firm from that scope. In their view, the real purpose of the search had been to collect information on local politicians and businessmen who were amongst the firm\u2019s clients. Lastly, they denied the Government\u2019s allegation that they had asked the investigator to transfer the information stored in the computers onto a hard drive."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "af79dcee-a01a-4f3d-8eca-42b89b1c239c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained that the German authorities had violated their right to respect for family life as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention by withdrawing parts of parental authority (Entzug von Teilen des elterlichen Sorgerechts) \u2013 including the right to determine the children\u2019s place of residence (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht) \u2013, by transferring these parts to the youth office and by executing the withdrawal in the form of forcibly removing the children from the applicants and placing them in a children\u2019s home for three weeks. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "272dba32-c508-4157-96dd-45e99a148085", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants complained that their convictions under Article 209 of the Criminal Code remained on their criminal record even though the European Court of Human Rights had found that provision to be discriminatory and the Austrian Constitutional Court had it annulled. This amounted to discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation, in breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f6e603f3-ac79-4af7-ba1a-f60893711f46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 arguments and argued that the restrictions provided for in the domestic regulations were necessary to maintain order and were completely reasonable. They submitted that both applicants had been allowed to receive visits once a week for one hour. Mr Mandi\u0107 had received only one visit and one package. Mr Jovi\u0107 had received fifteen visits and eight packages. With regard to the use of the telephone, the Government stated that there had been two telephones on each floor and that the applicants could have used them for at least ten minutes twice a week. According to the Government, the applicants\u2019 allegations that the situation as regards visits, use of the telephone and correspondence had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention were unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b188a39c-c24b-450b-9b6f-f6a3085609bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The Government argued that the \u201cpresumed consent system\u201d permitted interference with an individual\u2019s right to private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the organ removal had been carried out in accordance with domestic law. The Law had implied the \u201cpresumed consent system\u201d that had served the aim of protecting the heath and the rights of others. The Government pointed out that that the \u201cpresumed consent system\u201d was not innovative and that Latvia was not even the only country employing this system; it was also instituted in eleven other States."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "5b9dae9c-71ad-4867-b2a5-c80498943f44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant urged the Grand Chamber to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and to take the opportunity to confirm that monitoring of employees\u2019 correspondence could only be carried out in compliance with the applicable legislation, in a transparent manner and on grounds provided for by law, and that employers did not have discretion to monitor their employees\u2019 correspondence."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bbe8b821-ac41-4a2a-a505-a69297bbfc70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicants complained that the search which was conducted in their house on 22 November 1993 constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further alleged a breach of Article 9 of the Convention referring to their inability to open the grave of Mehmet \u015eah \u0130kincisoy. Finally, they invoked Article 14 of the Convention alleging that they had been subjected to discrimination because of their Kurdish origin."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "aa2031f2-3377-4978-85d4-4ec699409557", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant stressed that throughout the criminal proceedings at the domestic level he had argued before all levels of domestic jurisdiction that his secret surveillance had been unlawful. That had been the only way of allowing him to raise the complaint before the Constitutional Court. Thus, by complaining in substance of a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention before the Constitutional Court, and by waiting for a decision of that court, he had properly exhausted the domestic remedies and brought his complaint before the Court within the six-month time-limit."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "f4cede81-0d05-42be-8bee-8e23d47bc9cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants complained, under Article 5 \u00a7 2, that Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev had not been given reasons for their detention because there was no criminal case against them at that time. With reference to Articles 5 \u00a7 4 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, the applicants complained that the decision of 14 January 2004 was not subject to appeal. They also considered that the placement of Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev in the juvenile holding facility had unlawfully interfered with their family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They complained, finally, under Article 3 of the Convention of the degrading treatment of Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev by the personnel of the juvenile holding facility. In reply to the Government's observations, the applicants raised new complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Ms Ichina and Ms Dmitriyeva and under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0259a7d3-d10d-4144-98f2-d5dd05a1b1dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant further complained that the medical condition from which he was now suffering as a result of his military service, with the consequence that he was now totally dependent on his family, psychoactive drugs, and treatment in mental health centers, not therefore being able to have a life and family of his own, breached his right under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1d136207-90a9-4499-b551-202addcae990", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of alleged non-pecuniary damage. He presented a medical certificate dated 7 December 2005 indicating that his medical disorders \u201c[had] been accentuated by his difficult family situation over the past few years\u201d. As regards pecuniary damage, he explained that he was not in a position to evaluate or substantiate the losses he had actually sustained as a direct result of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention or to produce any supporting documents in this connection."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "be831985-b0b7-4bd5-a89a-48e300e75839", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained about the continuing lack of access to his son and about the insufficient measures taken by the public authorities to enforce his access rights, in violation of his right under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that some of the complaints raised by the applicant which referred to Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see paragraphs 31 to 35 below) also concerned in substance the issues raised under Article 8 of the Convention. It deems it appropriate to examine these arguments in the context of the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, \u00a7\u00a7 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I; and V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, \u00a7 115, 13 March 2007). Article 8 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "98bd67c9-7bd4-4f67-b422-dddff7f4aea6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government were of the view that there had been no breach of the State\u2019s obligations under Article 8. The authorities had not interfered with the applicant\u2019s desire to marry, with his married life for seven years or, last but not least, with his decision to move out of the matrimonial home and start an affair with another woman. The sole fact that formalised judicial divorce proceedings existed under national law and that certain conditions had to be met for a divorce to be granted did not per se contradict Article <mask> of the Convention. Such a view would run counter to the very foundations of the European concept of family law, since such matters were regulated in every legal system of the Contracting Parties to the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "77946e33-b44a-46a0-a191-80d83c347f8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government pointed out that the courts could not award damages based on Article <mask> of the Convention as a sole legal ground. The reason for this was that, although the Convention had been incorporated into Swedish law, and the Swedish Supreme Court had established the principle whereby an individual could be awarded damages from the State for violations of the Convention without the support of specific provisions in Swedish law, according to the Supreme Court\u2019s case NJA 2007 (p. 747) this principle could not be applied to claims between individuals, as it would be difficult for an individual to foresee from the case-law of the Court when he or she could be liable to pay damages."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "7f264241-9cba-4cb8-bcc6-48c78d695313", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The applicant considered that the State had failed to provide him with access to information in violation of his rights under Article 8. The Court observes that, in addition to the primarily negative undertakings in Article <mask> of the Convention, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private life. In determining whether or not such a positive obligation exists, it will have regard to the fair balance that has to be struck"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "58ec2f4c-c15a-436c-967a-5217b8e7c27e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government further submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. Relying on Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, \u00a7 36, Series A no. 247\u2011C), they contended that not every act or measure which may be said to affect adversely the physical or moral integrity of a person necessarily gives rise to an interference with private life. The Government noted that the Court, in Tig v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 8165/03, 24 May 2005), refrained from establishing whether a prohibition on having a beard would in itself constitute an interference with the right to respect for someone\u2019s private life. That same question was examined by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in the applicant\u2019s case (see paragraph 12 above), and that court held that the mere wish to grow a beard could not be considered an element of human dignity that is protected by law. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s desire to grow a beard had not been motivated by reasons of religious expression, nor had he had a long and established history of wearing a beard. The Government also submitted that in the domestic proceedings the applicant had not argued that the prohibition on growing a beard had interfered with his private life, but had only focused on health-related reasons. Accordingly, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s physical and moral integrity had not suffered to such a degree as to fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d6358cac-a201-4b97-8c70-6e45e57c9ec4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant further complained that his correspondence with his lawyer, the domestic courts and other authorities had been opened by the prison authorities. He also complained about the lack of confidentiality during his meeting with his lawyer on 30 July 2007, when he had to have a discussion with his lawyer in a visitors\u2019 room where other detainees and their visitors were also present and could overhear their conversation. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "e8378f8f-835b-42df-8511-b38a4c8bf187", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicant argued that the decision to deport him from Lithuania, linked to the coercive deprivation of Lithuanian citizenship, was in breach of his right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that he had lived in Lithuania since 1962, where he had completed his secondary education, married and had children. He also observed that since 1991 he had run a business in Lithuania and paid taxes."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "84008251-3d49-4c7a-b8b1-93eec9c57b5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government accepted that in the light of the judgment in Khan, the Court would be likely to find that no effective remedy was available to the applicants in respect of any breach of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the Court had already ruled that the operation of section 78 of PACE and the availability of the procedures before the Police Complaints Authority did not provide an adequate remedy in similar circumstances."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9a68cee2-6c95-4519-b672-612bfcd0f378", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government admitted that the search of the applicant\u2019s flat had constituted an interference with her right to respect for her home as set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted, however, that the interference had been in accordance with domestic procedure and had had a legal basis, it had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing crime, and had been necessary in the circumstances of the case. Referring to the information officially recorded in the report of 31 October 2005 which documented telephone conversations between B. and the applicant, the Government argued that the search had been a necessary measure, as the police had had information that certain documents important to the criminal proceedings against B. had been kept in the applicant\u2019s flat. Furthermore, relying on the statements of the police officers, the Government submitted that the applicant had been informed of the search and she had therefore been given an opportunity to be present during the procedure."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "c58ec282-ad4e-49b6-abc9-12623cee7c21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of this complaint. Alternatively, they did not dispute the fact that the applicants\u2019 mobile telephones had been confiscated during their detention. However, they disputed the allegations concerning the searching of the applicants\u2019 telephones\u2019 memories and the deletion of files from them. According to the Government, there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and the complaint was, therefore, manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "014e057d-108c-44bb-b435-4c65fd0edb4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Ramzan Babushev concerns the same facts as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provisions, the Court considers that this complaint should be declared admissible. However, it finds that no separate issue arises under Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, \u00a7 66, 17 June 2003; Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, \u00a7 25, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 50 Reports 1997\u2011VIII)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "26f85606-385e-480e-bab2-de8fabc1c953", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant provided the Court with photographs made in 1996\u20112005 showing him with his family and various residents of the Penza Region so as to demonstrate his family ties and involvement in social life in Russia. He also enclosed copies of several letters sent by a number of enterprises and local authorities of the Penza Region to the Federal Migration Service asking to authorise his entry into Russia. The applicant maintained that he was a good citizen, who had two university degrees, respected public order, had made all the efforts to duly regularise his stay in Russia and had only failed because of difficulties with obtaining certain documents from Georgia, which had been complicated by the rupture of diplomatic relations between Russia and Georgia in 2008. The applicant further submitted that, having lived in Russia for fifteen years and thus being a long-term immigrant, he had lost any ties with Georgia and after his deportation had to live in Belarus. In 2012 he obtained citizenship of Armenia, which constituted further evidence of the absence of any ties with Georgia. In sum, the applicant contended that the decisions of the Russian courts were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "18142239-2002-49ad-ba8e-acdced7b0d38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government observed that in his application of 11 January 2008, the applicant referred to circumstances and developments that had arisen only after the Administrative Court\u2019s decision of 21 March 2007. It was this decision which had established the facts on the basis of which the FSC had delivered its judgment on 24 October 2007. The FSC had not yet had the opportunity to consider the following new facts, based on which the applicant\u2019s request for reconsideration at domestic level had a good chance of success: he had once again been leading a family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and was fulfilling his financial duties towards them; he had not had any convictions, and no incidents of domestic violence had occurred since 2005; he had found a stable job with a regular income and had not accumulated further debts; and his wife was in need of support in relation to the education of the children since she was suffering from serious depression. The Government therefore proposed that the application be struck out pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 c) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "41bbea76-f521-48cb-a012-96f25c1b67f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95. The Government further argued that neither the domestic courts nor other State institutions participating in the court proceedings for the applicant\u2019s deportation could be blamed for delays. The Government admitted that, normally in cases regarding alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention, the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for the applicant\u2019s family. However, in the instant case, the passage of time had had no negative impact on the applicant\u2019s private and family life. Quite the opposite, it was a well thought-out strategy, chosen by the applicant and his lawyers, expecting that the lapse of time would possibly render the applicant\u2019s threat to national security less significant. It was true that the administrative proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had started already in 2004. Nonetheless, the delays had been caused by the necessity to await the outcome of the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 42 above), and the applicant\u2019s or his lawyers\u2019 requests to suspend the administrative proceedings until his case had been heard before the European Court of Human Rights, or to make interpretative requests to the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 50 and 53 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1027a7b1-79ca-4b3b-98a5-a02b97ccdd6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government stated at the outset that the applicant did not dispute that the exclusion order and subsequent expulsion had been based on the law and had pursued a legitimate aim. At the same time, the Government did not dispute that these measures had constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "1d048b5f-8dda-4b50-aa5d-fdd9dd5635be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his expulsion led to a separation from his wife and children. While the measure might have had a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder and crime, it had not been necessary in a democratic society. In this respect he stressed that he \u2013 having lived for more than 27 years in Germany \u2013 had fully integrated into German society and that he did not have any remaining links to Turkey other than his nationality, also lacking sufficient knowledge of the Turkish language. He maintained that he had been employed during the major part of his adult life and that he had been working in Germany from January 2001 until his second deportation in August 2003. His children could not be expected to accompany him to Turkey, as they would not be able to follow school there because of their poor knowledge of the Turkish language."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "247317fc-ee85-44b4-bb69-cb30c3ac9cb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that their family life had been compromised by the prosecutor\u2019s order to deport the first applicant and to ban him from Romania for ten years; they had been forced to leave Romania in order to be able to continue a family life and had had to leave their respective families behind. The relevant parts of Article 8 of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "9b48a042-8f35-4e98-b853-e0d2ab4e09ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had had an effective remedy to raise his complaint about the alleged violation of his right to a family life, as required by Article 13. He could have challenged the deportation and detention orders and the revocation of his residence permit before the Supreme Court by way of administrative recourse under Article 146(1) of the Constitution (M.A. v. Cyprus, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 67-72). Although a recourse did not have automatic suspensive effect under domestic law, upon such an application, the Supreme Court had the power to issue provisional orders suspending the enforcement of a decision taken by an administrative authority, pending the case being heard on the merits (ibid., \u00a7 79). In the context of such a recourse and an application for a provisional order, the applicant could have raised his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention and under Article 15 of the Constitution, which also protects private and family life. In cases involving deportation and the right to respect for family life, the Supreme Court took into account the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 8 of the Convention and examined whether, in the circumstances of the case before it, deportation would be in breach of the provision. The first applicant could have challenged those decisions before or after his deportation within seventy-five days of their being issued (referring to Abbasi v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 21713/06, 5 July 2007 with regard to challenging such a decision in that manner after deportation)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "d8f2003f-e2ac-48a9-b354-1113b8ba9d49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government objected that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not formally requested, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act, that the Constitutional Court determine whether or not there had been a violation of Article 8 as a result of the length of the proceedings in issue. The applicant could have requested that the District Court issue an injunction pending the determination of his claim. There was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention which, in any event, was manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "0339fa72-9b64-4c98-a0a1-ed55dd347506", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government observed that detention entailed inherent limitations on private and family life. They did not contest that the second applicant\u2019s inability to receive an MP3 player from J.G. had interfered with his right to respect for private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Government was of the view that that interference had been in accordance with the law (see paragraphs 24 and 27 above) and had pursued the legitimate aim of motivating inmates to work, to communicate with their relatives and to enhance their social ties, as well as the aim of preventing the possession of items acquired by criminal means."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8b67ed5b-f307-4d91-a5b7-9e0fb8c27208", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government asserted that the domestic authorities had taken all the necessary steps that they could reasonably have been expected to take to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014. However, their efforts had been unsuccessful. They considered that the applicant had prevented the enforcement herself as, despite having been duly notified of the scheduled enforcement dates, she had repeatedly failed to attend. The removal of the children and their transfer could not take place in her absence. The Government concluded that the State had complied with its positive obligation to ensure the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life under Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had therefore been no violation of that Convention provision."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "fedc4a18-5cd5-4aed-aff0-0c9c16c22bef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained that, to the detriment of the children\u2019s best interests, they were unable to obtain recognition in France of the legal parent-child relationship lawfully established abroad between the first two applicants and the third and fourth applicants born abroad as the result of a surrogacy agreement. They complained of a violation of the right to respect for their private and family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention as follows:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "bd86abe6-59e0-42d6-b006-d46b6f2bffc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government submitted that decisions concerning the carrying out of abortions belonged to the sphere of private, not family, life. Hence, solely women were able to make the relevant decisions, within the limits set by the national legal framework. They referred to the case of Boso v. Italy, where the Court had held that Article <mask> of the Convention did not give a potential father any right to participate in the decision-making as to whether or not to carry out an abortion (see Boso v. Italy (dec.), no. 50490/99, 5 September 2002). Therefore this provision could not be regarded as conferring such a right on the mother of the woman seeking an abortion."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "4cf8844b-5f14-4a61-a658-8f3c3c9d258e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government argued that the present case concerned a dispute between two private parties and not an interference by the State authorities with any of the applicant's rights protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant herself had agreed to conversion of a part of the house to a bar and therefore must have known that she would have to suffer a certain level of noise, even at night since it was common knowledge that bars were generally open at night. The competent administrative authorities had conducted the relevant proceedings and in the end secured that the applicant was no longer exposed to excessive noise. Furthermore, the applicant herself had contributed to the obstruction of the administrative proceedings because although she had been invited to indicate the time of measurements of noise as early as 17 March 2008 she had submitted her answer as late as 15 December 2008."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "ae742e14-9c75-4863-94c5-7ddf6e42cb13", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They argued, firstly, that the applicant could have claimed redress in the ordinary courts under the Civil Code by way of an action for the protection of her personal integrity, but had failed to do so. The mechanism for the protection of personal integrity was to be construed and applied in the context of the right to protection of privacy under Article 19 and in accordance with Article 154 (c) of the Constitution. This mechanism thus afforded the applicant guarantees identical to those provided under Article <mask> of the Convention, including the possibility of claiming just satisfaction in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "2ff188bd-ccb8-4411-995c-6cfd544d36f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government argued that the domestic decisions and judgments, while interfering with the applicant\u2019s family life, were in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 the protection of the health and development of the children \u2013 and had been proportionate to the aim pursued. There had thus been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "092a5be7-2173-4f83-8675-185c7425fec5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government indicated that fourteen families had lived in the hostel. They had all belonged to socially unprotected groups of the population, for example, G., a single mother. The Government noted that Article <mask> of the Convention imposed positive obligations on the State, that is to say to take measures to protect an individual\u2019s rights to respect for private life and in particular housing (the Government cited mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, and Mente\u015f and Others v. Turkey, 28 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII). The applicants had tried to create unsuitable living conditions in the hostel (for example, by cutting off the electricity) in order to evict the occupants. The prosecutor\u2019s office had concluded that the applicants had breached the occupants\u2019 right to respect for their homes, as indicated in its complaint to the court and its appeal against the decision of 23 January 2006. By having awarded the applicants adequate compensation, the courts had balanced their rights against the public interest. The Government further noted that the applicants had been deprived of their property in accordance with the law."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "8d021052-7af9-4112-a88b-1723591c8b48", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained of his personal and family situation since 26 September 1997, the date of the judgment in which the Court had found that there had been a disproportionate interference with his right to private and family life as a result of both the permanent exclusion order made against him on 4 July 1991 and enforced on 28 February 1995 and the dismissal of his subsequent application to have it lifted. He expressly relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "8", "id": "42f77d06-1c18-479d-98b5-7dd9d59e6313", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant submitted in reply that the right to respect for private life also covered the right to one\u2019s surname and forename (referring to, among other authorities, Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VI; Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004\u2011XII; and Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280\u2011B). Article <mask> of the Convention was thus indisputably applicable to the present case."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "cba7c979-3183-4005-ad4f-f42b20207afb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55. The Government maintained that the Chamber, in applying the necessity test under Article <mask> of the Convention, had exceeded its power of review and had substituted its own evaluation for that of the domestic courts. Although stricter scrutiny was called for as regards restrictions placed by those authorities on parental rights of access, it was nevertheless for them to establish the relevant facts, that is to take and assess the evidence, as they had the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned. "], "obj_label": "8", "id": "6aff5b07-ea17-4105-bd3e-f42f5c58c819", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants submitted that they were treated differently in respect of their enjoyment of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention from other persons \u2013 and the spouses of those persons \u2013 with temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In particular, they relied on the example of students and workers, both of whom had been entitled to be joined in the United Kingdom by their spouses, regardless of whether the marriage took place before or after they were granted leave to remain."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "b9fd7698-4bcd-4671-a977-56e070562795", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["270.  The Government submitted that Mr Tolumov\u2019s correspondence was not being monitored by the prison authorities. The applicable rule \u2013 regulation 75 of the implementing regulations of the 2009 Act \u2013 was fully in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison stamps on the envelopes submitted by Mr Tolumov merely showed that those envelopes had been opened and closed in the presence of a prison officer, as required under that regulation, not that the content of the letters inside them had been checked."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "41e51b8d-d69f-4065-b2a9-d79d9dbceeae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The Government argued that the applicant could have brought legal proceedings to challenge the police retention of the caution or its inclusion in any criminal record certificate. Such an action could have proceeded by way of judicial review or by way of a complaint to the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act. In support of their submissions, the Government have referred to a number of cases decided by the domestic courts as illustrative of the courts\u2019 jurisdiction and willingness to assess compliance of retention or disclosure of criminal record data with Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraphs 77-121 above)."], "obj_label": "8", "id": "49452687-9ab6-4542-8645-58c2c0c6a8c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant took the view that the interference with the exercise of his freedom to manifest his religion did not correspond to any of the aims listed in Article 9 \u00a7 2. The Government maintained, for their part, that the impugned measure pursued two legitimate aims: to protect the rights and freedoms of others; and to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The Court notes that the second paragraph of Article 9 does not refer expressly to the second of those aims. As regards the first of the aims invoked \u2013 to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of others \u2013 the Government referred to the principle of secularism and the need to promote tolerance in a post-conflict society. The Court has already held that secularism is a belief protected by Article <mask> of the Convention (see Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, \u00a7 58, ECHR 2011) and that an aim to uphold secular and democratic values can be linked to the legitimate aim of the \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2 (see Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2005\u2011XI, and Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41135/98, \u00a7 43, 23 February 2010). There is no reason to decide otherwise in the present case."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "fbd6e6c7-9b90-4267-9270-5ac4197c7e63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant submitted that under Article <mask> of the Convention the State was obliged to respect and support the individual's freedom to practice his or her religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In the applicant's opinion observing vegetarianism could not be described as a threat to public safety, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "ac1328ca-f880-481e-93f2-ec6a59df2717", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["2.  The Government submitted that section 16 \u00a7 5 of the Religions Act, interpreted in conjunction with section 7 \u00a7 1 of the Public Gatherings Act, required the organisers of religious assemblies in non-residential premises to notify the local authorities, in writing and in advance. Moreover, the Government claimed that section 5 \u00a7 1 of the Education Act prohibited religious assemblies from being held in educational establishments. Both justifications are unfounded, and have already being rejected by this Court in Kuznetsov and Others[3]. More specifically, in that seminal case the Court found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the disruption of an indoor religious meeting. The Court found that the State\u2019s interference was not even prescribed by law, since the Government neither specified the nature of the allegedly missing documents in accordance with the Religions Act, nor produced any documents relating to the official powers of the commissioner and two senior police officers to interrupt and disperse the indoor religious meeting. In addition, the fact of holding the religious meeting on college premises outside normal college hours had not been contrary to the Education Act. In that same judgment, the Court referred to the case-law of the Russian Supreme Court, dating from at least 1999, to the effect that religious assemblies do not require any prior authorisation from, or notification to, the public authorities[4]. There is no valid reason to change this precedent[5]. On the contrary, as will be shown, the subsequent practice of the respondent State justifies insistence on this case-law[6]."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "5e255179-2397-430f-b57c-3f13b5afa489", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicants submitted that the status of a registered religious community was inferior to that of a religious society and insufficient. They contended that the first applicant was subject to State control in respect of its religious doctrine, its rules on membership and the administration of its assets pursuant to sections 3-5 and 11 of the 1998 Religious Communities Act. They repeated in essence their above complaints. In particular, the applicants disputed the necessity of the ten-year waiting period, as the recognition of the Coptic Orthodox Church by a specific law in 2003 (see paragraph 45(e) above) proved the contrary. The Coptic Orthodox Church had only existed in Austria since 1976 and had been registered as a religious community in 1998. The applicants argued that most of the registered religious communities and even most of the recognised religious societies did not fulfil the criterion for the minimum number of adherents, which showed that this requirement was unnecessary for the observance of public duties, contrary to what the Government maintained. Since the first applicant, which was the fifth largest religious community in Austria and was thus even bigger than most recognised religious societies, also complied with the necessary number of adherents, it should have been recognised a long time ago. Further, the requirement of the use of income and other assets for religious purposes, including charity activities, was discriminatory as it interfered in an unjustified way with the first applicant\u2019s internal administration and organisation, in breach of both Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 15 of the Basic Law 1867. The prerequisite of a positive attitude towards society and the State was discriminatory as it was not required in respect of any other natural or legal personality in Austria. Further, it did not meet the \u201cprescribed by law\u201d requirement under Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The same applied to the criterion of non-interference with other religious societies. Moreover, under Austrian law, recognised religious societies enjoyed privileged treatment in various fields which did not extend to religious communities."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6031fc6c-aa8f-4101-8321-9f71476a2334", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained however that the measure was prescribed by law and served a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of public order and the rights of others. It was also proportionate, taking into account that the applicant was a teacher of religion by profession, who could have exercised his religion without the church attendances in question."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "baaee48e-48bc-43c8-a75e-3cc6b30759cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government further maintained that freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or beliefs under Article 9 did not confer on the applicant communities or their members any entitlement to secure additional funding from the State budget. Nor did it entail a right to receive the State subsidies that were due to Churches as such. Therefore, the loss of such subsidies could not be regarded as interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "e41ff84a-cdff-4e8e-abdc-e7659853f755", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government also stressed that religious autonomy enjoyed special protection under Article <mask> of the Convention and that the States had a wide margin of appreciation in regulating matters concerning their relationship with religious communities. The Catholic Church\u2019s autonomy in its relationship with the State on matters of religious education had been established in the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs. This Agreement essentially resembled other treaties regulating the relationship of the Catholic Church with a number of other European countries. Relying on the Court\u2019s case-law in Fern\u00e1ndez Mart\u00ednez (cited above), Obst (cited above) and Siebenhaar  (cited above), the Government contended that the Court had recognised the importance of religious communities\u2019 autonomy to choose persons suitable to teach their doctrine. Thus, in the Croatian legal system, although the State formally acted as the employer of teachers of Catholic religious education in the State education system, the decision as to the suitability of persons for that post and the substance of their teaching always remained in the hands of the Catholic Church. The Church\u2019s autonomy was exercised through its right to assess the circumstances in which a canonical mandate could be issued. This undoubtedly included the right to assess whether the person to whom a mandate had been issued was living his or her life in accordance with the Church\u2019s teachings. Accordingly, if the person was living in circumstances contrary to the Church\u2019s doctrine, this could undermine the credibility of that religious community. From this perspective, the \u201cduty of allegiance\u201d referred to in the Fern\u00e1ndez Mart\u00ednez case was equally binding for a layman and a priest teaching religious education."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "57578e47-6a66-45f6-8aa1-6e334b38e770", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["148.  The Government maintained, in line with their arguments under Article 3, that there had been no interference on the part of the State authorities in the exercise by the applicants of their various rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. The alleged incidents of violence had been committed by private individuals and the Government had reacted adequately, inter alia, by instituting criminal proceedings. They noted in this connection that between 1999 and 2003, fifty-three cases of religious incidents had been brought to the attention of the prosecutor\u2019s office and the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior. Only eight of those cases had been discontinued, while criminal proceedings had been brought in a further forty cases and a preliminary investigation was under way in another three. Nine prosecutions had been referred to the courts."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6ad9213c-8943-483a-a3e3-0849db7c65b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant\u2019s submissions did not indicate that the obligation to perform military or alternative civilian service entailed any concrete interference with his rights under Article 9."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "69fc9e0a-537a-44f4-814b-69d1a199d1b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the failure to issue them with a document necessary for the registration of their religious denomination. They submitted, inter alia, that the interference with their rights had not been prescribed by law because it had been contrary to the domestic courts\u2019 judgments ordering the issuance of the relevant document."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "17b94b45-9bfc-45e1-b3c9-015f9b98db42", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant organisation was the official body representing and managing the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria between February 1995 and October 1997. It complained about alleged arbitrary interference by the State with the organisation and leadership of that community. An ecclesiastical or religious body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its adherents the rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2000-VII)."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "be468625-3082-4c39-ac94-0fd286fb5d21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government disagreed with the view implied by the applicants that the alleged lack of proportion could give rise to an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. First of all, teaching pupils knowledge of Christianity could not in itself raise an issue under the Convention, as long as the instruction was carried out in an objective, pluralistic and neutral manner. Secondly, in current Norwegian society there were legitimate reasons for devoting more time to the knowledge of Christianity than to other religions and philosophies of life. These reasons had been set out in the travaux pr\u00e9paratoires documents, in the Curriculum and in the subsequent evaluation of the KRL subject."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "c0195925-48e2-44a3-ab31-12c470633924", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the measures taken against her, namely her questioning by the police, the search and seizure and the warning order, interfered with her right to worship collectively with like-minded adherents of the Evangelical faith in a home environment. In addition, the denial of legal registration to her church was done is a spirit which lacked any semblance of State neutrality. At all stages, the State authorities acted on the basis of discriminatory value judgments rather than evidence. The applicant considered that the measures were not prescribed by law, since they were arbitrary and based on legal provisions which allowed an unfettered discretion to the executive. Finally, the measures were not necessary in a democratic society. There was no evidence that that the religious beliefs of the members of the applicant\u2019s church were responsible for family separation, isolation and suicide. The action of the state authorities failed to respect the need for true religious pluralism, which is inherent in the concept of a democratic society."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "8468fff5-a789-44ae-94f3-fa5520532f15", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government referred to their observations in the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria ((dec.), no. 40825/98 5 July 2005). They maintained in particular that the first applicant, even before it had become a publicly registered religious community on 11 July 1998, had had legal personality as a registered association since 24 August 1945. The status conferred on the first applicant as a registered religious community under the 1998 Religious Communities Act complied with the requirements of Article 9; it only provided a legal status and in no way restricted the exercise or enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion. In conclusion, there was no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "06990229-658d-47b1-b97e-020221a8be79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government submitted that the first applicant could not claim to be a direct victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had neither personally been charged the special church fee nor been liable to pay it. It had only been his wife who had been liable to pay the special church fee as she had been the recipient of the respective tax bill."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6b59e271-efe0-436b-8f4f-f10a077ab760", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government further submitted that the present case was to be distinguished from the Bayatyan case, since the applicants in the present case had had the possibility of substituting military service with alternative service of a civilian nature. Nevertheless, taking into account the shift in the case-law brought about by the Bayatyan judgment and a number of opinions and recommendations of various international bodies, including the Venice Commission, the domestic law had been amended on 2 May 2013 in order to provide a possibility for those who objected not only to the carrying of arms or performing other military activities but also to serving under any type of military command in general. In conclusion, there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion and there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "ef46c4b6-dee0-4462-a9c7-393930514bbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the rating status of its temple in Preston. This building is considered by the members of the applicant Church to constitute its most sacred centre. It is used as a place of congregational religious worship by those who have established their devotion and been accorded a \u201crecommend\u201d (see paragraphs 6-7 above).  In the domestic proceedings, the opinion of the majority of the House of Lords was that the subject-matter of complaint did not come within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention, with the consequence that Article 14 did not apply, since the refusal of the tax exemption did not prevent Mormons from manifesting their religion and since the tax exemption rules were applied neutrally to all religious groups and not directed specifically at the applicant Church (see paragraph 11 above). The Court can well understand such an assessment by the national courts of the facts of the present case, although it may be that in certain circumstances issues concerning the operation of religious buildings, including expenses incurred as a result of the taxation status of such buildings, are capable of having an impact on the exercise of the right of members of religious groups to manifest religious belief (see, mutatis mutandis, Association Les T\u00e9moins de J\u00e9hovah v. France, no. 8916/05, \u00a7\u00a7 48-54, 30 June 2011). The Court does not, however, need to decide whether, in the particular circumstances, the applicant\u2019s complaint about the application to it of the tax exemption legislation falls within the ambit of Article 9, so that Article 14 applies, since for the reasons given below it has come to the conclusion that the claim of discrimination is unfounded on its merits."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "e7e953e5-2b97-4851-a748-bbffd2628ff2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant further complained that the failure of the domestic authorities adequately to protect him from the demonstrators and properly to investigate the incident amounted to a violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. This was because, in his submission, the domestic authorities\u2019 failures prevented him from exercising his Article 9 right to peacefully practice his beliefs in the company of fellow worshippers. Article 9 provides:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "d69d8cc1-d5c0-4395-8b02-dc89ca559247", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant further submitted that religious groups had to be regarded as public institutions and therefore had to tolerate even severe criticism. Referring, inter alia, to the Court\u2019s judgments in Ayd\u0131n Tatlav, Giniewski (both cited above) and G\u00fcnd\u00fcz v. Turkey (no. 35071/97, ECHR 2003\u2011XI), the applicant alleged that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts, as long as they did not incite to violence. Moreover, the rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention did not imply a ban on the propagation by others of a doctrine which was hostile to other people\u2019s faiths. Only expressions that were gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringement of their rights, and which therefore did not contribute to any form of public debate should be prohibited by law, whereas blasphemy laws providing for a criminal sanction should be avoided according to international law standards. She contrasted her case with the Court\u2019s judgment in \u0130.A. v. Turkey (cited above), as the impugned statement at issue in \u0130.A. had not been linked to facts."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "7c225fef-3f44-478c-8480-367a8fa951bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government argued that their approach was in conformity with the case-law of the Convention, notably in cases where the Court had relied on the position of the domestic authorities in defining \u201creligion\u201d for the purposes of registration (they referred to Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, \u00a7 79, ECHR 2009). Therefore, the definition of religious activities by the 2011 Church Act and the assessment of the religious nature of an organisation by the State authorities were not contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The 2011 Church Act complied with the requirements of neutrality and impartiality since it was not based on the specific characteristics of one particular religion and was apt to ensure the recognition of a number of Churches representing a wide range of religions and religious beliefs."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6d2f7775-9781-4646-b9b4-d7cc06dffee2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["188.  The applicant failed to make submissions as to the applicability of Article 9 to the case. On the basis of the material before it, the Court finds that he has not shown that his belief met the necessary requirements of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Bayatyan, cited above, \u00a7 110; and Eweida and Others, cited above, \u00a7 81). This complaint must accordingly be declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "1742492e-7023-47bb-a12c-e9f384c57333", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant\u2019s submissions did not indicate that the obligation to perform military or alternative civilian service entailed any concrete interference with his rights under Article 9."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "93fab948-9bbf-48e0-b824-cd3e0e939c71", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant has complained that the events at the Banya Bashi mosque 20 May 2011 and the domestic authorities\u2019 response to those events amounted to violations of Articles 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention, in each case either taken alone or taken in conjunction of the Article 14. He has further complained that the same events amounted to a violation of Article 8 also either taken alone or taken in conjunction with Article 14. The Government contested these arguments. They also raised two preliminary objections as to the admissibility of the application, which applied to all of these complaints. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Court first to consider whether these preliminary objections are well-founded and, if not, to proceed to consider each of the applicant\u2019s substantive complaints in turn."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "47c6b174-b672-4362-b334-d1b5905e406b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government conceded that an assembly could not be prohibited solely on the ground of a certain likelihood of tensions and confrontations between opposing groups. However, in the particular circumstances of the case, the prohibition had been justified in order to protect the rights of others as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. All Saints\u2019 Day was traditionally devoted to commemorating the dead and the prohibition of the assembly, a measure aimed at avoiding loud disputes unbefitting the peace and quiet of a cemetery, had been necessary to ensure that visitors could manifest their religious beliefs without disturbance."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6ecd829d-10ec-4d06-9c23-569be5524e97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The applicants complained that their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as the Certificate of Approval scheme prevented them from marrying unless they married in the Anglican Church. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, read together with Article 9, they further complained that they were discriminated against in securing the enjoyment of this right."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "25722b41-002f-4acb-8c64-ee4116506c5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant in the present case brought a claim for damages in respect of the actions of the police which she claimed breached her right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Her claim was finally dismissed on the ground that the police had acted in implementation of the orders of the prosecution authorities, which, in their turn, could not be held liable under domestic law for the specific decisions at issue (see paragraph 14 above). The Government have not demonstrated to the Court that the applicant had at her disposal another remedy which would have provided her with effective relief in respect of her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Krasimir Yordanov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 50-55; see also Boychev and Others, cited above, \u00a7 56)."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "443e667b-3723-4b51-9de9-97e52f66dda5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government contested that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of religion. Since the entry into force of the 1919 Treaty of St Germain, all Austrian inhabitants had been allowed to practise publicly and privately their thought, religion and beliefs, irrespective of whether their religious society, community or church was recognised or had legal status. The right to autonomous administration of the entity\u2019s internal organisation was likewise guaranteed. Referring to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (VfSlg. 10.915/1986), the Government contended that the refusal of recognition did not impede the applicants\u2019 exercise of their right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Against this background, they contested that the first applicant had no legal personality in Austria, was legally non-existent and could not acquire assets or enter into legal relations, because these allegations concerned the first applicant\u2019s situation before it had obtained legal personality as a registered religious community on 11 July 1998. Even before the entry into force of the 1998 Religious Communities Act, the first applicant had had the possibility of setting up an association with a religious purpose under the Associations Act, as the Federation of Evangelical Municipalities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) had on 21 March 1992, and the Church of Scientology in Austria (Scientology Kirche \u00d6sterreich) on 20 May 1984. However, the applicants did not appear to have made any efforts to that end."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "7f8ebd5d-1112-4119-a74e-b176ecce9bb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government further observed that in any event the requirements laid down in the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention were met. In particular, under Article 109 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences it was not obligatory to grant a special diet in accordance with a prisoner's religious beliefs. However, they agreed that in a situation where it was possible for a custodial institution to provide for a special diet it should have granted such a diet to the prisoner."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "be7d3a63-71df-4198-a129-a7d453f151fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained under Articles 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention about the refusal to register the applicant group as a legal entity. The Court reiterates that, in the absence of a European consensus on the religious nature of Scientology teachings, and being mindful of the subsidiary nature of its role, it must rely on the position of the domestic authorities in the matter and determine the applicable Convention provision in the light of it (see Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, \u00a7 79, ECHR 2009, and Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, \u00a7 64, 5 April 2007). The Court need not determine whether or not Scientology is a religion because it can defer to the judgment of the Russian authorities on that matter. In contrast to the Kimlya and Church of Scientology Moscow cases, in which the Russian authorities explicitly concurred regarding the religious nature of the applicant Scientology organisations, the religious study in the instant case concluded that the nature of the applicant group was non-religious. Alleged legal defects in the study, including the manner in which it had been prepared, were a matter of controversy in the domestic proceedings. What is decisive for the Court, however, is that the reason for refusing the registration of the applicant group \u2013 which had ultimately been endorsed by the Russian courts \u2013 was the legal provision establishing a special fifteen-year waiting period that applies only to religious organisations. In these circumstances, the Court sees no need to distinguish the present case from the Kimlya case, which concerned the same reason for refusing registration. It therefore considers that the complaint must be examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11 (see Kimlya, cited above, \u00a7 81). These provisions read:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "c1d444ff-452c-421c-8fef-2a0be78f0694", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["184.  The applicant, by deliberately and consistently appearing naked in very public places such as urban centres, courtrooms and the communal parts of prisons, was intent on making a public statement of his belief in the inoffensive nature of the human body. The Court has found that his conduct amounted to a form of expression protected by Article 10 (see paragraph 150). It has previously indicated that a distinction must be drawn between carrying out an activity for personal fulfilment and carrying out the same activity for a public purpose, where one cannot be said to be acting for personal fulfilment alone (see Friend and Others, cited above, \u00a7 42). Furthermore, as concerns in particular an individual\u2019s personal choices as to his desired appearance in public (as referred to in S.A.S., cited above), on analogy with the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to religious beliefs (text of Article 9 cited below at paragraph 185), Article 8 cannot be taken to protect every conceivable personal choice in that domain: there must presumably be a de minimis level of seriousness as to the choice of desired appearance in question (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 9, Bayatyan, cited above, \u00a7 110; and Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 48420/10, \u00a7 81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). Whether the requisite level of seriousness has been reached in relation to the applicant\u2019s choice to appear fully naked on all occasions in all public places without distinction may be doubted, having regard to the absence of support for such a choice in any known democratic society in the world. In any event, however, even if Article 8 were to be taken to be applicable to the circumstances of the present case, the Court is satisfied that those circumstances are not such as to disclose a violation of that provision on the part of the public authorities in Scotland. In sum, any interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 for essentially the same reasons given by the Court in the context of its analysis of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraphs 171-176 above)."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "406815f6-443f-45e4-a521-432ec5c309af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicants complained that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society under the Recognition Act violated their right to freedom of religion. They further submitted that the legal personality conferred on the first applicant under the Religious Communities Act was limited and insufficient for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants also relied on Article 11 of the Convention. These provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6cdff304-ecb5-4f98-b44f-b87e029391b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government maintained their position that no agent of the State had taken part in the incidents alleged by the applicants. That had been unambiguously established by the domestic courts in the course of the examination of the relevant complaints. They noted in that respect that the applicants had failed to furnish, either at the domestic level or before the Court, any evidence to the contrary. According to the Government, the applicants had failed in the course of the domestic proceedings to name the police officers whose action or inaction had damaged their interests and violated their rights. Along the same line of reasoning, they argued that the State had maintained its neutral role in the relationship between various religious groups. The fact that the national courts had found against the applicants was not indicative of a violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "784fcae5-b442-4e5e-ae75-a9a0846f28b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant organisation complained under Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention about the restriction on its right to teach its followers and the decision on its dissolution. The Court considers that the complaint about the dissolution of a religious organisation must be examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11 (see Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, \u00a7 103, 10 June 2010). Article 9 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "3c4cff1f-6e05-45c6-9a02-15837832b0e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicants complained that in 2003 and the following years the State had interfered in an arbitrary fashion in the internal dispute in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church with the aim of forcing all clergy and believers under the leadership of the person favoured by the authorities, Patriarch Maxim. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "cd60bf1e-dd7c-4735-aa98-5d7c4a3de964", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers. He further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the decision of the Turkish General Staff to ban his access to the army's social facilities had infringed his freedom of conscience and religion."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "ec7fd4b4-63df-4631-8409-13bb82fb3ba7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["2.   The applicant assumed the function of a preacher and an elder in the community of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. He was called up to perform military service, as the authorities found that exemption from the obligation to perform military service applied only to members of recognized religious societies and not to members of registered religious communities such as the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. So far, the applicant was in the same situation as the applicants in the L\u00f6ffelmann and G\u00fctl cases, in which the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. However, and contrary to the applicants in these two cases, on 26 August 2003 Mr Lang requested the Federal Ministry for Defence to take no action until the European Court of Human Rights had decided on his application. The applicant was informed that an instruction had been issued to the relevant Military Authority not to call him up until further notice. Thus, he has never been required to perform any kind of military service (see paragraph 12 of the judgment)."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "df531ca6-09ca-4997-9faf-fd6b081405d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant churches also complained that the fact that they had not been allowed to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, to provide pastoral care to their members in hospitals, social-welfare institutions, prisons and penitentiaries, or to have religious marriages they celebrated recognised by the State as equal to civil marriages, amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "fd3ec48e-4758-4da6-8dc2-812e5c73799e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicants rejected the Government\u2019s arguments. They claimed that the domestic courts had simply ignored the extensive witness and documentary evidence concerning various violations of their religious rights. They noted the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, (no. 184/02, 11 January 2007), where the Court, in finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, had relied on evidence that had been dismissed by the domestic courts (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 58-59). The applicants submitted that the Government had failed to rebut their arguments and that the domestic decisions in this respect had been wholly biased and unsubstantiated. That was particularly evident in view of the various international governmental and non-governmental reports concerning increasing religious violence in Georgia at the material time and the inadequate response of the authorities (see paragraph 60 above)."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "17201d1a-e574-4da4-9ab3-64a746709347", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government maintained that the status conferred on the first applicant as a registered religious community under the 1998 Religious Communities Act complied with the requirements of Article 9; it only provided a legal status and in no way restricted the exercise or enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion. In conclusion, there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "6ab5fcc5-8106-4d80-8be1-0401e4ecfa34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities' refusal to grant Glas Nadezhda EOOD a broadcasting licence had substantially restricted their possibility to communicate their religious ideas to others and had thus infringed their freedom to manifest their religion. In their view, this refusal had not been justified under the second paragraph of that Article for the same reasons as the ones indicated under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "0cb2fa29-87ba-4f69-b64c-4dffb5b9f6bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicants stated that the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in itself constituted an arbitrary interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They characterised as misleading and inappropriate the Government\u2019s argument that the new legal regime resembled the rules governing the status of the predominant religions in other European countries, such as Denmark and Italy. The crucial difference in the present case was, in the applicants\u2019 view, that the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had been introduced in the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in the context of an ongoing dispute between two leaderships and had, moreover, been aimed at putting an end to this dispute by favouring one of the two leaderships to the exclusion of the other. The applicants referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, according to which the use of legislation and decrees to place a religious community under a single leadership and the removal of the opposing group from places of worship or other property constituted arbitrary State interference with the internal organisation of the religious community. The applicants considered that the heavy-handedness and discriminatory intent of the Bulgarian Government in the present case not only mirrored their approach criticised by the Court in Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000\u2011XI), but far surpassed it in gravity."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "ee8aeaec-e7ae-40f7-b6a4-f1a8c4cfbe91", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant alleged that she had been subjected to unjustified treatment on account of her religion, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of her allegation she submitted that she had been expelled from Turkey after having protested against the film The Last Temptation of Christ and after her protests had been given media coverage. Under the same Article, she further alleged that expressing opinions on Kurdish and Armenian issues at a university, where freedom of expression should be unlimited, could not be used as a justification for any sanctions, such as the ban on her re-entry into Turkey."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "d0e9d5ab-32f7-4a77-9535-c82b6e0329a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government further submitted that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant's submissions did not indicate that the obligation to perform military or alternative civilian service entailed any concrete interference with his rights under Article 9."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "8a1f9137-f074-4199-966d-44fe537cbe93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicant association stated that its right to change religious orientation, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been interfered with. There had been interference with its freedom of religion as the State had refused to register the changes and amendments to its statute for no legitimate reason as all the conditions for making the changes and amendments were met. Furthermore, the applicant association had been prevented from using the church premises it had built for its religious ceremonies and even from using its chosen name."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "31f7ee07-d6f4-44f2-9608-db49e7c93ae1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government acknowledged that the restrictions imposed on the applicant regarding wearing the Islamic headscarf at school amounted to an interference with the exercise of her right to manifest her religion. They submitted, however, that as in the case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI) the requirements of legality, legitimacy and proportionality stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention were satisfied."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "095e6bd0-c82e-4fdd-83c9-121a215768b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["169.  The Government pointed out firstly that the Constitution of Georgia condemned any kind of discrimination (Article 14). They maintained that there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights under Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention on grounds of their faith. The Georgian authorities and senior civil servants had repeatedly denounced attacks by individuals on Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. Several sessions of the State Security Council had been dedicated to that matter. The relevant instructions had been issued to the investigating bodies of the GPO and of the Ministry of the Interior with a view to punishing the acts of violence committed against the applicants and ensuring that they were able to exercise their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The pre-trial detention of Father Basil had been ordered by a court so as to prevent attacks on the applicants by his religious group. All the perpetrators of the other offences committed against the applicants had been placed under investigation. The Government guaranteed that each guilty party would be punished in accordance with the seriousness of the offences committed."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "c1653e53-1bfd-4d19-974a-b91ca7903f67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government contended that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. In their view, the fact that the premises of a political party had been chosen for a ceremony held following the death of members of a terrorist organisation and the decision to display symbols of that organisation clearly showed that the participants were pursuing a political and not a religious aim."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "96d27072-7ad4-4c1b-8c0c-b419ac2f4fc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government agreed that the Convention was a \u201cliving instrument\u201d. However, the question of whether Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable to the present case was to be considered from the point of view of the interpretation of the Convention existing at the material time. The applicant had been convicted in the years 2001-02 and his conviction at that time had been in line with the approach of the international community and was considered to be lawful and justified under the Convention as interpreted by the Commission and the Court. In particular, the Commission had found in Peters v. the Netherlands (no. 22793/93, Commission decision of 30 November 1994, unreported) and Heudens v. Belgium (no. 24630/94, Commission decision of 22 May 1995, unreported), which were the latest decisions on the matter, that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 did not concern exemption from compulsory military service on religious or political grounds. The Court had not even recognised the applicability of Article 9 in its more recent judgments, where it had not found it necessary to examine the issue (see, for example, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2000-IV, and \u00dclke v. Turkey, no. 39437/98, \u00a7\u00a7 53-54, 24 January 2006). The Armenian authorities had therefore acted in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. Given the established case-law on this matter, they could not have foreseen the possibility of a new interpretation of Article 9 by the Court and consequently could not have made their actions comply with that possible \u201cnew approach\u201d."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "064c85ac-9926-41be-9bea-08533ae6899a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly was prescribed by law, namely by section 6 of the Assembly Act. It served a legitimate aim, as its purpose was to maintain public order and to protect the rights and freedoms of others, namely the undisturbed worship of all those visiting the cemetery on All Saints\u2019 Day, an activity which was itself protected by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "d5470f5c-ec3a-4343-9b3b-8adba2b71154", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government acknowledged that the right to practise a religion in accordance with the Osho teaching fell within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also did not deny that from 8 May 2003 the applicant had been held at Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital unlawfully, as established by both the Vilnius Regional Court and the Court of Appeal."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "42d8f049-4724-4410-8cf9-6d31a70a3989", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["187.  The Government noted that the applicant had not elaborated on his claim under Article <mask> of the Convention and contended in particular that he had not presented his views as a \u201cbelief\u201d which attracted Article 9 protection. They challenged whether his views satisfied the requirements of cogency and seriousness. Even if there was a belief, there was no manifestation attracting the protection of Article 9."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "44895adb-3207-4f08-8f03-6dd006497936", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants alleged that their beliefs prohibited them from permitting their children to take part in mixed swimming lessons. They added that, although the Koran laid down the precept that the female body was to be covered only from puberty, their faith instructed them to prepare their daughters for the precepts that would be applied to them from puberty onwards. The Court considers that the case concerns a situation in which the applicants\u2019 right to manifest their religion is in issue. The applicants exercised parental authority and could decide, under Article 303 al. 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 23 above), on the religious education of their children. In consequence, they are entitled to rely on this aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers, furthermore, that the applicants indeed suffered an interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of religion as protected by that provision."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "787aa8de-545d-4e4a-a558-b1ea6f6dd6ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not cover any dietary prescriptions and asked the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione materiae. As a subsidiary contention, relying on the case of Ionescu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010), they asserted that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage, and asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "039a3690-22c3-4565-bbac-506bafaed916", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicants submitted that because the second and third applicants had been exposed to the crucifixes displayed in the classrooms of the State school they attended, all three of them, not being Catholics, had suffered a discriminatory difference in treatment in relation to Catholic parents and their children. Arguing that \u201cthe principles enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 are reinforced by the provisions of Article 14 de la Convention\u201d, they complained of a violation of the latter Article, which provides:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "171f7d89-6ea3-49b2-9413-319c1f60576f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicants also alleged that their conviction amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (freedom of conscience), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination). After the events in Moscow in August 1991, the CPL/CPSU was banned, and its leaders convicted of crimes against the State. However, the Convention guarantees the rights of political parties without discrimination. The applicants claimed that the domestic court assessment of the facts and law in their case had been wrong, that the CPL/CPSU had been a party upholding the principles of democracy, and that their activities within the CPL/CPSU and its subsidiary organisations could not have been foreseen as constituting criminal offences at the material time. The applicants stated that they had thus been unjustly punished in the exercise of their beliefs as communists, their legitimate work as journalists, their right of association with other individuals, and their support for the idea of Lithuania\u2019s continuing membership of the USSR during politically turbulent times."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "ba1f9153-beb1-4c0c-8cab-8a5a0c4fb502", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government submitted that the circumstances of the case gave no indication of any interference with the third applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that no ethics class had been organised for him in State schools. There were no indications that the third applicant had been in any way indoctrinated or subjected to any form of pressure as to his personal beliefs. Article 9 of the Convention did not deal with States' obligations regarding the content of school curricula."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "0b04e1da-c5c4-4551-bdfe-6ea8340165ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["177.  The applicants\u2019 grievance under Article <mask> of the Convention being arguable, the Court finds that Article 13 is applicable in the present case.  It reiterates, however, that this provision does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State\u2019s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, \u00a7\u00a7 105-108, ECHR 2005\u2011IX, and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 107-109)."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "22724187-d52b-484b-abbd-e782c0ae3c5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant community complained under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic authorities\u2019 refusal to issue a declaratory decision under the Employment of Aliens Act (\u201cthe EA Act\u201d) that the employment of G.V. and V.T. by the applicant community was exempt from the provisions of that Act on the grounds that the applicant community was not a recognised religious society had violated its rights under these provisions."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "56e718c5-5cd2-4134-a02a-9fdfcf96ae27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicants alleged that the Moldovan authorities\u2019 refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia infringed their freedom of religion, since only religions recognised by the government could be practised in Moldova. They asserted in particular that their freedom to manifest their religion in community with others was frustrated by the fact that they were prohibited from gathering together for religious purposes and by the complete absence of judicial protection of the applicant Church\u2019s assets. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "9", "id": "23acabcc-ee75-4ed1-8d60-db5fa6d6c784", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government contended that Article 11 did not impose any positive obligation to enact legislation of the kind suggested by the applicant. They submitted that in assessing the extent, if any, of the State\u2019s positive obligation, the Court should consider whether the nature of the interference struck at the \u201cvery substance\u201d of the right or freedom concerned (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, \u00a7 55, Series A no. 44, S\u00f8rensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark [GC], nos. 52562/99 and 52620/99, \u00a7 54, ECHR 2006\u2011I). However, it did not necessarily follow from the fact that someone was dismissed from their employment as a consequence of manifesting certain political views that there would be an interference with their rights under Article 11 which struck at the very substance of the right so as to engage the State\u2019s positive obligation. In this regard the Government relied, by analogy, on Stedman v the United Kingdom, application no. 29107/95, decision of 9 April 1997, in which the Commission rejected as inadmissible a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention by a Christian applicant who had been dismissed because she refused to work on Sundays. The Commission noted that there had been no pressure on the applicant to change her religious views or to prevent her from manifesting her religion or beliefs. It followed that the Government could not be expected \u201cto have legislation that would protect employees against such dismissals by private employers\u201d."], "obj_label": "9", "id": "98952f8e-2328-4de5-86d4-22f7f8910e05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government argued that according to the \u201cquotation case-law\u201d of the Austrian courts, the publication of a statement which satisfies the definition of an offence may lead to sanctions against the medium concerned unless there is any objective reason, such as e.g. the protection by a basic right, justifying such statement. In the present case, having carefully weighed the freedom of expression against the protection of the reputation of others, the second instance court set out comprehensively the arguments in favour of the application of section 33 of the Media Act. It rightly considered that the statement \u201cspiritually depraved\u201d amounted to an offence and violated the concerned person's right to reputation. Referring to case-law of the Court of Appeal, the Government asserted that the correct quotation of an insult of one person by another person was protected by Article <mask> of the Convention and did not justify forfeiture. In the present case, however, the applicant company had not reported about the pending defamation proceedings in a neutral way but had identified itself with the content of the quoted statements. The Government referred in this regard to the Court of Appeal's findings as regards the structure and style of the article and, furthermore, to the article's subtitle which wording between the lines in their opinion called the rejection of the reproach of being \u201cspiritually depraved\u201d into question. A victim's right would be almost completely void without an adequate protection against abuse of quotations, if a medium was free to publish and add to defamation by third persons. The applicant company had not been deprived of the possibility to inform the public about the fact that criminal proceedings against Mr Heller were pending. Finally, the forfeiture was principally a safeguarding measure containing elements of minor punishment. It appeared proportionate as most of the issues of the weekly magazine had, in any way, already been published. The applicant company had not sufficiently substantiated the alleged damage resulting from the forfeiture."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4936ce0f-63a9-45ce-b6ac-2f116fcef2e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant also complained of the following: under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been informed promptly about the charges against him, under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 that the police had seized some of his possessions, under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 that he had been convicted twice for the same offence, and under Article 13 that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of breaches of his Convention rights. However, none of these complaints were substantiated and the Court does not discern any signs of a violation in respect of them. Accordingly, they must be declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8d814018-d6a0-4bbf-8403-aae4050aa241", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant firstly submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention provided that everyone had the right to receive and impart information. Notwithstanding that general right, the applicant argued that he had acted in his capacity as a journalist with the intention of publishing information which he believed was of public interest. He maintained that the acts for which he had been investigated and sanctioned were part of a journalistic investigation that he had undertaken in order to determine whether the information brought to his attention was true and of public interest. As soon as he had verified the said information, he had contacted the central office of his newspaper and subsequently entered into contact with his colleague, O.O. The manner in which his colleague from the central office and the newspaper where he was employed had chosen to publish the information had not depended on him. Moreover, his statements as well as the witness statements given by other journalists during the investigation were meant to protect their sources and their colleagues. Under those circumstances, the applicant submitted that his arrest and the criminal sanctions imposed on him constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f7e198c8-05d3-4da1-a740-19c6e7cd27e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant complained under Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention that each of his criminal convictions for the statements he had made in the newspaper articles and Internet forums had amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression and that, in this connection, his rights to a fair trial and an effective remedy had also been infringed in the relevant criminal proceedings. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "10aec96c-506d-465c-8222-fbd1c8753acd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained under Articles 6, 7, 10 and 13 of the Convention that his conviction by the domestic courts for aggravated defamation had infringed his right to freedom of expression. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint solely under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "cea37cb8-6769-412e-9e31-a9c4d4af28a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant rejoined that B. was a company that had been going through denationalisation (see paragraph 6 above), that at the relevant time it was still partly owned by the State, that the process of denationalisation in Slovakia was in general tainted with various suspicions and irregularities, and that A. had at one time been associated with a major party of government. The article thus clearly bore on a matter of public concern. Moreover, the applicant submitted that D. and his partners had been directly striving to bring B. into their operation. In such circumstances, the applicant could not see that a fair balance had been struck between, on the one hand his rights, and on the other hand his duties and obligations, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "1bcddfbe-ca0f-4cd7-a3a3-4b56f0dcb6f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant political party submitted that the voters\u2019 posting photographs showing their participation in the referendum and the way they had cast their votes had constituted the expression of opinions on political matters, as protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. It also maintained that providing a forum for voters to express their opinions, in the form of using a mobile telephone application, fell under the scope of the right to freedom of expression. Thus, the restriction on, and penalisation of, the use of the application had constituted an interference with its right to freedom of expression, which had neither been prescribed by law nor had pursued a legitimate aim."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c0698fc7-21ef-4a15-9861-6bcd51cd08dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government contested that argument. They pointed out that the applicant had been a prosecutor and the applicable law had allowed the mass media to publish information concerning his income as part of anti\u2011corruption measures. The national courts had verified the accuracy of the information concerning the applicant. Relying on the findings of the domestic courts (see paragraph 14 above), the Government considered that the national judicial authorities had conducted a thorough balancing exercise between the applicant\u2019s rights and the journalist\u2019s right to freedom of expression and had given priority to the rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7ad1f12d-77a5-4abc-87bc-c85485a131d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicants complained that their right to freedom of expression had been violated in that the courts had allowed G. T.\u2019s claim concerning content published in Pravoye Delo on 19 September 2003. They stated that the interference had neither been in accordance with the law nor necessary in a democratic society. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7648ebf2-01e5-40ae-81f0-0b676e5cb6f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government submitted that they had asked the Prosecutor General in January 2017 to inform them about the prospects of reopening the criminal proceedings against the applicant at the domestic level. They had referred in their request to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, 12 July 2016). The Prosecutor General had replied in February 2017 that there were no grounds for reopening the applicant\u2019s case, in particular because his conduct had consisted not only of making complaints to the competent authorities, in respect of which he could claim protection under Article <mask> of the Convention, but also of public dissemination of injurious statements, which was not covered by the protection of that Convention provision."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "eb016074-66d7-4cdd-b93a-15d7b4f96a34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant company reiterated that the freedom of the press was strongly protected under Article <mask> of the Convention; the press could have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation (it cited Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, \u00a7 38, Series A no. 313). It was allowed to use sarcastic, satirical or inelegant language (referring to Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, \u00a7\u00a7 25-26, 22 February 2007). It was the right of the press to be shocking, offensive and disturbing and the test of proportionality should focus on whether a proper balance had been struck between the legal interests involved. That had not been the case in the proceedings concerned in the present case. The press could be expected to be unbiased and neutral in the forms of expression (it cited, for example, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 37464/02, \u00a7 40, 22 February 2007). The magazine published by the applicant company was of a generally satirical character and, consequently, the article concerned had also been couched in satirical terms. Satirical statements concerning matters of public interest were by their very nature exaggerated and distorting and as such they enjoyed a wider margin of tolerance (it cited, for example Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, \u00a7 27, 20 October 2009)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "341c28fc-fd5a-4201-8ed8-02ceb193927d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression, both because of the Italian courts\u2019 decisions on the merits and because of their procedural decisions, which had prevented him from proving that the offending article was an example of the right to report and comment on current events within the context of the freedom of the press. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "87842ffa-4b8c-4b0e-9281-2cd346cf9b18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government concluded that the interference complained of had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and thus necessary in a democratic society to protect the reputation of others. The penalty, a symbolic payment to a charity and an order to apologise to A.W., was a lenient one and did not constitute a conviction. Although a notice of the proceedings against the applicant is revealed in the National Crime Record, the information is removed after a successful expiry of the probation period. They submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8cb58089-a11b-4eff-b612-e492dc9ac90e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicants alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that the suspension of the publication and distribution of Yedinci G\u00fcn and Toplumsal Demokrasi, which had been based on section 6(5) of Law no. 3713, constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of expression. They claimed in particular that the banning, for such lengthy periods, of the publication of the newspapers as a whole, whose future content was unknown at the time of the national courts' decisions, amounted to censorship."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ed1efbd5-056a-4796-847b-3d8e384d621e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that neither the Estonian Constitution nor the Convention prescribed that everyone should be entitled to obtain through the Internet information such as that in issue in the present case. The State had a discretion to restrict the right of specific groups of people (such as prisoners) to access information through specific channels. According to the Government, prisoners were not in a position comparable to that of persons at liberty."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f63d43e8-ede3-4f63-b4cf-3f944a61b3bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government considered that, should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicants should be awarded as pecuniary damages the sums paid by them. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that the first applicant should be awarded reasonable compensation for non-pecuniary damage which in the circumstances of the present case should not exceed EUR 1,500."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "15761804-a346-4b71-9970-186afd7a9f06", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. He submitted that, in choosing to become a member of the BNP and to stand for election, he was engaging both his right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to freedom of assembly and association pursuant to Article 11 and that his dismissal had disproportionately interfered with his exercise of those rights."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "49781155-6b85-49e8-a1d4-03ebf31e0de0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant disagreed. It considered that the interference was not necessary because the articles referred not to facts, but to value judgments, which were not susceptible of proof. The courts' decisions were in fact a form of political censorship of the opinion of the journalist and were aimed at removing it from the political discussion of persons in public life. Furthermore, the sanctions imposed were aimed at preventing it from acting as a source of information and a control mechanism over public power. The applicant maintained that the assessment of the personal and managerial qualities of the candidates for presidency and of their ability to form a team of like-minded persons, to deliver what they had promised and to provide moral and intellectual leadership for the benefit of the nation, was at the core of the issues discussed in the impugned publications. Furthermore, open criticism of politicians and discussion of their qualities were necessary preconditions for the holding of free and democratic elections. It therefore concluded that the fundamental guarantees enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "db1438fd-d317-4cb6-998a-f8d583fde861", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["218.  The Government agreed with the Chamber that no causal link had been established between the damage claimed and the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Nor had any causal link been established between the damage claimed and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the Government, no compensation should thus be awarded under this head. Were the Court to consider that pecuniary damage was due, the application of Article 41 of the Convention should be reserved."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ddd599ce-196f-4516-8cff-2ac769d59594", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged reprisals against him as a result of the publication of his letter. He submitted that the sealing off of his office, the search effected therein, the fact that he had been prevented from having access to his office, and the deceptive manner in which he had been discharged from his duties had all been in retaliation for the publication of his letter. In his view, these measures had been unlawful and unnecessary."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "efb1a03c-8340-4364-aa0e-ecfcd8457961", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants contended that the offending statement concerned a fictitious, but nevertheless conceivable and humanly understandable thought by Mr Eberharter, which was clearly discernable as such even by the hastiest of readers. The domestic authorities' reference to a reader who perused the text in such a quick or unfocused manner that he failed to understand its content was inadmissible. The applicants were not responsible for such readers and the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention was not restricted by the fact that a reader might misunderstand the ideas expressed. Any reader who honestly believed that Mr Eberharter had in fact uttered the impugned statement before the press was simply ignorant."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f34c5eda-ae3a-44d9-905b-d72a0403b6f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant submitted that the relevant criminal and civil judgments undoubtedly constituted an interference \u201cby a public authority\u201d with his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. This interference, however, was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d because the domestic criminal courts had refused to treat all of the applicant's statements as an acceptable expression of his political opinion and the final civil court judgment had itself been based on his criminal conviction. In the alternative, however, the applicant argued that the said interference was disproportionate."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "34f3ae6a-f32c-4598-9400-d06710605b55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government acknowledged that the conviction of the first applicant and the ordering of both applicants to pay damages and costs had amounted to an interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in their submission the impugned measures had had a basis in Chapter 24, section 9, of the Penal Code and in Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort Liability Act which fulfilled both the requirements of precision and clarity. The interference had thus been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. In addition, it had pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, as required by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5c6d0cec-eb24-497a-a574-f85da808d407", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant further maintained that States have positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. Since, in the present case, the Hungarian authorities had not needed to collect the impugned information, because it had been ready and available, their only obligation would have been not to bar access to it. The disclosure of public information on request in fact falls within the notion of the right \u201cto receive\u201d, as understood by Article 10 \u00a7 1. This provision protects not only those who wish to inform others but also those who seek to receive such information. To hold otherwise would mean that freedom of expression is no more than the absence of censorship, which would be incompatible with the above-mentioned positive obligations."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "94fc960f-c956-4553-9a84-c2639e06c970", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that the refusals by the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot authorities to allow him to cross the \u201cgreen line\u201d in order to participate in bi-communal meetings had prevented him from exercising his right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and ideas and to receive and impart information, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f692c254-9b80-4e99-9e40-92951510306b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against them under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and their subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Referring, in particular, to the Court\u2019s judgments in G\u00fcl and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010) and Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011), the applicants claimed that their conviction was not necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c64dd964-7590-401a-8176-d81e4f596cc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.\u2019s name had not fallen within the protection of private life as the national courts had not declared any parts of her criminal case file secret. She had been an active participant in the incident of 4 December 1996 and had subsequently been sentenced to a fine. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially in this type of case where the person concerned had been a defendant in a high-profile criminal case. Moreover, the information in the articles had been correct in every respect. The Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could have been restricted in this case. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very substantial damages in the case."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d12f700e-836e-4e94-8502-4a5b84fe7faf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government further maintained that even if it were to be accepted that there had been interference with the applicant company\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, such interference had been prescribed by the domestic legislation, namely Article 15 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution, Article 3 \u00a7 1 (c) of Law No. 2328/1995, Articles 7 and 9 of Regulation 1/1991 and Article 2 \u00a7 3 of Regulation 2/1991 of the National Radio and Television Council, and Article 2 (b) and (f) of the Code on Journalistic Ethics (issued by the journalists\u2019 union). Additionally, the Government asserted that any interference with the applicant company\u2019s right to impart information had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others \u2013 specifically A.C.\u2019s right to private life, as protected under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "10c3a808-d141-4501-8985-8966ff37460e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government did not contest that the decision by which the domestic court had ordered the applicant to pay non-pecuniary damage to N.C.I. represented an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. They further submitted that the interference was based on Articles 998-999 of the Romanian Civil Code, as in force at the material time. The legitimate aim pursued by the domestic authorities was the protection of the reputation and dignity of others, as provided for by the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "bd8c4424-01e7-4ac4-a9c0-ecfd2c9d35fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants then observed that the present case did not require an examination of any interference by the State with the exercise of their freedom of expression, but rather an analysis of its positive obligation under the Convention. They took the view that the national authorities, in the present case, had a positive obligation to provide them with a system that enabled them to obtain the performance of an undertaking from an individual and that the authorities had a duty to act with the requisite diligence to assist them in enforcing the judicial decision given in their favour on 6 December 2002, as a result of which they would have been able to exercise their profession as radio journalists. They pointed out that the Court had already noted the existence of such an obligation, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in cases concerning individuals\u2019 obligations to act. In their view, the transposition of such an obligation to the subject-matter of Article <mask> of the Convention would be consistent with the principle of proportionality between the general interest and the interest of individuals and would not represent an impossible or disproportionate burden for the State, given that no new obligations would be imposed on it. Lastly, the applicants took the view that, in determining the positive obligation in the present case, it had to be taken into account that freedom of expression was exercised by professional journalists and that the de facto obstacles complained of affected the diversity and plurality of means of expression. In addition, it was also necessary to take into account the situation of the press in Romania in the relevant period (2002-2004), as described in a number of reports by various national and international organisations."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "282e0d08-52d3-488e-afe9-edda2b22583c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicant companies complained that their right to freedom of expression protected by paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in a manner which was not justified under its second paragraph. The collection of taxation information was not illegal as such and the information collected and published was in the public domain. Individual privacy rights were not violated."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "863a45b5-bc32-4c5c-b9da-d2cc7aa3975c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that her right to freedom of expression had been violated. She insisted that she was free to express her opinion as a journalist, and that, by ruling against her, the domestic courts had criticised her for her professional activity and had unjustifiably limited her freedom of speech. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "61221c81-249c-4628-907e-8e7960b0d582", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression on account of, inter alia, the national courts' failure to state by which laws the continued confiscation was justified. He submitted that, by virtue of the lack of certainty, neither the accessibility nor the foreseeability requirements of that provision had been satisfied. Article 10 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f87f9167-536e-40fb-b5da-e4f4657d3ccc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["203.  The Government submitted that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities and could be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety. According to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, the disclosure of the State\u2019s interest in a given weapon and that of the corresponding technical knowledge, which may give some indication of the state of progress in its manufacture, were capable of causing considerable damage to national security (they referred to Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, \u00a7 45, Series A no. 252). The conviction of an individual for such a disclosure could not be seen as a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The State had not violated Article 10 by holding the applicant criminally liable for disclosure of State secrets of a military nature to a foreign intelligence service. The circumstances of the case, as established by the domestic courts, showed that the applicant had used his research skills to damage Russia\u2019s external security for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation. The fact that he had not had access to State secrets did not relieve him of criminal liability for divulging classified data to a foreign state. The classified information could have been received by any means. Through his education and the post he occupied at the Institute of the USA and Canada, the applicant had professional contacts with a number of officials in the Ministry of Defence, who had had access to State secrets. He had been purposefully eliciting classified information from them. In his videoed statements to FSB officials, which were used as evidence at the trial, the applicant had repeatedly affirmed that he had realised that his interlocutors were agents of foreign intelligence services; however, he had continued to transmit information to them because of his difficult financial situation. As an educated person and a scientist, the applicant could and should have known of the restrictions on his right to impart information. His argument that the relevant information had been publicly available was untenable. It had been established at the trial that the information could not have been received from open sources and its divulgence had damaged Russia\u2019s security and defence."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3acde469-2d59-48d9-89a4-46536275ec33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant association asserted that Article <mask> of the Convention required States, to a certain extent, to make information available to the public. In its view the decisions of judicial bodies such as the Commission should be publicly accessible. Given the possibilities of electronic data processing, the authorities could easily create an online information system providing access to the decisions of the Commission, while making provision for the protection of confidential data where necessary. Such a system, namely the Federal Legal Information System (Rechtsinformations-system des Bundes), existed at federal level and made decisions of the highest courts and various other courts and authorities available. Where such a system did not exist, the State should at least provide anonymised paper copies of decisions upon request. Regarding the Government\u2019s argument that Austrian administrative law did not make provision for unrestricted access to files, the applicant association submitted that it had not requested access to files but rather the provision of decisions in anonymised form."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "83168dd2-3093-4959-93f1-c7fbebefc44d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant association submitted that it was still the victim of a violation of the Convention because section 14 of the Law of 1881, as amended, placed it under a permanent threat \u2013 a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. On that point, it observed that its aim was to inform as broad a target audience as possible, in various countries and at international level, about human rights and the rights of peoples and in particular about the right of peoples to decide on their own future and exercise self-determination. Its goal therefore was to disseminate ideas which, in the Minister of the Interior\u2019s view, were apt to encourage separatism and hence were liable to ministerial censorship. Furthermore, these books had been drafted jointly by French and Spanish authors and were written in French, Spanish, Basque, German, Italian and English. The applicant association had already undergone a continuous violation of its right to freedom of expression for over nine years. In the final analysis, the law amounted to an extremely grave threat to freedom of expression since it established a set of preventive rules which were exempt from the general rules on freedom of the press, in other words an administrative system in which the courts carried out an ex post facto review without being able to order the suspension of the impugned measure. The Minister had very broad powers of discretion to assess the reasons for a ban and bans were general and absolute in their geographical and temporal scope and could not be tailored to fit particular situations."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "cc379781-10b4-4608-ad4d-16bc5949763a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants also argued that the Court\u2019s constant approach under Article <mask> of the Convention had been to protect not only information and ideas that were favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offended, shocked or disturbed the State or any segment of the population. It had also consistently held that journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. The applicants also pointed out that Article 10 protected the content of the ideas as well as the form in which those ideas were expressed."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7b7d0ad7-e2be-4b1a-bc52-c3b0ce06f5c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that the District Court judgment of 29 November 2012, in respect of which leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 25 February 2013, entailed an interference with his right to freedom of expression that was not necessary in a democratic society and thus violated Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "fb5f0b76-cca0-48a9-8de3-7c36d5d64fc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["187.  The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in particular Article 71 of the Criminal Code. They submitted that the interference had been in the interests of public safety. They also argued that it had been necessary in a democratic society, particularly because the applicants\u2019 actions during the events of 9 March 2001 had gone beyond the range allowed to be committed by an individual in exercising his rights under the Convention, as they had been accompanied by riotous damage, destruction of property and resistance towards the authorities. Their rally had therefore not been of a peaceful character."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e45e7147-fa98-4160-905d-02a7e2078d58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Sovetskiy District Court\u2019s judgment of 22 May 2006, which had been upheld on appeal by the Bryanskiy Regional Court on 29 June 2006, had violated his freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention. He submitted that the domestic courts had failed to draw a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments and had held him responsible for a failure to prove the truth of value judgments. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d4d2af69-980f-4849-b790-6340c893f10e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government did not dispute that the libel proceedings and the sanctions imposed on the applicants constituted an interference with their freedom of expression. They argued that the interference was necessitated by a pressing social need, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others, and that the sanction imposed was proportionate. The domestic courts had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, considered the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments, and concluded that the statements of the second applicant were devoid of any factual basis. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Krasulya v. Russia (no. 12365/03, 22 February 2007), and Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009), the Government contended that even if the paragraphs in question were expressing a value judgment the second applicant lacked \u201cgood faith\u201d in the exercise of his journalistic duties by failing to rely on any facts."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d2c9b713-aad7-4489-a8d5-80232046b65f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s abduction, detention and beating had been motivated by her activity of speaking out on behalf of the enclaved population of Greek Cypriots against the Turkish occupation. The respondent Government admitted that the applicant was seen as a protagonist for the \u201ccause of the enclaved\u201d. The material taken from the applicant \u2013 and which had not been produced before the Court \u2013 had been confiscated as part of a programme of censorship of documents which persons sought to bring into the occupied areas. The Turkish Government had indeed confined themselves to saying that they \u201cbelieved\u201d that the confiscated material was \u201canti-Turkish, racist and defamatory\u201d. This amounted to a clear violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "329d9add-73ea-4e76-bfa7-bda48ad05462", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant considered that her conviction for the above\u2011mentioned statements had amounted to an unlawful interference with her right to freedom of expression. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, she considered that the domestic courts had failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of Article <mask> of the Convention. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments. Value judgments were only excessive if they were not linked to facts, whereas her incriminated statements had been based on facts. The applicant stressed that by stating that Muhammad had had sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old, she had quoted a historically proven fact and raised the question whether this could be regarded as paedophilia; thus, she had based her value judgment on facts, which was always permissible under Article 10 of the Convention. Furthermore, through the impugned statements she had expressed criticism concerning Islam and the unreflecting imitation of Muhammad, in the framework of an objective and lively discussion, which the domestic courts had failed to take into account. Against that background, this had been an objective criticism of religion, had contributed to a public debate and had not been aimed at defaming the Prophet of Islam. Consequently, contrary to the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning, a sufficient factual basis had existed for her assessment that Muhammad\u2019s behaviour had amounted to paedophilia. She added that she had held a seminar extending over a number of days with an overall duration of twelve hours, and therefore a few \u201cindividual statements\u201d had to be tolerated in order to allow for a lively discussion, which was a necessary part of such a seminar."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "152793d3-6132-4619-80e3-ef1dec42170d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government considered that, should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the aforementioned claim would be excessive. Whereas the applicant should be reimbursed the sums she had been ordered to pay in the Supreme Court's judgment, there could be no causal link between the other alleged pecuniary damage and any violation of Article 10."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c257c3ef-7652-4e01-b2f4-f9107c3f919a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant also appeared to suggest that the BBC, acting under Royal Charter, was a public authority as was Anglia Television which acted under the authority of the ITC constituted under the Broadcasting Act 1990. Even assuming that those media could rely on their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, their broadcasts, he argued, also constituted unjustified interferences with his private life. The Government did not consider that the applicant had, in fact, made that submission and, in any event, denied that either the BBC or Anglia Television could be regarded as State bodies or public authorities within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They relied, inter alia, on relevant domestic provisions and the conclusions to be drawn from the inclusion in Article 10 of the Convention of the phrase concerning the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. "], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6344bb4f-68d1-4fff-a6c1-1682cfd4e0ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government suggested that, since the applicant had been acquitted in 2005, he could no longer be considered a victim. They further contended that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; since he had not at any stage in the domestic proceedings relied on the provisions of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e1e951fd-e81f-4c4b-851d-46c3913341ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that his dismissal from the State television company on the ground of publishing a book including internal documents of his employer amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression and in particular his right to impart information and ideas to third parties. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "9704136a-8f47-41d3-8be4-a3e5ef86f3cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government considered that in the event that a violation was found, such a finding should constitute sufficient compensation for the applicant company. In addition, the Government contested the causal link between the fine imposed on the applicant company pursuant to the domestic legislation and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the applicant company could have lodged an application with the domestic courts for the reimbursement of the amount they had paid as a fine under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code governing compensation in cases of an illegal act or an omission on the part of the State. In any event, the Government submitted certificates from the relevant fiscal authorities attesting to the fact that the applicant company had paid EUR 100,000 and not EUR 200,000 as they had erroneously maintained."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6b4001bd-7fb5-4bab-b540-3133895056f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government further noted that the ECJ had held that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, in judgments nos. 242/2009 and 243/2009 the Consiglio di Stato had held that national television was not a transfrontier service and that the applicant company, as a licence holder, was entitled to take part in competitive, non-discriminatory procedures for the allocation of frequencies from 1 January 2008. This result had been achieved with the ministerial decree of 11 December 2008 (see paragraph 16 above), in which the applicant company had been allocated channel 8 on the VHF III frequency band, which had become available as a result of the transition to digital broadcasting."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "14e195c2-2484-4192-a095-06b1833c874b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant company complained about the authorities\u2019 refusal to allow it to film, inside a prison, an interview with a detainee serving a sentence for murder. The company alleged that as a result of that refusal it had not been able to broadcast the interview as planned in the \u201cRundschau\u201d programme about the trial of a person accused in the same murder case. It considered that this was a violation of its right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "26cf893c-05d8-403f-90e3-0c24c1ecc3b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["214.  The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning an interference with his right to freedom of expression. The Court notes, however, that the Government did not provide any arguments whatsoever in support of their claim. Nor did they indicate any remedies which could have been used by the applicant. There are therefore no grounds to allow the Government\u2019s claim and it must be dismissed."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b01566cf-4d0a-4892-b9e8-359611f2a865", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant further maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He insisted that the authorities had persecuted him for his journalistic activity and his publication of articles on serious environmental issues. He also contended that the impugned information could have been found in public sources, and in particular in reports by various environmental organisations, that it was of minor importance and that it could not therefore be regarded as a State secret."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "45ce7948-4025-4c19-8fec-855fe4bbd699", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government submitted that Article 10 was not applicable in the present case. In any event they stated that the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of the protection of national security and was necessary in a democratic society in view of the applicants\u2019 lack of loyalty to the State. The applicants had not been punished for their views, be they views which they hold at present or views that they might have held in the past. The KGB Act had not imposed a collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there had been a well-founded suspicion that the applicants had been lacking in loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "cfd4119c-9d2b-444d-b6c7-2c071f18cf8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["1.  The applicants, the director of a local news portal and two of its journalists, were convicted of illegally accessing radio channels used by the police during the latter\u2019s activities, as the information so obtained by the journalists was considered confidential under the Italian Criminal Code. The Court finds no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. I concur in the judgment. However, I am writing separately as I consider the reasoning adopted by the Court to be somewhat too broad in substance."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "440cdd06-92c6-4267-a52a-17e4c22b668a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government contended that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression in the present case. They underlined in this connection the wording of the disclaimer and apologies ordered by the domestic courts, according to which those had been \u201cthe editorial office and the author\u201d, who had to provide them. Given the fact that, on one hand, the applicant had never admitted authorship of the impugned statement, and, on the other hand, that the author of the compilation which had contained the disclaimed statement, was the newspaper's journalist Mr L., the Government considered that the court order had not affected the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "edcebc61-f298-4e4e-a865-91ca1cc15f5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained that by concluding that he had committed defamation and by imposing an administrative fine and non-pecuniary damages on him, the County Court had infringed his right to freedom of expression. He also claimed that in order to present his defence and bring proof of the validity of his statements (proba verit\u0103\u0163ii), he was constrained to reveal his sources, that is, the two witnesses who were heard by the first\u2011instance court, which amounted to an additional interference with his freedom of expression. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d3ddc26e-b95e-4c60-a55b-bb5cce22fbec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government contested the complaint. They agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, but considered it in compliance with the terms of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, as regards the \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d requirement, they pointed out that the applicant had not been held criminally responsible but had only had an administrative penalty imposed on him, that the fine he had to pay \u2013 EUR 510 \u2013 had not been significant and the damages to be paid to B.K. and G.C. \u2013 EUR 2,551 for each of them \u2013 had been \u201cmoderate\u201d, and that prosecutors such as the two complainants in the criminal proceedings had to be seen as enjoying a higher degree of protection against criticism \u201ccompared to other public officials\u201d. Moreover, in his interview the applicant had not presented any facts or evidence in support of his allegations, which meant that his statements had gone \u201cfar beyond the acceptable threshold of constructive criticism\u201d. The Government pointed out also that Trud was the leading daily newspaper in Bulgaria, which meant that the applicant\u2019s interview had reached \u201ca particularly large audience\u201d. They contended that the applicant\u2019s impugned statements had clearly been directed against specific individuals, including B.K. and G.C., whom he had insulted, calling them in particular \u201ctrash\u201d, and did not amount to general criticism against the work of the Sofia district public prosecutor\u2019s office. This meant that the applicant\u2019s statements did not contribute towards any legitimate public debate related most notably to the work of the prosecution in Bulgaria."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e80a70d1-ecb8-4aed-bd4b-bbba8f496ee3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government contended that the injunction issued against the applicant constituted an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention which was, however, justified under \u00a7 2 of this provision. It had a legal basis, namely Section 1330 of the Civil Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of protection of the reputation of others. As to the necessity of the interference, they argued that the Austrian courts classified the applicant's statements as statements of facts. An essential element for this classification was that the applicant had not given any explanation for his statements which was thus not discernible as a value judgment. There was no factual basis to enable the reader to evaluate himself why the applicant had come to his conclusions. Therefore, it appeared legitimate that the Austrian courts attributed to the statements at issue the meaning usually conveyed by similar reproaches, namely that the plaintiffs had been guided by improper and unlawful motives. The applicant himself had endorsed this interpretation as, in his appeal with the Regional Court, he had argued why the teachers' conduct had allegedly been unlawful. However, the Austrian courts, after comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, came to the conclusion that these accusations were factually incorrect. The measures taken by the Austrian courts were proportionate, as the applicant was merely ordered to refrain from making further such statements which did not hinder him to express his opinion in other less defamatory or insulting words. The Government finally argued that, even assuming that the statements at issue were value judgments, the interference was proportionate as the applicant's statements were unsubstantiated and the details of the underlying conflict were not known to the public. Such extremely harsh, excessive and generalising criticism was not justified by the applicant's interest in several-day excursions abroad."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5a8863a0-5248-4091-b6ac-1a112d0fa319", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant essentially submits that the Government are under a positive obligation to provide effective protection for the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Given the terms of Article <mask> of the Convention, the absence of an effective domestic remedy as regards invasions of privacy by the press constitutes a failure to effectively respect her right to respect for her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see Earl and Countess Spencer v. the United Kingdom, nos. 28851/95 and 28852/95, Commission decision of 16 January 1998, Decisions and Reports 92-A, p. 56)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "9f41e4d7-d1dc-4845-b4ab-068cbd8a0c98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government argued that the interference was prescribed by law. Section 38(1) of the 1881 Act was an integral part of the published and accessible legislation. Moreover, case-law had established that the impugned prohibition applied to all documents from criminal case files and had set its scope, which included extracts from such documents (they cited Tourancheau and July, cited above, \u00a7 26). Lastly, the domestic courts had examined the relevant publications in the light of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 47 above)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4ac6e721-33ee-429e-9efc-8a54f9177c76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government maintained that the Court had only a limited role in reviewing the compatibility of the national electoral systems with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Government also referred to the interrelation between the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (freedom of expression) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, and to the States\u2019 wide margin of appreciation in establishing a fair balance between these two guarantees."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "bc352e7a-1626-43fe-8f20-bfd24ef9bd44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that there had been an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, in the application form, the applicant made lengthy and detailed submissions criticising the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted before the first-instance court, especially the appointment of experts and admission of evidence and the manner in which the first\u2011instance court and the Court of Cassation had assessed the evidence and the applicable procedural rules. In this connection, the applicant emphasised what he described as the inappropriate way in which the domestic courts had praised the plaintiff in their decisions. In his view these flaws in the proceedings demonstrated that the domestic courts lacked the requisite impartiality vis-\u00e0-vis the plaintiff, and that they had been unduly influenced by his status. He claimed a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "92fa1d76-9471-44d8-952c-403db44683d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.   The applicant association further complained about having been discriminated against vis-\u00e0-vis the journalist M. and other animal rights activists who had been allowed to continue the publication of the impugned material. It submitted, in particular, that there was no reason to treat the applicant association any differently from the other animal rights activists. It furthermore referred to the proceedings in Switzerland (see paragraph 28, above). It relied on Article 14 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 14 of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "810d87d3-877b-4e17-ae6d-6fad1a9cff43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The Government pointed out that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, regulation of the activities of television companies was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention, which did not prevent States from examining the technical aspects, the rights and needs of a specific audience, the nature and objectives of channels, their potential audience at national and local level, and the obligations deriving from international undertakings (see Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "af718279-09d4-418a-9744-dc6eeb9cd02d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable, since the findings in the case of T\u00e1rsas\u00e1g a Szabads\u00e1gjogok\u00e9rt v. Hungary (no. 37374/05, \u00a7 14, April 2009, hereinafter referred to as \u201cT\u00e1rsas\u00e1g\u201d) could not be decisive in the present application. In that case, in the absence of an objection from the Government, the Court had not been required to examine the applicability of Article 10. They added that their concession with regard to the applicability of Article 10 in the T\u00e1rsas\u00e1g case had been based exclusively on domestic-law considerations and could not serve as a basis for expansion of the Convention into areas which it had not been intended to cover."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ea6406e2-f186-4d84-8fa3-8a05aa0fc853", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government disputed the existence of a causal link between these costs and expenses and the events now found by the Court to have violated the Convention. They assumed that any violation which the Court might find, if violation there were, would relate to the lack of procedural safeguards. In their view, the seizure of the journalistic materials as such was a distinct issue; the decisions of the domestic authorities had not in themselves been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention and could therefore not give rise to an award of the sums claimed by the applicant company."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "82b38332-42dc-4344-88a7-d993973e806d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicants argued that their detention had violated both their freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention and their freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The interference with those rights by their detention had not been justified. It had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and had not pursued a legitimate aim for the reasons they set out in relation to Article 5 \u00a7 1 (see paragraph 57 above). In particular, it had been uncertain if, when and where the applicants would display the banners \u201cFreedom for prisoners\u201d and \u201cFree all now\u201d. Doing so would, furthermore, not have been an offence under the Criminal Code. The slogans could not have been understood as an incitement to a very uncommon crime but had had a different, more obvious meaning. With more than 1,000 demonstrators having been detained in connection with the G8 summit but only 100 detentions having been approved by the courts, there had been more than enough reason to criticise the deprivations of liberty that had taken place in connection with the summit."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "aca8d64f-c489-4b1a-ba6f-a9b4cb8e2cb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant further argued that it was of no relevance for the assessment of whether the facts of the case amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal case against the applicant had been instituted by J.K., bringing a private prosecution in the local court. The only relevant fact was that the applicant had been convicted and that this conviction had been by a court acting in the name of the respondent State, whose responsibility was thereby engaged."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4657e0fa-96e2-4130-982e-97f0d7223370", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that he had been fined and ordered to pay damages in relation to the complaints he had made to various competent public authorities, as well as for expressing his concerns and his own opinion on posters in his shop. He claimed that that was in breach of his right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "976e4b3f-0254-4916-9c54-126d7fcfb677", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government argued that Article 10 was not applicable in the current case. In their opinion, the acts for which the applicant had been convicted could not be considered as journalistic investigation because they had not resulted in the publication of the information in question. The Government therefore raised an objection of incompatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3b7e7166-41cb-4a02-8602-864cec204202", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government agreed that the applicants\u2019 conviction, the fines imposed on them and the obligation to pay costs and damages to K.U. constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government agreed with the applicants that the impugned measures had had a basis in Finnish law, in particular in Chapter 24, section 9, of the Penal Code. The interference had also had a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the private life of others."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d3de506d-086b-4bba-a4bd-c5db1ffeddcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that she had been compelled to disclose information that had enabled a journalistic source to be identified, in violation of her right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. In her submission, the interference with her freedom of expression was not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society. The applicant further asked the Court to clarify the duties of the State under this provision in these circumstances. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "2605eaeb-1d29-4d67-9b44-453e6e259f1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. According to them it is of essential importance that the freedom of expression not only stipulates the right to hold opinions, but also imposes duties and responsibilities, and therefore cannot be interpreted as allowing the promotion or dissemination of the ideas of ethnic hatred, hostility and the superiority of one nation vis-\u00e0-vis other ethnic groups. The Government admitted that by imposing an administrative punishment there was interference with the applicant's freedom of expression; however it had been justified by the necessity to protect the democratic values on the basis of which Lithuanian society is based. Stressing the sensitivity of the questions related to national minorities and territorial integrity after the re-establishment of independence on 11 March 1990, the Government submitted that \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d was clearly promoting the extreme ideology of nationalism, which rejected the idea of the integration of civil society, incited ethnic hatred and intolerance, and questioned territorial integrity and promoted national superiority, which had been proved by the notes sent by the embassies of the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation. By withdrawing the publication from distribution and imposing an administrative warning on the applicant, the authorities had sought to prevent the spreading of ideas which might violate the rights of ethnic minorities living in Lithuania as well as endanger Lithuania's relations with its neighbouring countries. In view of the clear threat to these legitimate interests posed by the publication, as well as the minor nature of the penalty ordered against the applicant, the Government considered that the interference had been compatible with the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ccd3609a-208b-4331-8a62-b590e557e397", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government argued that the freedom of expression enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention was not absolute. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 formulated certain conditions and restrictions concerning its exercise. Journalists, in order to comply with the duties and responsibilities referred to in that provision, were obliged to act in good faith and to provide accurate and reliable information to the public."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "1690a3dd-7146-4544-9bc3-49320410f335", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a breach of the right to information and dignity. The Court notes that the applicant failed to elaborate any further and to substantiate the violation complained of. As a result, this complaint must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "cd58c807-753d-4b01-8f60-c0baeb411c4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the French courts had convicted him of aiding and abetting public defamation of a civil servant on account of statements he had made during a television programme called Tout le monde en parle, broadcast on France 2 during the night of 23 to 24 October 1999. He complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is worded as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "bb243793-d4ea-4a71-b360-9929b0d95320", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government maintained their argument stated above (see paragraph 40) that the present case essentially concerned a labour dispute governed by the provisions of private law. They reiterated that the applicant had been dismissed after having addressed an email to the Rector of the University which contained illegal requests as well as threats and blackmail. They considered that a distinction should be drawn between the expression of criticism that might disturb or offend other persons, on the one hand, and incitement to perform unlawful activities that infringed individuals\u2019 honour and dignity on the other. The latter was at issue in the present case, as the applicant\u2019s behaviour constituted a particularly grave infringement of the principles of ethics and breached the University\u2019s staff regulations and the provisions of the Labour Law. Therefore the content of the email written by the applicant \u2013 an incitement to perform illegal activities \u2013 did not enjoy the protection afforded by Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the Government asserted that the applicant had failed to substantiate which prior public remarks had formed the alleged basis for his dismissal, and pointed out that the Rector had not made any statements to the effect that the applicant should be dismissed from the University because of his criticism towards it."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "71043ea9-707a-49f2-900a-2e8960c0a131", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant association argued that the public exhibition of a painting contributed to a debate between the artist, the exhibitor and the public and was therefore protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. It accepted that the impugned interference was prescribed by law, but maintained that the interference had been neither necessary nor proportionate. It submitted that the Government's submissions as regards the protection of morals were irrelevant as in the present case the domestic courts had based their decisions merely on Mr Meischberger's prevailing personal interests as protected under section 78 of the Copyright Act. Mr Meischberger could not, however, claim any personal interest worth protecting as the painting obviously did not state or suggest that the way in which he was portrayed corresponded to his actual behaviour. The painting presented the artist's personal history in an allegorical way and depicted, among several other well-known persons, the painter himself and some of his friends and benefactors. All these persons were depicted engaging in sexual acts, reflecting the painter's conception of the interrelation between power and sexuality. Mr Meischberger had been one of the figures who had characterised the history of the FP\u00d6 party in the past few years, and he had been portrayed with the other three members as an allegory of that party, which had always strongly criticised the painter's work. Furthermore, Mr Meischberger and, in any event, the actions he considered libellous were not recognisable after the painting had been partly damaged. In the applicant association's view, the fact that he had instituted proceedings only after the painting had been partly damaged demonstrated that rather than protecting his personal interests he was aiming to discredit the painter's work."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c42e8252-8ebc-4057-b41c-3304b8089a78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained of the impossibility of accessing his Internet site as a result of a measure ordered in the context of criminal proceedings which were wholly unrelated to his site. In his view, the measure amounted to an infringement of his freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "15ad7df9-4431-4381-bf50-49167d16cd6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the interference with her right to freedom of expression had been based on the decisions of the domestic courts. As the applicant did not complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the impugned court proceedings were unfair, and as the Court had limited jurisdiction regarding the assessment of the facts and the application of the law by the domestic courts, the Government invited the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b28ae570-c469-4d67-b38e-57b9eff4e6ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, inter alia, that there had been a lack of intent, which was a necessary requirement for any criminal conviction. Even though the applicant has not lodged any complaint specifically under Article 7 of the Convention, the Court considered that his above-mentioned complaint under Article 10 fell to be examined also under Article 7 and for that reason communicated the complaint from the standpoint of the legality principle."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "98248110-174d-49f6-81a6-6836da3d2856", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government considered these claims unfounded. They submitted that some of the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings were not related to the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (in connection with the Ombudsman\u2019s review and other discussions between the applicant and her lawyer). They also considered that the applicant had not adduced adequate details of the breakdown of the work carried out in relation to the domestic and Strasbourg proceedings. Lastly, the Government argued that the amount claimed for legal services was unreasonably high."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7805c8d6-5e0c-42e3-b942-c880eaa5b6fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicants also pointed out that the District Court, when dismissing the charges against the first applicant, had found that his criticism had not overstepped the limits of propriety. When doing so, the District Court had not referred at all to Article <mask> of the Convention, including, in particular, the \u201cnecessity\u201d requirement in Article 10 \u00a7 2. It had found that neither the first applicant nor the complainant had made a false statement. The complainant could himself be criticised for having used similar expressions in his programme. Moreover, both parties had had the opportunity to state their opposing views in Seura magazine."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8f294f07-9802-49b7-a7d0-d66c991bdbcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant argued (see paragraphs 31-32 above) that she had made the impugned media statements in the exercise of her constitutionally guaranteed right of reply. She added that she had acted primarily with a view to responding to what she had seen as groundless criticism of her in the same newspaper by another officer of the same company, namely the chairman of its General Meeting, who had also been the municipal mayor. In that connection the Court reiterates that the right of rectification or of reply, as an important element of freedom of expression, falls within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Kaperzy\u0144ski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, \u00a7 66, 3 April 2012, and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX). This flows from the need not only to be able to contest untruthful information, but also to ensure a plurality of opinions, especially in matters of general interest (ibid.). At the same time, the restrictions and limitations of the second paragraph of Article 10 are equally pertinent to the exercise of that right (see Melnychuk, cited above)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d18955b3-96d8-40e3-a9c0-67d0e8ccfdff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["223.  The Government argued that the taking of Mr Savchenko to the police station and, indirectly, the termination of his solo demonstration were related to his use of foul language in a public place rather than to the fact that he was holding a demonstration. While the applicant has not argued that use of foul language was protected under Article <mask> of the Convention, he has contested that during his demonstration he used any utterances that could be perceived as foul language. Indeed, it remains unclear what exact words were allegedly uttered by and held against the applicant. The domestic decisions, in particular those issued by the courts, do not contain an adequate assessment as to whether the words concerned could be reasonably classified as \u201cfoul language\u201d."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "de7769f1-20f9-4bd6-b40b-07d22db7c602", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant concluded that the authorities had overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them. Moreover, the national courts\u2019 findings had been based on an assessment of the relevant facts which could not be considered reasonable and justified and failed to interpret the matter in the light of the principles set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, punishing the applicant for having published the interview in question was a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression and constituted a violation of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4c1596b0-edd8-4203-be64-adc1ab8bae50", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicant company alleged a violation of its right to freedom of expression, and especially its freedom to impart information and ideas. It complained in particular that for a period of almost ten years the Government had not allocated it any frequencies for analogue terrestrial television broadcasting. It submitted that the failure to apply Law no. 249/1997 (see paragraphs 56-61 above), the failure to enforce the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments nos. 420/1994 and 466/2002 (see paragraphs 54-55 and 62 above) and the duopoly existing in the Italian television market were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "093355f2-f62c-4322-aed7-e9f3b8591007", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant company\u2019s rights had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. There was no doubt that it had had a basis in law and had served the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.  As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Government averred that the statements contained in the impugned article had for the most part been statements of fact. It had been stated that the then Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General were tolerating a prosecutor who was a drug dealer. Furthermore, it had been stated as a fact that the claimant had been present at the scene of the drug transaction as a guarantee of security.  Although the claimant had not been referred to by her full name, a detailed description had made her identity obvious to local legal circles, in particular as her position as spokesperson for the Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office had been mentioned. One of the witnesses had confirmed this. The claimant had suffered negative consequences immediately after the article had been published."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "403ae08a-5f0b-46e9-b315-188f7b177ec8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Sofia City Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation had been biased, because they had wrongly assessed the evidence, had grossly misconstrued the applicable law, including Article <mask> of the Convention, and had not approached the case as neutral adjudicators, instead seeking to justify her dismissal."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "9fc1fb37-2af1-4a2b-b864-fb994e43b7c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant argued that the trial court had not taken all reasonable measures to ensure the attendance of I.B. and \u0160e.A. at the hearing. Firstly, the trial court could have used the international legal assistance available under the \u201cTreaty between Slovenia and the Republic of Macedonia concerning Legal Aid in Civil and Criminal Matters\u201d to request that I.B. and \u0160e.A. be questioned by a court of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with the participation of the applicant and counsel (see paragraph 41 above). Secondly, the Slovenian judge, the defendants and counsel could have travelled to the relevant country to examine the two witnesses. Thirdly, under section 244a of the Criminal Procedure Act (see paragraph 39 above), the witnesses could have been questioned by video-conference. Moreover, the trial court could have requested assistance from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under the European Convention on Mutual assistance in Criminal Matters and, in particular, Article 9 of the Second Additional Protocol to that Convention (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above). With respect to Italy, the Slovenian authorities could have relied on Article <mask> of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (see paragraph 44 above). The applicant further argued that if any of those measures had been used then the length of the proceedings would not have become unreasonable and the criminal offence would not have become time-barred."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d9eaebcf-1d59-40e8-83da-781fc03d9591", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant companies maintained that the interference with their right to impart information had not been necessary in a democratic society as there had been an overriding public interest in reporting in every detail on the case in issue. The applicant companies\u2019 reporting concentrated on the perpetrators of the crime, but in view of the very nature of the criminal offence \u2013 violence and sexual abuse within the family \u2013 this meant that reporting on the offenders, that is the parents, and the criminal proceedings against them, necessarily revealed the identity of the victim C. The press must be allowed to report in an identifying manner on crimes of sexual abuse of minors within the family revealing the identity of the offender, as accurate and detailed reporting also served to protect and help the victims of such crimes. A restriction on detailed reporting and on revealing the identity of the offenders was not only in contradiction to Article <mask> of the Convention but also against the principle of victim protection as it would protect the offenders from public attention but not the victim."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e1527e36-d28a-494a-acf4-a353c45aaf27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government observed that the nature and severity of the punishment was also to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of the interference under Article <mask> of the Convention. In the De Diego Nafr\u00eda judgment, cited above, the Court had considered that, even though a dismissal had serious consequences for the employment relationship of a worker who had overstepped the acceptable limits of criticism, in assessing the proportionality of the interference it was necessary to take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In the present case, the Spanish courts had assessed the direct damage caused to the reputation of the persons mentioned in the union newsletter, through coarse and insulting comments and images. Even if the applicants\u2019 opinions could be regarded as legitimate, they had been expressed in a gratuitously offensive manner, being in written form and deliberate."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6c33c796-1c76-43d2-bd45-00d66d2fcc38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government maintained that the applicants\u2019 dismissal from their posts, following their statement of 24 February 2008, was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Their dismissal was prescribed by law as it had been based, in particular, on section 40, subsection 1, point (j), of the Diplomatic Service Act which provided that a diplomat should be dismissed from office if he violated any of the restrictions prescribed in section 44 of the Act. One of those restrictions was that a diplomat had no right to use his official capacity and work facilities for the benefit of political parties or non\u2011governmental organisations, or in order to carry out other political or religious activity. Contrary to what the applicants claimed, at the relevant time the existence of a single element made the provision applicable. This Act was both accessible and foreseeable and the notions used in it were sufficiently clear. The Act had been designed to cover relations within the diplomatic service and it was thus designed for professionals. The applicants had had from 11 to 15 years\u2019 professional experience as members of diplomatic corps. Had they been uncertain about the content of the Act, they could have sought advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Taking into consideration the applicants\u2019 positions and professional experience, they had to be aware of the legal framework regulating their service, including the restrictions. They had also been well aware of the political situation in Armenia, the character of their public statement and its possible impact. The applicants could, and must, have foreseen the consequences of their statement, especially as the ambassadors who had issued the original statement had been dismissed from their posts the day before and their dismissal had been widely reported in the media."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d41e3093-ba2c-4c46-bc1d-275ef4cba086", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant submitted that her dismissal had been the result of the airing in her show of the results of journalistic investigations that revealed unpleasant facts about the then ruling political party. There had been a direct causal link between her show and the ensuing disciplinary measures against her. Those measures had infringed her freedom of expression. She had had the right to select the persons who were to take part in the show, and had not breached the technical rules or the weekly schedule, because she had obtained the agreement of the editor in charge, who had approved the show\u2019s script, topics and participants. Her disciplinary dismissal had had nothing to do with the breaches set out in the order of the BNR director general, and the ensuing dispute had been an employment one only ostensibly, while in reality having a deeply political subtext. That assessment had been shared by the entire journalistic guild, and had been reflected in declarations made by the Union of Bulgarian Journalists and other organisations. Even the Supreme Court of Cassation had, by saying in its judgment in the applicant\u2019s case that Article <mask> of the Convention allowed limitations on the exercise of freedom of expression, acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had related to the exercise of her freedom of expression. That dismissal had been a direct result of the exercise of the applicant\u2019s profession as a journalist and of the disclosure of unpleasant facts about the then ruling political party."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c3dbb7c9-b5ef-4214-a965-ddbc8071b81d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant considered that the ban on his accessing the websites of the Council of Europe Information Office in Tallinn, the Chancellor of Justice and the Riigikogu violated his right to receive information and was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that he had been engaged in a number of court proceedings against the Estonian prison system. The information available on the websites in question was relied on by the Estonian courts; thus, the applicant also needed access to this information in order to be able to protect his rights."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "2219dcfc-3677-40f3-a65f-8ebbb55d79bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the domestic courts had found that the impugned passages constituted not the opinions of or speculations by the authors of the article but statements of fact which had presented the plaintiff in a negative light. The newspaper had failed to verify the veracity of those statements prior to publication. Accordingly the domestic courts were right to rule in favour of the plaintiff and the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression was justified in terms of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view, there had been no violation of this Convention provision."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "afe7adc7-7814-4526-a145-23e477a324f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal implied that, during trial proceedings, a lawyer was not allowed to conclude from facts known to him that unacceptable pressure had been exerted on his client. He alleged a violation of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "66218574-3435-4727-b5e2-a3307dc02523", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that his conviction in criminal proceedings for the protest of 29 January 2013 amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 10 of the Convention alone, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "1e55f8af-d07a-4d24-9387-14e592e17bdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government did not accept that the interference with the applicant company\u2019s freedom of expression lacked an adequate legal basis for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention. Media companies in Ireland were familiar with the domestic rules on defamation and damages. The applicant company should have expected that the level of damages might be very high if the jury found that it had acted in a reprehensible manner against the plaintiff. Moreover, in the Independent News and Media case the Court had considered that the criterion of lawfulness was satisfied; there was no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "887e17a9-865d-4426-9533-e58b86aa8a43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government emphasised that the applicants had not been convicted for expressing strong criticism of the police, but exclusively for having taken it upon themselves to make the very specific, unsubstantiated and extremely serious accusation against the named chief superintendent that he had intentionally suppressed evidence in the murder case. The Danish Supreme Court had fully recognised that the present case involved a conflict between the right to impart ideas and the right to freedom of expression and the protection of the reputation of others, and it had properly balanced the various interests involved in the case in conformity with the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "240cc08e-f040-4d42-a84b-6bdc3e82cc86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government denied that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they argued that the domestic authorities had not had the information sought by the applicant. According to the Government, Russian law required information centres to prepare crime statistics reports by processing statistical data cards. Data cards differed in type and covered a wide range of information related to a specific crime committed. The data processing carried out by the information centres was predominantly manual and not all information from the data cards was processed. Only selected types of crimes and parameters were included in crime statistics reports."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4b0de54d-2c5c-4986-962b-bdcb092715ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government did not contest that the impugned judgments constituted an interference with the applicant company\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and submitted that it had been prescribed by law, in particular by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, that it had followed the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others and that it had been necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "bde6338c-8323-470e-88e1-e0c990203fe0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government did not dispute that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable and that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under that provision. In their view, that interference had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d \u2013 sections 45 and 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1951 \u2013, and had been intended to protect the reputation and rights of others."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "eb7ba5e6-215f-47bd-bb0f-49e1f05458df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713, and his subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Referring in particular to the Court\u2019s judgments in Savg\u0131n v. Turkey (no. 13304/03, 2 February 2010) and G\u00fcl and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010), the applicant claimed that his conviction had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4b2803c8-848b-444e-8f79-ec9aaf2f2005", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government submitted that the disciplinary action against the applicant, followed by his removal from the position of chief prosecutor on account of the manner in which he had presented to the press information concerning the pending criminal investigation, could be considered as interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that such interference was provided for by law. The disciplinary offences of which the applicant had been accused and the sanction imposed on him were defined in Law 303/2004. Moreover, in his capacity as the staff member assigned to impart information to the press, the applicant should have complied with the practice guidelines regulating cooperation by the courts and prosecutors with the media adopted by the SCM (Decision no. 277/2006) and with the provisions of Order no. 116/2007 of the General Prosecutor."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "1213d337-7a15-4f45-9874-2a21aa7a6916", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government contended that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The third sentence of Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention specifically envisaged the power of States to require broadcasting licences. This requirement applied not only to technical aspects but also, as the Court had pointed out in Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, to other conditions, such as \u201cthe nature and objectives of a proposed station, its potential audience at national, regional or local level, [and] the rights and needs of a specific audience\u201d (see judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 14, \u00a7 32). In Switzerland, there was no audiovisual monopoly. Rather, the mixed system set up by the RTA provided for a plurality of media. Access thereto was nevertheless subject to a licence which was granted if certain conditions were met; the fact that no right was conferred did not contradict the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "707b3032-a9cc-4f32-922f-599d71921fd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had not been tried by an independent and impartial court on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Adana State Security Court which convicted him. He further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his criminal conviction and sentence had infringed his right to freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "26a9eb01-0b60-4d25-8114-c02648160963", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions imposing sanctions on him for expressing his views concerning a demonstration, which had been organised by the trade union of which he was the chairman, had violated his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. This provision in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4b5e411b-f279-4d5e-a258-92db2241f69a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government contested the existence of a causal link between the pecuniary damage suffered and the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the event of a violation being found under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government conceded that the applicant company was entitled to compensation. However, no calculation of the interest paid had been provided. The Government left it to the Court's discretion whether the applicant company had submitted sufficient documentation to support its claims."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5cde92f1-5912-45c3-b433-73babccb2e6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant also complained under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1-3 (a)-(d) and 8 of the Convention about the police putting pressure on him and, in particular, tapping his telephone. With a reference to Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant complained that he was unable to vote in the election of the Russian President on 2 March 2008 because of persecution by the police."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "a23ca81f-c145-49b3-aa16-a30ec50c10f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government submitted that both Article <mask> of the Convention (in referring to \u201cduties and responsibilities\u201d as well as to formalities, conditions and penalties) and the domestic law permitted the State to put in place a framework containing the procedure of and conditions of the information flow. While Article 10 of the Convention included the freedom to impart information, Russian law provided for constitutional \u201cfreedom of mass information\u201d along with the freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The Constitutional Court also recognised a higher degree of responsibility relating to the exercise of the freedom of mass information on a professional scale."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "9f055381-5311-415f-b2dd-aedc37f709b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants\u2019 request for information on public defenders in criminal proceedings was rejected by the domestic courts on the basis of the Hungarian Data Act (see paragraph 32 of the judgment), which provides that \u201cpersonal data\u201d, held by public authorities is not amenable to public access unless very limited exceptions are found to apply, which was not considered to be the case at domestic level. Thus, the Data Act prevented the domestic courts from examining the potential public-interest nature of the information (see paragraph 176 of the judgment), and this is an important element in the Court\u2019s reasoning in finding a violation of Article 10 on the facts of the case (see paragraph 199). In other words, the practical consequences of the Court\u2019s judgment is that member States of the Council of Europe may now have to change fundamentally their national freedom\u2011of\u2011information laws in order to take account of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention that logically flow from today\u2019s judgment. They will also, where relevant, have to reconcile those requirements with national and EU data-protection legislation."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "9e3d35e0-2152-46e3-ac78-5dbf6d2cd478", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contented, however, that it was prescribed by law and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 2 of Article 10. They argued in the first place that the Court of Appeal considered in detail the applicant company's submissions and set out clearly why, in the present case, Mr Kabas' interest in protection of presumption of his innocence continued beyond the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, the interpretation of section 7b of the Media Act in conformity with Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention called for an extensive understanding of the protection of the presumption of innocence. While there was certainly public interest in the discussion of the \u201cpolice information affair\u201d, Mr Kabas' right in the presumption of his innocence outweighed the applicant company's right to freedom of expression. In the impugned article the applicant company depicted Mr Kabas as already convicted and did not inform the reader that the charges against him had already thoroughly been examined by the Public Prosecutor's Office which had closed his file months ago. When weighing the respective interests, the domestic courts had furthermore had regard to the fact that Mr Kabas was not given the opportunity to comment. Moreover, the ex-post appraisal of the present case confirmed that the court's assessment was correct. As Mr Krei\u03b2l and Mr Kleindienst were finally both acquitted, the alleged assistance of Mr Kabas in their criminal acts was impossible. The Government further argued that the measures taken by the Austria courts were also proportionate."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "bbabcf48-7e1d-43a0-ac09-e7eb7631c435", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["147.  The applicant argued that public nudity was a clear form of expression within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The term \u201cexpression\u201d had been widely construed by the Court to cover various different forms of expression, including expression in words, in pictures, by video and through conduct intended to convey an idea or information. In his case, the decision not to wear clothes was a direct expression of his principled views on the human body. His complaint therefore fell within the scope of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e019d4de-f168-4656-9cb7-4c3c34b5cd53", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicants argued that the order to surrender the original documents, ostensibly for the purpose of restoring the documents to the AIVD, had in fact been intended to make possible the positive identification of the journalistic source. The applicants alleged a violation of their freedom, as purveyors of news, to impart information as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "9442ee00-abdc-4fb6-a24f-c881c9447e7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant company submitted that the advance viewing of the programme in issue by the Brussels Court of Appeal in order to monitor its content before it was broadcast, and the subsequent banning of the programme as a preventive measure, had infringed freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom to impart information, all of which were guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "34a90b3c-b648-448b-82e3-99243f5260cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["176.  The applicant\u2019s case is troubling, since his intransigence has led to his spending a substantial period of time in prison for what is \u2013 in itself \u2013 usually a relatively trivial offence (see paragraph 100 above). However, the applicant\u2019s imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public going about their ordinary business. Having regard to the considerations set out above and to the wide margin of appreciation, the Court finds that the reasons for the measures adopted by the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts, and in particular those adopted in respect of his arrest in 2011, were \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d and that the measures met a pressing social need in response to repeated anti-social conduct by the applicant. It cannot be said that the repressive measures taken in reaction to the particular, repeated form of expression chosen by the applicant to communicate his opinion on nudity were, even if considered cumulatively, disproportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued, namely the prevention of disorder and crime. In particular, Article 10 does not go so far as to enable individuals, even those sincerely convinced of the virtue of their own beliefs, to repeatedly impose their antisocial conduct on other, unwilling members of society and then to claim a disproportionate interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression when the State, in the performance of its duty to protect the public from public nuisances, enforces the law in respect of such deliberately repetitive antisocial conduct. Even though, cumulatively, the penalties imposed on the applicant undoubtedly did entail serious consequences for him, the Court cannot find in the circumstances of his case, having regard in particular to his own responsibility for his plight, that the public authorities in Scotland unjustifiably interfered with his exercise of freedom of expression. Accordingly, no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention has been established."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "0ce28d46-2e30-4b65-8449-31be9876a368", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and the plaintiff\u2019s rights protected under Article 8. In that regard they relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006); Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ([GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007\u2011IV); Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007); Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008); Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03, \u00a7 49, 22 May 2008); and OOO \u2018Vesti\u2019 and Ukhov v. Russia (no. 21724/03, \u00a7 62, 30 May 2013)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "13b8705c-f1d6-4fec-bf36-f4814ee3c450", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant disagreed. He maintained that the domestic courts had held him liable for inability to prove the truth of value judgments whereas the veracity of the underlying statements of fact had not even been contested. In particular, it had not been contested either that there had been significant financial contributions to the educational system, or that many boarding school pupils become social misfits. However, he was held liable for failure to prove the existence of a link between the two phenomena. Likewise, it had not been contested that Mr Geraschenko was the head of the entity responsible for the assessment of teachers. However, the applicant was found liable for expressing his opinion that given the situation teachers might have been afraid to voice their concerns. As for the last statement, the passage concerning purchases without tenders had been based on the earlier publication in Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The issue had also been discussed in the Bryanskoy Vremya issue of 16-22 September 2004. The misappropriation of funds had been subject to investigation by two commissions instituted by the Bryansk Administration. The passage concerning the \u201cdismissal of uncooperative members of staff\u201d was based on the fact that one of the authors, S.F., had been dismissed without any reasons for the dismissal having been provided to him. In the applicant\u2019s view, in the present case the domestic courts had overstepped the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to them for restriction on debates of public interest in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "43b1ad4c-0458-4be4-b452-89d458888915", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant alleged that his right to freedom of expression had been breached as a result of the administrative sanction applied to him. He contended that there had been an interference with his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention, but conceded that it had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. He doubted that the real aim of the sanction had been to protect the reputation of I.M. rather than to punish him for making many complaints against the region's leadership."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b6044536-a34e-442d-b532-1c2094401e88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants began by arguing that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable in the present case. They observed that in spite of their numerous endeavours they could not gain access to the radio station\u2019s studios and equipment, thus finding it impossible to secure the enforcement of the decision of 6 December 2002 and, consequently, being unable to exercise their profession of radio journalist. They mentioned that before and after the partnership agreement they had run the newsroom of Radio M Plus. In their submission, and contrary to what the Government had claimed, the radio station had continued to broadcast even after October 2002 when they were first refused access to the newsroom, the work of which had then been taken over by other journalists from the company Tele M. The applicants asserted that this situation was the result of a conflict between the first applicant and the local representatives of a major political party, who were annoyed by the first applicant\u2019s independent journalism. In this connection, the applicants referred to the Court\u2019s case-law to the effect that dismissal from employment following \u201ca course of action made up of an indeterminate number of acts of communication or expression that [the applicants] had committed over a period of several months, in the particular context of a labour dispute between them and their employer\u201d represented a breach of their right to freedom of expression (C\u00e2rstea and Grecu v. Romania (dec.), no. 56326/00, 21 September 2004). In their opinion, even though the present case did not concern a dismissal, in several aspects their situation was tantamount to a de facto dismissal, with similar effects: the inability for the applicants to exercise their profession as radio journalists. Moreover, they observed that the Court had previously examined, under Article 10 of the Convention, the impact of unlawful actions by third parties which were perceived as de facto obstacles to freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "44f6d7f8-9a49-4634-904a-f2aeda1fc14c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complains that the refusal to publish a paid advertisement by Rzeczpospolita, breached his right to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicant could not publish an advertisement in the Rzeczpospolita newspaper, owned by a limited liability company, as the publisher refused to publish that advertisement. Subsequently, the civil courts examined the applicant\u2019s claim for a decision ordering that newspaper to publish the advertisement. The courts found against him."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b9a4a69a-e154-463d-ba14-786500ee00fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not be considered the victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the domestic proceedings in question had been concerned with statements made by her late father and not by the applicant herself. The Government argued that, since the applicant had complained that she should not have been the defendant in the domestic proceedings, she could not at the same time complain that those proceedings had affected her freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d9076421-e19c-4a09-a1c6-1dd79a1d25ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant newspaper also considered that the wording of its article had been accurate and moderate. No information about the private life of V.S. had been discussed, and the information about allegations of his use of public funds had not been presented to the reader as an established fact. Moreover, the press was allowed a certain degree of exaggeration. The domestic courts had not analysed any of the above-mentioned elements in their judgments. They apparently simply insisted on the strict application of Article 16 \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 21 above): that the applicant newspaper had to prove the truth of what they had published. The law was thus so inflexible as to leave the courts no choice but to adopt judgments contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b4e501cc-f742-4f7a-81e9-f97169edc7bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant maintained that although it could be argued that some of the remarks published were statements of fact rather than value judgments, it was clear that this was not a sufficient reason for restricting her freedom of expression as a journalist under Article <mask> of the Convention. She had acted in good faith and her intention had not been to damage Mr Y\u2019s reputation but to contribute to an on-going social debate on the operation of strip clubs. The article had concerned a matter of serious public concern. By prohibiting dissemination of the information in question, the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment had entailed an unreasonable restriction on the applicant\u2019s journalistic freedom as protected by Article 10 that could not be regarded as \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. By having been required to adduce solid evidence as proof of Mrs Z\u2019s statements, the applicant had been faced with an unreasonable, if not an impossible, task (Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, \u00a7 65, Series A no. 239)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "af1cd06e-f959-4c73-b014-939024f72909", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant company complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on its right to freedom of expression in its case had not been prescribed by law as the Penal Code provision applied had not defined adequately the scope of private life. Nor had the restrictions been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. B. had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially since the case had been very newsworthy. Moreover, the information in the articles had in every respect been correct."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "15236712-5b6f-4aca-b06c-d8a1e45622c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant company argued that the open letter of Mr Heller fell under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. It was part of a debate in the media concerning cultural and educational policy which included fundamental political aspects, included true statements of fact and value-judgments based on a factual basis and addressed, inter alia, Mr Westenthaler as leading politician of the FP\u00d6 party. Consequently, the quotation of parts of this letter also enjoyed the protection of Article 10. In addition, the applicant company did not make the objectionable statements itself but restricted itself to a careful quotation. As criminal proceedings against Mr Heller were at that time pending, this information was of public interest. The structure and wording of the article at issue were neutral. Reporting about pending court proceedings could only be informative if also the subject of these proceedings was mentioned. The domestic courts had interpreted the article at issue and the applicant company's possibility of justifying the quotation of the impugned statements narrowly and in breach with Article 10 of the Convention. The mere fact that a statement had to be considered as an offence within the meaning of the relevant legislation did not imply that a report about such a statement amounted ipso iure to an offence against a person's honour. The wording of section 33 of the Media Act was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention as it did not provide for protection of a correct quotation. The measure at issue constituted a punishment which nature remained unchanged irrespective of the severity of its consequences. It had suffered material damage from the order of forfeiture."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3b0bb9ac-9421-4b71-8335-7e161e5b7f67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government argued that according to the Court\u2019s case-law (they cited Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia, no. 20981/10, 17 April 2014) offensive language enjoyed the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention only if its purpose was stylistic, whereas that protection was excluded if the sole purpose of such language was to insult. Since, in the Government\u2019s view, the impugned article consisted almost exclusively of insults (the headline itself represented an insult) that had no basis in fact (in respect of the allegations concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the search, breach of judicial ethics or conflict of interest) or wider context, they argued that the insults in question had not had any stylistic purpose. The Government thus considered that the article in question had constituted a gratuitous personal attack on Judge B.B., which was not protected under Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "292afc98-f4ff-46ed-bf62-eba479f661d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the breach of her freedom of expression suffered due to her criminal conviction, the subsequent civil defamation judgment rendered against her, and, also, the way in which the latter was enforced domestically, causing her, as it did, extreme financial hardship, numerous health problems and even endangering her very life. The applicant additionally referred to Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in this context, as well as to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5dee94f2-9c02-4789-8b6e-d51501b1f1ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government agreed that in the present case the refusals to register the titles of periodicals amounted to an interference with the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the compatibility of this interference with the restrictions laid down by the second paragraph of that Article in that it should be \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, the Government disagreed with the conclusion of the Commission that the domestic law at issue, the Press Act and the ordinance, had not been formulated with sufficient precision for the applicant to be able to regulate his conduct. In their view, the legislation in question was clear, comprehensible, precise and accessible. "], "obj_label": "10", "id": "64c16a7c-af06-4f97-b2ce-fec170f66845", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants complained about the Vienna Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment of 13 December 2007 and the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 26 March 2009 in the main proceedings under the Copyright Act. They asserted that the injunction prohibiting them from further publishing Mr K\u00fcchl\u2019s picture in the context of specific statements had violated their right to impart information as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b6244cce-02e7-411c-a7e1-27abcf3b8148", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant complained that the real reason for her repatriation was the quarrel that she had had with the commander of Police Precinct no. 19, in violation of her right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention the applicant complained that she had been expelled from Romania although she had been granted a temporary visa valid from 5 to 12 May 2000 and that her expulsion had taken place before she had had the opportunity to challenge the measure."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ff8bb075-9ab0-47dc-9b66-fce747791532", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government acknowledged that the finding against the applicant in defamation proceedings had constituted an interference with his freedom of expression. They maintained that the interference had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, it had been based on foreseeable and accessible legal provisions and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation of a civil servant. In addition to that, the interference had not been disproportionate to the aim pursued. The disputed statements had contained numerous factual allegations, the accuracy of which the applicant had been unable to prove during the domestic proceedings. Those statements had therefore been defamatory. Accordingly, it had fallen to the applicant to verify their accuracy before disclosing the content of the letter at a public meeting. The applicant had not known the identities of all the authors of the disputed letter, and those identities could also not be discerned during the meeting. Accordingly, the domestic courts had correctly classified the letter as an anonymous application by citizens, which the applicant had had no right to read publicly, especially without verifying the facts. In view of the applicant\u2019s conduct, the defamatory statements had been widely disseminated in the small village where G.Sh. lived with his family. Thus, he had experienced considerable emotional distress, and his reputation as a civil servant had been negatively affected. In these circumstances, the symbolic fine imposed on the applicant had been justified and not disproportionate."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "553f7b35-db04-4601-a371-b0cffec83674", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of their right to freedom of expression, on the ground that they had been ordered to pay damages for reporting on pending criminal proceedings which dealt with a matter of general interest. Their intention had not been to reveal any information about X\u2019s private life. Article 10, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "30372f46-4bf4-42e9-b41d-67fb54887276", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts failed to apply the case law of the Strasbourg Court concerning Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular the case of Lingens v. Austria (judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103), in the assessment of their value judgments. The applicant also complained that the domestic courts found that the publications at issue did not correspond to the truth. It maintained that the courts were not able to distinguish between the \u201cvalue judgments\u201d and \u201cfacts\u201d contained in the impugned publications of 19 August 1999 and 14 September 1999. The applicant also alleged that the court decisions interfered with its right to impart information freely. The applicant invoked Article 10 of the Convention, which provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d25338d3-d99d-431c-b4b7-302617893461", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["186.  The applicant complained that the decisions of the CRTA finding that it had violated the provisions of Law 7(I)/1998 and the relevant regulations, and the imposition of a fine, constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. First, the applicant submitted that the provisions of the above Law and regulations had not been formulated with sufficient precision and clarity for the applicant to be able to regulate its conduct. They were drafted in general terms and covered all types of broadcasts, without taking into account their different nature and the need to apply varied standards depending on the particular broadcast. They were also excessively rigid and did not keep pace with changing circumstances and evolving societal attitudes."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3b43fa74-86ab-4702-b104-04091b573cde", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant submitted that his trial, which had lasted for more than seven years and which had resulted in his being convicted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, had amounted to an interference with his right guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. He also claimed that the interference in question had not been necessary in a democratic society. In that respect, he submitted that the book in question was like an historical novel and that, read in its entirety, it did not incite violence."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7a7a3737-6b57-4069-ae57-ee2edf97996b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant submitted that the refusal to publish a paid advertisement by Rzeczpospolita, which had subsequently been endorsed by the courts, had breached his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. His book concerned issues of public concern and interest, given that Gazeta Wyborcza was a powerful newspaper which played an important role in shaping the political views and attitudes of its numerous readers. The book aimed to present the general public with significant facts concerning the manner in which that newspaper had been created and how it had risen to its position of significance and power. No reviews of his book had ever been published in the printed media. The applicant was of the view that this was most likely to be because the book had been embarrassing for the publishers of Gazeta Wyborcza, who had been sufficiently feared and respected to be able to prevent anything hostile to it being published in the press. For an effective exercise of the freedom of expression and for a genuine political debate among citizens it was important that views and facts ignored or silenced by the mainstream media would be allowed to see the light of day. The applicant had been prevented from publishing the advertisement in Rzeczpospolita and also in a number of other newspapers. The fact that he had been silenced in that way breached both the Constitution and the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "45d40abd-046c-4a8a-83d0-3babb1c3f680", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government agreed that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable to the present case and that the criminal conviction of the applicants constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression as prescribed under the second section of that Article. However, the Government submitted that the criminal conviction and the sentence imposed were proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and thus necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "2933a85e-f6bb-4d9c-b684-da4cbf40287d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant complained that his mandate as President of the Supreme Court had been terminated as a result of the views he had expressed publicly in his capacity as President of the Supreme Court and the National Council of Justice, concerning legislative reforms affecting the judiciary. He alleged that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "2298dbd4-1ed7-4942-aa81-47743f4662cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants complained that the judgment against them did not meet a pressing social need and had therefore breached their right to freedom of expression. The fact that the case had not been initiated by the public prosecutor was proof of this, in their view. The applicants further claimed that the offending book had caused no prejudice to G.M.'s presumption of innocence, it being publicly known that he was under judicial investigation. In this connection they invoked their right to impart information in the context of an affair of state and argued that this public debate concerned the exercise of power, with its excesses and its checks and balances, and that the debate pre-dated the book's publication, the purpose of which was not to impede the investigation. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "72adc5cb-c981-43f1-946d-5b9ae2335ba3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government rejected this complaint as manifestly ill-founded. In his interview the prosecutor had not asserted that the applicant had been or would be found guilty. He had spoken only about the applicant\u2019s complicity in the crimes. Article <mask> of the Convention guarantees the freedom of speech, and newspapers carry only authors\u2019 personal opinions, which the courts can choose to ignore. Article 6 \u00a7 2 may not stop the authorities from reporting on ongoing criminal investigations (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, \u00a7 38, Series A no. 308). The prosecutor had told the interviewer merely about facts found by the investigation. The article had not been an official statement; it merely continued a series of the newspaper\u2019s own reports on crime in the town. The prosecutor had been discreet and tactful. Such interviews had proven successful against violent crime."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "1bd167fc-8810-415b-961d-a9f42f6574cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case because the applicant had not been punished by the domestic court for his ideas or the information which he had been imparting but for his behaviour. The content of the applicant\u2019s statements had been, in the Government\u2019s view, irrelevant for the assessment of whether he had deserved disciplinary punishment. He had in fact received disciplinary punishment for breaching the dignity of the court and for hampering its work."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d41beddb-cd38-4432-aa08-724625e5ea7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant argued that the purely formal notion of secrecy, on which Article 293 of the Criminal Code was based and which had been confirmed by the Federal Court, had adverse consequences for freedom of expression. According to that provision, the publishing by an official of any document, regardless of its content, which had been declared secret or confidential had to be punished, without it being possible to review the compatibility of the penalty imposed with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the applicant\u2019s view, such a definition of secrecy was clearly at odds with the requirements of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f25ad0b6-bb39-4980-8c4c-440307b94b30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government argued that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions were intended to protect Mr and Mrs Aubrac from defamation in a case in which the damage to their reputation was considerable given the accusation of treachery that had been levelled against them. The decisions were thus aimed at \u201cthe protection of the reputation or rights of others\u201d and the interference had pursued a legitimate aim for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "024c6434-cb45-4ca3-835e-849fd79b0ee3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant maintained that her conviction for criminal insult because of the article she had written and published in Politika on 7 September 2003 had been a clear interference with her right of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. She accepted that it was \u201cin accordance with law\u201d as required by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, and that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. However, she maintained that her criminal conviction, although it had entailed a judicial warning, had been disproportionate under the circumstances of the case, in particular since it had caused her later dismissal from Politika, and represented a threat and warning to all Serbian journalists."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e4e3e0e2-438a-4d8e-bb42-1e4759123bb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the articles had in every respect been correct. The restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ba5f9d92-ea5f-43a6-8153-05b7d50c59b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant insisted that he had checked the accuracy of facts with a reasonable degree of care, as might be required from a journalist. He had obtained and submitted to the domestic courts medical reports noting Mr S.\u2019s injuries, the records of the confessions made by Mr S. and Mr M. at the police station and copies of Mr S.\u2019s and Mr M.\u2019s complaints about ill-treatment. Mr S. and Mr M. had confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the article. However, the domestic courts had dismissed that evidence as untrustworthy without explaining the reasons for that finding. The fact that the authorities had refused to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the allegations of ill-treatment had not, in itself, proved that the information published by the applicant had been untrue. The applicant had mentioned in his article that the authorities had refused to initiate criminal proceedings and had criticised them for that. The purpose of the article had been to denounce the authorities\u2019 failure to investigate the allegations of police brutality. The applicant maintained that there existed a sufficient factual basis for his statement. Although he had failed to prove in court that his description of the events at the police station had been true in all its particulars, he was still under the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. Even harsh criticism in strong, polemical language published \u201con a slim factual basis\u201d was protected under Article 10 (see Dichand and Others v. Austria, no. 29271/95, \u00a7 52, 26 February 2002)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4698ef6d-9b70-4ca6-924c-27959e241a5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicants, who are members of the executive committee of the trade union Nueva Alternativa Asamblearia (NAA), complained that they had been dismissed on account of the content of the union\u2019s newsletter of March 2002. They claimed that the company P. had not verified their individual level of participation and personal responsibility. They alleged that they had been dismissed by way of reprisal for the union\u2019s demands and that the allegedly offensive content of the newsletter had served as a pretext. They took the view that the cartoons and two articles in question had not overstepped the limits of admissible criticism under Article <mask> of the Convention, because the impugned expressions had been used in a jocular spirit and not with any intent to insult."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "23916509-6e30-4cfc-9fd1-884665f72f6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["188.  The applicant claimed that as a result of the premature termination of his mandate as President of the Supreme Court and the entry into force of retroactive legislation concerning the remuneration of his post (see paragraph 52 above), he had lost his salary as President, other benefits attached to that position as well as the post-term benefits (severance allowance for six months and pension supplement for life) to which he would have been entitled as former President of the Supreme Court. He provided a detailed calculation of his claim for pecuniary damage, which amounted to 742,520 euros (EUR). The applicant argued that there was a clear causal connection between the pecuniary damage claimed and the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "78226d0e-635e-440e-a12b-8c2f6885b4a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant submitted that he had been an active journalist for many years and had often participated in public debates on issues relating to the recent history of Poland. The radio debate from which the present case originated was one of a series of public discussions on a range of political issues, including lustration. He had, therefore, been fulfilling his rightful mission to inform the public about an important matter relating to a public figure. The applicant had become aware that Mr J.M. had been a collaborator with the secret services after having consulted all the available documents and other sources which he needed to protect. He had not intended to offend Mr J.M. but only to contribute to a debate about the importance of lustration, which J.M had criticised. Taking into account all those elements the applicant considered that his statement did not overstep the limits of protection afforded to him by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ec7b4c83-76f1-4ecc-b481-1192605430da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant submitted that the injunction issued by the Austrian courts was not necessary in a democratic society. In particular, the Austrian courts wrongly qualified the impugned statement as a statement of fact, when it was a political value judgment criticising the plaintiff in the injunction proceedings and contributing to a political debate on a question of general importance. It was in the public interest to point out the dangerousness of a politician like Mr Haider who had proposed contemptible measures in an opinion poll against immigration (\u201c\u00d6sterreich zuerst\u201d \u2013 \u201cAustria first\u201d). As a value judgment and not a statement of fact, its truth did not require proof. To require proof of a value judgment would itself be a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "363d6386-a0d4-450d-a83e-5394a1397c0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant contested the submission that there had been relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the impugned interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Mr K\u00f6ck had entered the public arena as he had been commissioned as an expert by the regional government and had, furthermore, repeatedly expressed his views on this subject in public. He had done so in an exceptionally provocative manner and the applicant had merely responded to those views. Given the nature of his commission, Mr K\u00f6ck should have been required to exercise particular restraint until the study was completed in order to avoid anticipating and forestalling its conclusions. Any expert who stated the direction his findings would take before he had concluded his report left himself open to a high degree of legitimate criticism. The applicant's statements had been value judgments with a sufficient factual basis, namely Mr K\u00f6ck's provocative public comments and his general conduct. The matter at issue was of the greatest public interest and the applicant had relied upon information which was already within the public domain. The applicant had also explained his principal reasons for concern, namely Mr K\u00f6ck's involvement in the creation of a private hospital management company with an abbreviated name (KABAG) confusingly similar to that of the holding company which operated Carinthia's regional hospitals (Landeskrankenanstalten\u2013Betriebsgesellschaft, KABEG). The statement that Mr K\u00f6ck intended to smash the Carinthian health system had to be seen in the whole context of all the statements. Obviously every reader would understand that Mr K\u00f6ck was not accused of smashing the system himself but of recommending measures to that effect. The mere reference to another expert who had failed and had been pursued by the criminal justice could not be understood as an implied accusation of Mr K\u00f6ck. The applicant contended finally that the courts' decisions ordering him not only to refrain from further similar statements, but also to retract his comments had not been proportionate either."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b3a27e40-5fba-4a78-b716-ee2c875703a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government found it uncontested that the applicant\u2019s conviction for defamation and the liability to pay damages had amounted to an interference with her right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned measures had had a basis in domestic law, namely in Article 12 of the Constitution and Chapter 24, section 9, of the Penal Code. The interference had thus been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. The impugned measures had also pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life and reputation of the child\u2019s father."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c8ee7dd7-01fd-456d-bfd6-b9ab94b8dbe2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government acknowledged that advertisements and other forms of commercial expression may fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, this provision was not applicable to the circumstances of the present case because it concerned a dispute between private parties, whereas the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention were of a vertical nature, in that they concerned relations between the State and individuals."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "de51416a-85c3-49d1-983e-a28e389a7933", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government argued that section 10 of the 1981 Act, as applied in the applicants' case, was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the domestic courts were entitled to make the findings they did on the basis of the evidence and to take those findings into account in making the delivery up order. As to the harm suffered by Interbrew, the Government pointed to the drop in its share price and the rise in SAB's share price. The Government also considered that the court was justified in reaching its conclusion as to X's purpose given, inter alia, the anonymity, the lack of any attempt by X to justify the leak and the absence of any evidence to contradict Interbrew's assertion that the leaked documents had been manipulated. Finally, the Government argued that the applicants' contention regarding the adequacy of Interbrew's investigation into the leak was an attempt to appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment, which had rationally concluded that as much as possible had been done to track down the source of the leak."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "0f4e039d-e879-43e3-8413-91659e4f3f5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society and thus compatible with Article 10 \u00a7 2. The disclosure of the identities of the former Chief Security Director and his deputy in an obvious manner had made them possible targets of terrorist attacks as it had been suggested several times in the article that the two officials should be eliminated. The article could just as well have been published without disclosing the identities of the two officials concerned. The interference was therefore proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient. The national authorities had applied standards which conformed with the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "dfb0e68c-be85-4a33-938d-698e05c9879b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant was convicted for speech which, as the domestic courts adjudged, incited hatred and violence rather than being merely insulting (compare and contrast Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, \u00a7 32, ECHR 1999\u2011I) or defamatory (compare and contrast Bartnik v. Poland (dec.), no. 53628/10, \u00a7 28, 11 March 2014) in respect of police officers. The Court stresses that not every remark which may be perceived as offensive or insulting by particular individuals or their groups justifies a criminal conviction in the form of imprisonment. Whilst such sentiments are understandable, they alone cannot set the limits of freedom of expression. It is only by a careful examination of the context in which the offending, insulting or aggressive words appear that one can draw a meaningful distinction between shocking and offensive language which is protected by Article <mask> of the Convention and that which forfeits its right to tolerance in a democratic society (see, for a similar approach, Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, \u00a7\u00a7 53 and 57, ECHR 2008). The key issue in the present case is thus whether the applicant\u2019s statements, when read as a whole and in their context, could be seen as promoting violence, hatred or intolerance (see Perin\u00e7ek, cited above, \u00a7 240)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "324928ea-9984-4cd5-b8ae-06e66c094e13", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicants maintained that nor had the interference been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. The press had the right and obligation to distribute information and thoughts about all issues of public interest and concern. A journalist was entitled to the protection safeguarded by Article <mask> of the Convention at least in circumstances in which the journalist was distributing public information that was both correct and reliable. Journalistic ethics required a journalist to tell readers what was going on in society. This requirement was of particular significance with regard to the reporting of trials as trial accounts fostered the openness of court proceedings and was at the very core of the freedom of expression. Trials, and especially the already delivered court decisions, had to be reportable in the media."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b51703ee-4feb-4041-9b54-b78e206df0f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government contested the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the applicant NGO\u2019s complaint and invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. In their view, Article 10 of the Convention covered only the freedom to receive and impart information, while any reference to \u201cfreedom to seek\u201d information had been deliberately omitted from Article 10 during the drafting process, in contrast to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4bee1a09-a414-4e1e-95ae-d91415ff4bc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained that the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 30 September 2011, rejecting her appeal against the judicial order requiring her to give evidence about her contacts with Mr X, had given rise to an unjustified interference with her right not to be compelled to disclose her journalistic sources as inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4a1f6e98-ba67-4e46-a985-79c783cb4137", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government relied in substance on the Contracting States\u2019 margin of appreciation in the matter. They argued that the applicant\u2019s statement had exceeded the limits of freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They endorsed the domestic courts\u2019 arguments that the impugned statements had injured the plaintiff\u2019s reputation, and deliberately so. The Hungarian courts had duly balanced the applicant\u2019s Convention rights and the plaintiff\u2019s right to his good reputation, and had justifiably concluded that the latter outweighed the former in the particular circumstances of the case. They stressed that the sanctioning of statements capable of damaging a person\u2019s good reputation should not be regarded as a breach of the Convention. Lastly, in the Government\u2019s view, the sanction imposed had not been disproportionate, especially as it was of a civil rather than a criminal character."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7c0e2956-336f-4365-a604-263bca1eaf12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government submitted that the sums claimed in respect of pecuniary damage had been awarded to V.K. by the domestic courts as fair compensation for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained, and that no award should be made to the applicants under the head of pecuniary damage. They further submitted that, in the absence of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, no award in respect of non-pecuniary damage should be made."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e8a70289-c798-41d4-8164-93bd9c7de255", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained that the existence of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code interfered with his right to freedom of expression. He maintained that the mere fact that an investigation could potentially be brought against him under this provision for his scholarly work on the Armenian issue caused him great stress, apprehension and fear of prosecution and thus constituted a continuous and direct violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "46d24f5c-c1eb-4c9b-b072-13d942423ce8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that the measures of fining him and banning his interpellations infringed his right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention, since they did not serve a legitimate aim and were disproportionate. He claimed that declaring interpellations inadmissible for the protection of Parliament\u2019s prestige constituted censorship and deprived the Members of Parliament of the possibility to express their opinion on issues of public interest."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "67869ddf-44e2-444e-ace3-c3b131429de4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government noted that before the domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court, the applicant had maintained that he was not the author of the statements for which he had been ordered to pay damages, and that they had been made up by the journalist who had interviewed him. They therefore concluded that, by insisting that the disputed statements were not his, the applicant had admitted that he had not actually imparted any ideas or information within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In other words, the applicant in the present case could not have enjoyed the protection of that Article because he had not exercised his right to freedom of expression. If the Court were to hold otherwise and find a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, that would have led to an absurd situation, as it would have found a violation of the applicant\u2019s right which the applicant himself claimed he had not exercised."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5f454e3d-c4c6-440a-b775-d2f883d81f8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government argued that the Commission\u2019s refusal to provide anonymised paper copies of all decisions issued since 1 January 2000 could not be regarded as an interference with the applicant association\u2019s rights under Article 10. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, Article <mask> of the Convention prohibited Contracting States from interfering with the receipt of information that someone wished to impart. However, it did not impose a positive obligation on the State to collect and disseminate information itself. Although the State had to set up its information system in such a way that an individual could obtain generally accessible information, it was not obliged to provide access to confidential information."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "345c486c-5390-4713-bd9f-1fc2c644e058", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on his right to freedom of expression had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had actively participated in the incident of 4 December 1996. A conviction was public information that could not fall within the scope of private life. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest. The applicant had only written the articles, and he had had no say in the manner in which they had been published. No intent had been shown. Moreover, the information in the articles had been in every respect correct. The courts had failed to strike a proper balance between the protection of private life and freedom of expression in the manner required by the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5ffe746d-5953-4ada-b2ec-4a19ef353ea9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s conviction for defamation constituted interference with his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained, however, that this interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of Mrs P.\u2019s reputation, and was necessary in a democratic society. In this regard they submitted that the applicant had overstepped the limits of permissible criticism of a civil servant, in particular, as he had directly accused Mrs P. of having committed serious criminal offences, thereby undermining her right to presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the financial penalties imposed on the applicant had not been disproportionate to his income, and the prison sentence was not long and in any case the applicant had not served it."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3935c9c6-4ce9-4705-acf1-c1c5616ebee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants complained that their freedom to receive information had been breached because the restrictions imposed on them either had not been prescribed by law or had been more far-reaching than necessary in a democratic society. Moreover, they claimed that the consequences \u2013 the eviction from their flat and the move to another town \u2013 had been disproportionate to the aims pursued. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f72f6659-cc2b-4b62-800e-ab0ba9658b58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and his conviction under that section, had constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He further complained under the same Article about the seizure of copies of the book on 30 September 2003. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8e070a29-7084-4600-8883-156781493836", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the first applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. They further submitted that that interference had been based on Article 484 of the Civil Code. The legitimate aim pursued by the authorities had been the protection of the reputation of others and the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, as provided by the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "862ddee1-be65-4abe-8456-a5ed883e11f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant company complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the ordinary courts had (i) incorrectly required its legal predecessor to prove the absolute truthfulness of the published information, (ii) failed to assess the situation under the established criteria, (iii) found arbitrarily against the applicant\u2019s legal predecessor, and (iv) awarded an excessive amount of damages. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "78f8162c-332c-4d62-bc07-897fe22b85a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the interference with their right to freedom of expression had been based on the decisions of the domestic courts. The applicants did not complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the impugned court proceedings had been unfair, and there had been no irregularities in those proceedings and the Court had limited jurisdiction regarding the assessment of facts and the application of law by domestic courts. On these grounds, they invited the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "2667bb6e-b9c9-4bcb-ada0-8d71b8ced86d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was compatible with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government pointed out that the interference in question was based on Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and that it pursued a legitimate aim. They contended that the expression of an opinion of a kind which incites and provokes people to commit crimes cannot be protected under Article 10 of the Convention. In this connection, they referred to Article 17 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6ad6b281-da5c-4cc3-9728-9360dcc1b2d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the Austrian courts' injunction did not constitute an interference with the applicant association's rights within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted in that regard that Article 10 did not protect artistic freedom as such but only provided protection to artists who intended to contribute through their work to a public discussion of political or cultural matters. The present reproduction of public figures in \u201cgroup sexual situations\u201d could, however, hardly be regarded as a statement of opinion contributing to a cultural or political debate."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "59a46288-aa2d-4801-aac4-e124cf04017d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention but regarded this interference as justified to pursue the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or the rights of others and to prevent the dissemination of confidential information. Referring widely to the arguments of the Federal Labour Court and the subsequent judgment of the Labour Court of Appeal of 16 November 2004, the Government stressed that the applicant\u2019s primary motivation was to defame the mayor personally. They argued that the applicant could not use the term \u201cperverting the course of justice\u201d without distinction as a lay person not working in a legal area might do."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c01e1cdb-a0a2-498e-aa60-374c774142af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government submitted that the finding against the applicant in the defamation proceedings constituted a legitimate restriction of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, it pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of M.L.\u2019s reputation, and had been based on provisions of the domestic law which were accessible and foreseeable. They submitted that the interference was also \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d and proportionate to the aim pursued. In particular, the domestic case-law at the material time had been well-equipped to differentiate between value judgments and statements of fact. The applicant in the present case had been held liable not for expressing a value judgment, but for having made false factual allegations accusing M.L. of serious misconduct. He himself had treated those allegations as factual in both the domestic and the Convention proceedings in his case, and had sought to have documentary and other evidence examined in support of his position. The domestic courts had thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties and had dismissed the applicant\u2019s arguments as speculative and unsubstantiated in their reasoned judgments."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "56ef9a6d-8a5e-4148-8ff8-9dbb80ccff7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant company complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the court proceedings had been unfair on account of the unlawful order that it offer apologies to the claimant. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must, therefore, be declared admissible. In view of the Court\u2019s finding in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention, there is no need to examine the issue again in the context of Article 6 (see Karman, cited above, \u00a7 47)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "62188e66-03ac-4809-8395-77c864cac6e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["177.  The applicant complained before the Chamber, under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been deprived of an effective domestic remedy in relation to the premature termination of his mandate as President of the Supreme Court. The applicant did not explicitly raise this complaint before the Grand Chamber. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "106f9c5c-cdae-4509-9c75-ad20caa7f19b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant submitted that his statements about a local politician were true. He reported on the criminal proceedings against the deputy mayor of Ost\u00f3da and expressed his opinions about him. The applicant complained that he had been found guilty for having made statements such as \u201cstormy and lucrative career in local government\u201d that were value judgments, the truth of which could not be proved. He argued that under Article <mask> of the Convention he had the right to give his opinions. Unfortunately, the Polish judiciary did not understand the Convention standards as regards the right to freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "82ae709a-20b4-4ce5-acba-6d1167ea871d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. The Court observes in this connection that the impugned statement was not made by the applicant but by his political opponent. It follows that \u2013 the applicant\u2019s own freedom of speech not having been at stake \u2013 the facts of the case do not give rise to any issue under Article 10 from the applicant\u2019s perspective. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "aa8b2461-7ae2-42ce-8b40-52a94ff0cb17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government in turn reiterated the above position in their observations before the Court, acknowledging that part of the applicant\u2019s actions, namely his complaints to various authorities, were protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they emphasised that the applicant\u2019s conduct had also involved the public dissemination of damaging statements in respect of a third party. Such action was not covered by the protection of Article 10 and the sanctions that had been imposed were justified as they fell within the permissible limitations on the right to freedom of expression, had pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of the rights of others, and had been proportionate to the applicant\u2019s conduct in the circumstances of the case."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e9342d33-d1ab-4d2b-9bb7-444adde8cf37", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant drew attention to the chronology of the events and contended that the impugned email of 20 March 2010 had merely been used as a pretext to dismiss him and that the real reason for his dismissal was his persistent criticism of the University. He dismissed the Government\u2019s argument that he had not been prevented from exercising his right to freedom of expression and considered that his dismissal constituted interference with his rights protected under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "73874f8f-ba4b-42ba-9d5e-359064101245", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained, relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, about the defamation proceedings brought by judge B., alleging that the proceedings had been unfair, that his letter to the relevant authorities could not be regarded as disseminating defamatory information, and that the award in the case had been disproportionate and arbitrary. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "384f067b-2217-403e-a44f-5b952ae01e0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["183.  The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. First of all, they submitted that the interference complained of had been prescribed by law. It had been based on Law 7(I)/1998 and the relevant regulations. The relevant provisions were clear and their effects reasonably foreseeable, especially with the assistance of a lawyer. Secondly, the Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right pursued legitimate aims and in particular the protection of the rights of others. In this respect, they emphasised the need to safeguard the rights and interests of viewers, including children, who were vulnerable, and to protect them from abusive practices. The Government relied on the reasoning given by the CRTA in its decisions concerning the broadcasts in question. They further highlighted the need to regulate the mass media in view of the significant influence they had on people and society at large. The measures taken by the CRTA had been necessary in securing compliance with the relevant legal provisions and regulations."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b6ada447-0362-4918-a6fb-f3c979448656", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant maintained his complaint. In particular, he submitted that he had been attacked because of articles he had written criticising the activities of the Ministry of Defence. He pointed out that the domestic authorities\u2019 failure to investigate the attack on him had amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Relying on the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of \u00d6zg\u00fcr G\u00fcndem v. Turkey (no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000), the applicant also argued that the Government had failed to comply with their positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e53ab36b-318b-4973-9c85-9a3b228d33a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government accepted that the decision complained of by the applicant constituted an interference with her rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Nevertheless, they argued that the interference was prescribed by law, namely by Articles 998-1000 of the Civil Code in force at the time. Furthermore, the interference aimed at the protection of the reputation of a third party, and was thus legitimate."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "fa81aa4b-24f9-48b1-b843-f5fef8845c74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicants pointed out that the Government had not put forward any arguments showing that restrictions on freedom of expression had been necessary in the present case for a pressing social need or for any other reason. Neither had the District Court nor the Court of Appeal taken into account Article <mask> of the Convention or considered the necessity requirement under that Article in their judgments. While it was true that X. had been publicly criticised in the media over the years, this could not be attributed to the applicants. Bearing in mind that the applicants had been obliged to pay not only the fines but also close to EUR 26,000 in compensation and costs, they maintained that Article 10 of the Convention had been violated."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "fd6af1b2-c364-4ee7-a7c5-0716f503a715", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s name had not fallen within the protection of private life as the national courts had not declared any part of her criminal case file secret. She had been an active participant in the incident on 4 December 1996 and had subsequently been sentenced to a fine. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the article had in every respect been correct. The Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could have been restricted in the present case. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5d458431-fe72-4bca-be48-90ca466062e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that the decision of the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow to bar her from holding judicial office in view of her critical public statements was incompatible with the principles enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. She contended that judges, like other persons, enjoy the protection of Article 10 and that the interference with her freedom of expression was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, did not pursue a legitimate aim and, finally, was not necessary in a democratic society. Her submissions under these heads may be summarised as follows."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "466e7665-13ff-4b55-8c00-0935644344ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government alleged that the applicant\u2019s complaint did not fall under Article <mask> of the Convention as it essentially concerned an employment dispute as to whether the applicant\u2019s dismissal had been lawful under domestic law; it therefore concerned a labour dispute of a private-law nature. They noted that the reasons for the applicant\u2019s dismissal had been gross infringements of the staff regulation and of ethical and behavioural norms which affected the University. Moreover, the Government emphasised that in his civil claim of 11 May 2010 the applicant had not made any allegations that the University had acted in violation of his freedom of speech."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5d2141ab-aa33-4eaf-aa12-bb075611e2ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Bryanskiy District Court's judgment of 31 May 2004, upheld on appeal by the Bryanskiy Regional Court on 1 July 2004, had violated his right to express his opinion protected by Article 10 of the Convention. He submitted that the domestic courts had failed to draw a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments and held him responsible for failing to prove the truth of value judgments. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "26250834-34e0-4be4-916a-81488d97cbe9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants contested that the Austrian courts' judgments had been necessary in a democratic society. They contended that the impugned statements constituted value judgments which had a factual basis, namely the reasoning of the judgment concerned. This factual basis was also known to the readers because it had been published on several occasions, including by \u201cDer Standard\u201d in its issue of 1 September and another article on 2 September 1998 which explicitly referred to the commentary at issue on page 32. Further, the domestic courts as well as the Government had disregarded that the article was earmarked as a \u201ccommentary\u201d, thus, indicating to any knowledgeable reader that it contained a critical assessment by the author. In the applicants' view, the courts had also ignored that the impugned statement only concerned the judgment of the private prosecutor and not the way in which he had conducted the proceedings. Therefore the applicants did not share the argument of the Government and the findings of the domestic courts that they had reproached the judge with not having observed the principle of an adversarial hearing or with having been partial. Moreover, they considered the Government's view to be inconclusive and overstepping the requirements of this Court's case-law in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention that their critical remarks should have contained the fact that the proceedings had been (otherwise) conducted in a fair manner. In conclusion, the applicants' convictions were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "155745e0-ae85-4dfd-b952-4584c9ae12bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and the plaintiff\u2019s rights protected under Article 8. In that regard they relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007\u2011IV; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, \u00a7 49, 22 May 2008; and OOO \u2018Vesti\u2019 and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, \u00a7 62, 30 May 2013)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "e8131206-502c-4aec-bc14-d8c15c1fa576", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicants reiterated that, compared to the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case, the present jury had even less guidance and the Supreme Court did not exercise a more stringent review. Accordingly, if the law in that case violated Article <mask> of the Convention, so did the domestic law at issue in the present case. They accepted that a State enjoyed a margin of appreciation as regards how it complied with Article 10 of the Convention: however, it was much reduced given the press and political speech context. In addition, while that margin meant that a State could choose how to develop the safeguards and, notably, could develop them differently to the Court of Appeal in the above-described Rantzen and John v. M.G.N. cases, this did not change the fact that, as domestic law stood at the relevant time, it was in violation of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6f5e0359-159b-4a6c-92b0-b8eab03e9703", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government finally observed that by publishing the material concerning the telephone interceptions, the press exercised its right, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, to impart information to the public. It is true that the press should not overstep the bounds imposed by the protection of the reputation of others; however the Government observed that the applicant had failed to produce any document showing that the persons involved in the telephone interceptions had availed themselves of the domestic remedies protecting their right to enjoy a good reputation, such as an action for damages before the civil judge or a request for the opening of criminal proceedings."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f0578859-85a6-4fb4-b970-4aeda1b98cb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants stressed that the content of the impugned article had mainly been political and that it had concerned the Finnish presidential election campaign. The article had aimed to have an impact on public discussion and the information contained in it had been of public interest. The journalists had acted in good faith and the information had been correct and in accordance with the ethics of journalism. There had been no compelling reasons to interfere with the applicant's freedom of expression. No just balance between the freedom of expression of the applicants and the protection of private life had been found. The actions of the national courts had been conducive to preventing the free flow of information and free discussion of issues relating to political activity. There had thus been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "830e2c7c-5863-4f38-a753-4f377a3c40bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgments of the domestic courts had been unfair and unfavourable. He further mentioned, with respect to the proceedings against Komsomolska Pravda, Argumenty i Fakti and Fakty i Kommentari that the domestic courts did not assess the facts of the cases correctly and have misapplied domestic procedural and substantive law. However, it is not the task of the Court to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes stated, as a court of fourth instance, in respect of the decisions taken by domestic courts (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8d189ad9-cca3-4cc4-937d-caefddf64bb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained that the judgments given in the case were in breach of freedom of expression. In particular, they claimed that the amount awarded to the plaintiff as compensation for non-pecuniary damage was disproportionate and had had a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of opinion. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "83637212-79dd-45a8-a633-fe621504e3aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant submitted that the refusals to register the titles of the periodicals, Germany \u2013 A thousand-year-old enemy of Poland and The Social and Political Monthly \u2013 A European Moral Tribunal by the Bielsko-Bia\u0142a Regional Court and the Katowice Court of Appeal had undoubtedly violated Article <mask> of the Convention. The decisions of the courts were in contravention of the Polish Constitution in so far as it guaranteed freedom of expression and also in breach of the applicable provisions of Polish law."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d59d0287-3549-42b7-a9c5-5e0307a5e5bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government argued that the present case differed crucially from the case Juppala v. Finland. In the latter case the applicant had clearly seen the child\u2019s bruised body, she had acted in good faith and was thus entitled to use the reporting system without any potential \u201cchilling effect\u201d of a criminal prosecution, whereas in the present case the applicant had already used the reporting system and a careful pre-trial investigation had been concluded in the matter with no results. The Government maintained that the applicant could not be considered as having acted in the same kind of good faith as the applicant in the Juppala case, as there were no veritable signs or symptoms supporting her allegations. Moreover, the Appeal Court had examined the case as a whole and taken into account the applicant\u2019s particular status in sentencing. The national authorities were thus entitled, in the circumstances of the case, to interfere with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression and that interference was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. There was thus no violation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "4e109f2a-7571-4899-b54f-59720691dd8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant considered that when examining the question of \u201cnecessity\u201d it was necessary to take into account the role played by lawyers \u2013 the specificity of which the Court had highlighted in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention \u2013 as well as the importance of confidentiality in the practice of their profession, which was what protected the confidence that existed between them and their clients, as well as individual freedom and the smooth functioning of justice. In his opinion, requiring lawyers to report their suspicions was asking them to take action that was in contradiction with the social purpose of their profession and shed doubt on the traditional role they played."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "526b2897-4026-45fb-9cfb-f8e0e8e17297", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant company complained that its right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed by the Austrian courts' injunction in so far as it prohibited the comparison of sales prices of the Neue Kronenzeitung and the Salzburger Nachrichten without indicating the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. Article 10 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6272a546-16b8-4280-99b0-caf60cb2a6c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants contested that assertion. They contended that the second applicant had been subject to an order to pay compensation for something which had been written by her husband. Given the situation, one could not fail to consider that the freedom of expression of the first applicant encompassed that of his spouse, given that she had been considered jointly responsible for it. Therefore, the second applicant had been the victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "90d00669-395f-41d4-9cf4-4fc905f07988", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 arguments. They reiterated their argument that the applicants\u2019 complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. In their submission, the applicants could not be said to have been directly affected by the facts allegedly constituting the interference. In any event, they had not substantiated their allegation of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3af13413-278d-4156-85ca-8cc6732e2d46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government noted that the contested article was published by the applicant company during the mayoral elections in which Mr Y. was one of the main candidates. Therefore, there had been an important public interest in holding fair elections. Furthermore, the domestic courts had been protecting the rights and reputation of Mr Y. which was not only a permissible ground for interference under the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention but also protected one of the rights guaranteed by Article 8."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "892e03d4-6240-4bb8-b8f0-6a888092efdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they emphasised that paragraph 2 of that provision allowed the Contracting States to restrict this right in certain circumstances. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, States have a certain margin of appreciation in determining whether or not a restriction on the rights protected by Article 10 is necessary."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "48f70407-28c4-4e2e-9f80-b4425c5f2f00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The applicant placed particular emphasis on the deficiencies of the reasoning adduced by the domestic authorities. Both parties have asked the Court to re-examine the proportionality of the \u201cinterference\u201d, although they disagree about certain circumstances having significance for such an assessment. The Court, for its part, is not satisfied that the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the \u201cinterference\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention were sufficient for sentencing the applicant to two days\u2019 detention. Faced with the domestic courts\u2019 failure to give reasons that would be both relevant and sufficient to justify the interference, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 or to have based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, for a similar approach, Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, \u00a7 24, 26 January 2017, and Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, \u00a7 139, 25 July 2017)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "84dd4455-35ef-4aee-a32a-ab18541dd339", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants also complained that the loss of their former jobs and the subsequent employment restrictions under Article 2 of the Act also breached Article <mask> of the Convention (which guarantees freedom of expression), and constituted discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention. The Court observes however that in the Sidabras and D\u017eiautas case it found no scope for the application of Article 10 of the Convention, either alone or taken together with Article 14 of the Convention (loc. cit., \u00a7\u00a7 64-73). The Court finds no basis on which to distinguish the present cases from that conclusion."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f98760a8-7931-4199-b790-d3d9484bc30f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained that there was an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression in that his right to impart information and ideas guaranteed by the Convention was undermined by his convictions for his role in the publication of all the above-mentioned books. He relied under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides insofar as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f007fad1-e5d3-4c3e-ad95-948803c90548", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government, after summarising the principles of the Court\u2019s relevant case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention, pointed out that whilst the Court had established the right of the general public to receive information, it had also imposed on journalists an obligation of \u201cgood faith\u201d, requiring that they provide \u201creliable and precise information in accordance with the obligations of journalism\u201d. Citing the Grand Chamber cases of 17 December 2004 of Cump\u01cen\u01ce and Maz\u01cere v. Romania ([GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004-XI) and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark ([GC], no. 49017/99, ECHR 2004-XI), the Government referred to the Court\u2019s finding that the stronger the criticism, the stricter the obligation of scrutiny had to be. In assessing the necessity of a limit to freedom of expression, the Court had also taken into account the scope of the debate referred to in the article in question and the capacity of the victim. On that point, it was necessary, according to the case-law (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, and Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, ECHR 2001-III), to make a distinction between politicians, who inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and civil servants, who should not be treated on an equal footing with politicians when it came to criticism of their conduct."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "44fe3a28-d918-45d9-adbf-f7111da9f27e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government further argued that the domestic courts had duly balanced the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and the plaintiff\u2019s rights protected under Article 8. They relied, inter alia, on Keller v. Hungary (dec.), no. 33352/02, 4 April 2006; Lindon, Otchakovsky\u2011Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007\u2011IV; Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, 15 November 2007; Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008; Alithia Publishing Company Ltd and Constantinides v. Cyprus, no. 17550/03, \u00a7 49, 22 May 2008; and OOO \u2018Vesti\u2019 and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, \u00a7 62, 30 May 2013)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "c1eb1f33-5f24-45fa-8598-b54ec570c1f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her disciplinary dismissal, ostensibly on technical grounds, had in reality been a sanction for the way in which she had exposed corrupt practices during her radio show on 9 October 1998. She submitted that that dismissal had been unlawful, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "11a5b231-ad8b-44b3-9d90-a5d76e278100", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["10.  The applicant complained that the disciplinary punishment imposed on him for using \u201cK\u00fcrt Halk \u00d6nderi\u201d (the leader of Kurdish people) when referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK in his letter, had constituted an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant, based on the same facts, also invoked Article 9 of the Convention. The Court will examine these complaints solely under Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8bf33098-d26a-408d-a449-2c8565e78fa8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies either expressly or in substance. The grounds of appeal that had been filed and subsequently argued by the applicant before the Supreme Court had not included any allegation of a violation of the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention, which, to all intents and purposes, was reproduced in Article 19 of the Cyprus Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court had had no opportunity to consider the matter and adjudicate on it."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "29d4fd4c-4c2c-47de-a185-87489163357e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants complained that the ban imposed by the governor on 1 December 1997 on the distribution of the daily newspaper \u00dclkede G\u00fcndem in the state of emergency region constituted an unjustified interference in the exercise of their right to impart information or ideas. They relied in that connection on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "55371fcb-793b-40d7-b1bf-0643afd5b471", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government conceded that there was an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that this measure was lawful, having its basis in Article 124 of the Criminal Code, Article 47 of the Law on Information and Article 26 of the Printed Media Act and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "3a387eeb-a585-4b14-ad5e-f3e0470ab06a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained that during his detention on remand his letters had been monitored by officials at the detention centre. He further complained that he had been punished for having sent a letter bypassing the detention centre\u2019s official channels. In both cases the applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine these issues under Article 8 of the Convention, which is the relevant provision and which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "17c3c8bc-b731-481d-9db5-0638ee58e91b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants argued that the judgments given by the domestic courts had violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They were accused of defamation for having published critical articles about a local councillor in which they had exposed his reprehensible behaviour. Despite the fact that all of the information presented by the first applicant in her articles was true, the applicants were sentenced for having used the term \u201coffending activities\u201d which did not have a precise meaning in the Polish language. Furthermore, the legal meaning of the word \u201coffender\u201d was different from its meaning in the ordinary language."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "ec4207c5-8218-4244-8b07-ed0ef499ef0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government reiterated that the applicant, acting as a representative of another presidential candidate, had imparted false information about the death of the latter's rival. He had thus participated in a dishonest electoral campaign and had damaged the interests of Ukrainian society in having fair elections. By convicting the applicant of the offence provided for in Article 127 of the CC (see paragraph 41 above), the Ukrainian courts had acted strictly within their margin of appreciation. Furthermore, the applicant had been given a probationary sentence, which could not be considered disproportionate in the circumstances of the case. They concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the interference with the applicant's right to disseminate information in the course of the elections."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "375eceb5-f0b1-4917-8a89-cb55d587a10f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant\u2019s conviction and sentence (see paragraphs 12 and 14 above) constituted an \u201cinterference\u201d, in the form of a \u201cpenalty\u201d, with his right to freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. Such interference will only be compatible with that Article if it was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d for one of the aims set out in its second paragraph."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "94261d00-4d75-42c5-bebe-25eadef20cd6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant company alleged a violation of its right to freedom of expression. It submitted that the domestic courts' injunctions prohibiting it from distributing the book Le Grand Secret had not been prescribed by law, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d; it further complained that the \u201cexorbitant\u201d award of damages which it had also been ordered to pay had not been proportionate to the aim pursued. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "cd7f527f-ed0e-4704-a12d-d315a991a00e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant's lawyer submitted that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression had been in breach of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. She considered that the domestic courts had failed to take into account that the impugned statements had been made at a session of the City Council, in the course of public debate devoted to the future functioning of the Knyszyn School Complex. The applicant's lawyer considered that, by holding the applicant criminally responsible for his statements, the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance in weighing the interests of K.Ch.'s right to respect for his private life and the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect she considered that in the present case there had been no element of \u201cpressing social need\u201d. Finally, she criticised the provisions which provide for criminal sanction for defamation without leaving any room for exceptions for matters of public debate; in her view such a construction of responsibility for defamation deprived the public debate of any sense."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "00b4e5f4-0db3-4475-9e60-5cab5780b0f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae or manifestly ill-founded. They argued that the dispute in the case had been limited to the question of the actual positioning of the satellite dish, having regard, primarily, to contractual obligations. The alleged interference had not arisen as an effect of a ruling by a public authority on the right to receive information or even the right to use or own a satellite dish. Instead, it had come about only as an effect of the Court of Appeal's interpretation and application of an obligation in a contract between two private parties within the framework of private litigation. In any event, the Swedish authorities would only be responsible to the extent that the State had a positive obligation to protect the rights of the applicants in a case of this nature. In this connection the Government were of the opinion that the Court of Appeal had struck a fair balance between the competing interests of the landlord and the applicants and that there did not exist a positive obligation to protect the applicants' right to receive information from the interference of others. There had therefore not been an interference by a public authority within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "5b3605df-8dbd-4e48-a838-334ff225835e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant association concluded that there was no pressing need to prohibit the poster just because it mentioned a website address. Pointing out that Article <mask> of the Convention also protected the form in which ideas were conveyed (it cited Thoma v. Luxembourg, no. 38432/97, \u00a7 45, ECHR 2001\u2011III), and sharing the opinion of the dissenting judges Rozakis and Vaji\u0107, according to whom the authorities\u2019 margin of appreciation was narrower when it came to negative obligations (Women On Waves and Others, cited above, \u00a7 40), the applicant association argued that there had, in the present case, been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "585aac6e-4a8d-4273-930f-290e561ecb67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants then submitted that the interference had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Whilst recognising that domestic courts had a margin of appreciation as to whether the offending comments were defamatory or not, they complained, firstly, about the unforeseeable and contradictory nature of the solutions found for the interpretation of the adjective \u201crocambolesque\u201d, the description of the judges as \u201cslow\u201d and the expression \u201caccumulation of anomalies\u201d, and about the legal uncertainty thus created. Secondly, they complained about the fact that the author of the article had been criticised for not having produced it in the form of an interview, and argued that the form chosen \u2013 an account of a press conference \u2013 had been unfairly interpreted as lacking in good faith. They added that the journalist had imparted information, by reporting on the organisation and content of a newsworthy media event, without any bias or animosity, as the Paris tribunal de grande instance had found, and submitted that the domestic courts had thus disregarded domestic case-law and French legislation, rendering them both unforeseeable."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "a4eadeff-12dc-4485-8be6-3bb46ed3b794", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["192.  The applicant's complaint, as noted at paragraph 157 above, concerns the impact on it of a costs award which, under domestic law, included success fees calculated at almost twice most of the base costs of two appeals to the House of Lords. The Court considers, and it was not seriously disputed by the Government, that the requirement to pay these success fees, as an unsuccessful defendant in breach of confidence proceedings, constituted an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "71e36563-733a-43c6-8e4e-b3eddbb6516c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicants submitted that the interference with their right to freedom of expression as a result of their conviction by the national courts had not met a \u201cpressing social need\u201d capable of justifying it under the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained, firstly, that by publishing the impugned article in a local newspaper they had intended to draw public attention to the public and political issues relating to the irregularities committed, in their opinion, by the city authorities in the signing of a public partnership contract with a private company."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "29d62623-2de0-4eb9-b480-a20b259a77d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant did not deny that there had been a statutory basis for the interference under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law. She denounced the quality of the law and argued that the law should be both sufficiently accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual \u2013 if need be with appropriate advice \u2013 to regulate his conduct. She noted that Latvian law did not set any limits as to the grounds for conducting a search of a journalist or the methods used. The applicant referred in this regard to the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention and to Recommendation No. R (2000) 7 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "1d158aa3-c59a-4e4c-8715-21ea25d5bfc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants submitted that the grounds for contesting the landlord's action had not been only their denial that the positioning of the satellite was in breach of the lease, but also that that action infringed their right to freedom of information under the Swedish Constitution and Article <mask> of the Convention. They further claimed that the Court of Appeal had not balanced the various interests in any real or meaningful sense. It had not attached proper significance to the applicants' right to freedom of information and had failed to take into account that there had been no safety risks in the individual case, instead allowing the landlord to make general risk assessments. The applicants therefore claimed that there had been an interference with their rights under Article 10. This had occurred as a consequence of the Court of Appeal's application of the law and, accordingly, the State's exercise of judicial power in a civil-law dispute. Consequently, the State could not evade its responsibility in the matter."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "66520c68-8bee-425a-ae2d-aac129852ade", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government acknowledged the existence of an interference in the instant case but submitted that it was justified under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention. The interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been based on Article 6 of Law no. 3713 as well as Additional section 2 of Law no. 5680. The interference had been in the interests of national security, territorial integrity and the protection of the rights of others owing to the disclosure of the identities of certain public officials."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "2ad08dc3-530e-4434-8d1a-386e1f5ac750", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government argued that there had been no \u201cinterference by public authority\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention because at no point on 27 August 2009 or later had the applicant been found liable for any offence or otherwise; he had not been prohibited from publishing material; the material that had been copied had not been subjected to a confiscation measure; and there had been no disclosure of any confidential sources. The customs officers\u2019 actions had been limited to the inspection and copying of some data on account of a reasonable suspicion that it might contain extremist material. Their actions had had no \u201cchilling effect\u201d vis-\u00e0-vis the journalistic freedom to hold and express opinions. It could not be decisive in the present case and had not been decisive for the customs officers that the applicant was a photojournalist. The applicant had not been approached or threatened because of his professional status. The \u201cregardless of frontiers\u201d phrase in Article 10 had no import in the present case."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "d316c37a-e474-4293-9345-c923001e721f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants further submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention protected not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they were conveyed. Journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation. Freedom of expression applied not only to views deemed harmless or neutral, but also those which shocked, disturbed and offended. They referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "04a7f526-a095-4504-a417-d484917f4adb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government conceded that the denial of a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD had amounted to an interference with the applicants' freedom to impart information and ideas. In their view, however, this interference had been authorised under the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention. The licensing of radio broadcasters had been specifically envisioned by the Radio and Television Act 1998. It had been entrusted to a special body, the NRTC, charged with protecting freedom of expression. Moreover, the law regulating licensing had been sufficiently clear in its terms. The NRTC's decision had been based on quite detailed and publicly announced criteria. The NRTC had clearly indicated, as could also be seen from the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 March 2002, which of those criteria had not been met by Glas Nadezhda EOOD. Some of the criteria were formal, while others had related to the utility and the feasibility of the proposed radio station. This could not be seen as unlawful, arbitrary or discriminatory, as indicated by the former Commission in its decision in the case of Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern et Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland (no. 10746/84, Commission decision of 16 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49). The decision to refuse the licence had been based on the failure by Glas Nadezhda EOOD to meet a number of the announced criteria. This decision had been the result of a detailed examination and had been reviewed by two levels of court."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "14deb271-4820-471f-829c-2bb0b5c77fb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government conceded that there had been interference with the applicants' rights, but that it was prescribed by law and sought to protect the reputation and rights of others. Furthermore, the interference had been necessary and proportionate within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. The article had quoted and commented on excerpts from various Austrian newspapers. In a total of eighteen quotations it had referred to headlines and passages from various other articles reporting statements which had actually been made in connection with Hermann Maier's accident. The impugned statement, attributed to Stefan Eberharter, was the only fictitious statement amongst all those quotations. As the Austrian courts had rightly pointed out, in those circumstances only a highly concentrated reader could have been expected to realise that this passage was pure fiction with comic exaggeration. The offending statement conveyed a negative image of Mr Eberharter's person in a striking and blatant manner. Even considering the satirical nature of this statement, the limits to the guarantees under Article 10 of the Convention had clearly been transgressed as there was no factual basis for the reproach of envy and inappropriate glee. The Government also referred in this regard to the judgment in Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal (no. 37698/97, ECHR 2000\u2011X) and the decision in \u00d6sterreichische Schutzgemeinschaft f\u00fcr Nichtraucher and Rockenbauer v. Austria (no. 17200/91, Commission decision of 2 December 1991, unreported). Mr Eberharter's interest in protection against statements which seriously affected his image as a sportsman had outweighed the applicants' interest in embellishing their article, which was of no particular public interest, by means of the impugned statement. Moreover, the interference with the applicants' rights had been proportionate as the fine imposed on the first applicant was a suspended penalty and the amount of compensation the second applicant had been ordered to pay was minor."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "7687a277-aa22-4d9f-b869-4de0b89f5d9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government pointed out that, as part of their general policing powers, the administrative authorities had the power to order the seizure of French publications when they considered that they were liable to cause a serious threat to public order. The administrative authorities were empowered therefore to prohibit the publication of a work in the event of a serious threat to public order whether the publication was of French or of foreign origin and, accordingly, the same review was conducted by the courts in both cases (assessing proportionality and necessity). Hence, two publications with the same content, one of French and the other of foreign origin, could not at bottom be treated substantially differently. The alleged difference in treatment actually amounted only to a difference in the legal basis and the procedure followed. It had now become a largely formal difference precisely because of the Association Ekin judgment of 9 July 1997. As a result of this leading decision, the administrative courts were now expected to ensure that, in cases like the one before the Court, contested decisions were in exact proportion to the seriousness of the facts, which themselves had to be of the exact type to justify the decision in law. For instance, only a serious threat to the public interest could justify such a serious sanction and it had been on that basis that the decision affecting the applicant association had been set aside. Moreover, if an individual measure was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, it would inevitably also be in breach of section 14 of the Law of 1881 as it was now interpreted by the case-law of the Conseil d\u2019Etat because it would exceed the limits to policing powers set by this case-law. Therefore, regardless of any factual considerations, and for all the reasons given above, there was nothing to warrant the argument that the policing powers conferred on the administrative authorities by the contested law were not in themselves in keeping with the provisions of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "f733012c-291b-4365-b331-1f944b9f4fe4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government maintained at the outset that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, because he had not experienced any negative effects in relation to the publication in Kauno Diena. They noted that the majority of cases examined by the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention had involved either final criminal convictions or civil decisions against a person. In the instant case, however, the internal inquiry into the applicant\u2019s actions regarding the publication, although opened on the very same day as that of the publication, 1 March 2006, was discontinued on 22 March 2006 on the ground that the acts committed by him did not constitute a disciplinary violation of the Statute of Military Discipline because he had acted within the bounds of his right to impart information, in accordance with Article 21 \u00a7 3 of LMS. A mere internal inquiry into the applicant\u2019s actions, which in itself did not create any consequences for the applicant, therefore could not be considered as constituting an interference with the right to freedom of expression. Even if the Court assumed that the mere opening of an internal inquiry could be seen as interference, the Government considered that it was authorised by, inter alia, Article 36 of LMS which establishes certain restrictions associated with military service, including public expression of disagreement with policies being implemented by the Government of a democratically elected State. The opening of the internal inquiry into the applicant\u2019s acts pursued a legitimate aim \u201cin the interests of national security\u201d and \u201cfor the prevention of disorder\u201d. Lastly, the inquiry was \u201cnecessary\u201d and proportionate, given that the applicant\u2019s criticism of the new Statute of Military Discipline had been expressed publicly and not internally (see E.S. v. Germany (dec.), no. 23576/94, 29 November 1995; and Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, \u00a7 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VII)."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6bd18457-afca-4bd1-ac04-2f91d0d41134", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government observed that cases like the present one, where an individual\u2019s right directly opposes another right of another individual, have their special features. The Government referred in this respect to the subsidiarity principle. In their view, the impugned measures could be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons adduced by the domestic courts had been relevant and sufficient. There was thus no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "b2be12eb-6f3b-478e-a4fc-52d6f63e9473", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her prosecution and subsequent conviction on account of a speech she had made during the Newroz celebrations had constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression. She further alleged under Article 7 of the Convention that section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 had been insufficiently precise to justify her criminal conviction."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "448f3b05-eda5-40e5-a7fd-c7a10b805883", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant submitted that strict liability established by domestic law in cases of disseminating information damaging dignity, honour or reputation (see paragraph 18 above) was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In the applicant\u2019s opinion a journalist was liable to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage only if he had acted with malice and his fault had been established by a court. In cases where a journalist had defamed a public official unintentionally, only rectification and pecuniary damages should be available to the plaintiff. The applicant further argued that a journalist could not be required to prove the veracity of his every allegation according to the \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d standard applied in criminal law. A journalist who published an article about police brutality might not be reasonably required to act as a prosecutor and collect the evidence of guilt in a criminal case. His role was to urge the prosecution authorities to initiate criminal proceedings by making public the facts of ill-treatment and by drawing attention to them."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "dd54a28b-eda3-436d-9034-10fd65fe13b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant submitted further that the refusal to allow the evidence of Mr Moule and Mr Walusimbi violated Article <mask> of the Convention. As a result of the refusal, his defence had failed and, ultimately, he had been bound by an injunction prohibiting repetition of allegations which he said were true. In the circumstances, it was disproportionate for the domestic courts to have excluded the evidence merely on the basis that, if it were allowed, an adjournment would have been necessary."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "99824c28-8f54-475d-ae4a-b68ebe9ecbd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government highlighted that the present case also engaged the Article 8 and Article 6 rights of G.L. In the choice between the single-publication rule and the Internet publication rule, these competing interests should be balanced. They pointed to the fact that there was no consistency of approach to this issue in other jurisdictions and concluded that, on the facts of this case, the application of the Internet publication rule was a permissible and proportionate restriction on the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression and did not violate Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "749193a3-84da-41b9-9805-e5a52d2db9bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained that his criminal convictions for defamation had violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court will confine its examination to the complaints as submitted by the applicant in the application forms, which were communicated to the respondent Government and did not include the compensation proceedings brought against him (paragraph 19 above). Article 10 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "10", "id": "6d9c534f-a958-4439-ba33-deeac480be57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant further complained that the decision of the Migration Board and the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court infringed his rights under Article 2, Article 5 and Article <mask> of the Convention. He did not provide any specific arguments as to how the Swiss authorities had violated these rights and why he thought that these Convention rights had been infringed. It follows that these complaints are not substantiated. They are therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "bfc3bd95-9e03-4820-8100-175a1891a189", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s expressions fell outside the scope of protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, it had been established in the domestic proceedings that the applicant had intended to insult E.P., as proven by the fact that he had accompanied the diffusion of the true facts with adverse judgments relating to her position in public office and inappropriate characterisations which had exceeded the limits of admissible criticism. The applicant\u2019s words were susceptible of harming E.P.\u2019s honour and reputation and therefore the applicant\u2019s conviction could not be considered as an interference with his right to freedom of expression."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "fa9b9288-2478-43c8-a409-f06e316b8cd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant disputed, in essence, that the domestic law applied in his case had met the criteria of foreseeability and accessibility, or, in other words, that his conviction had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the Court notes firstly that, as it has already held above, the State Secrets Act, taken together with Presidential Decree no. 1203, were in themselves sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to foresee the consequences of his actions. In so far as the applicant complained of the extensive and therefore unforeseeable interpretation of the said legal instruments by the domestic courts, which had allegedly relied on an unpublished ministerial decree, it is clear from the facts of the present case that the applicant, by virtue of his office, had access to Decree no. 055, read it and signed a document to that effect in autumn 1996 (see paragraph 19 above), that is, prior to the commission of the offences imputed to him. Against this background, the Court rejects the applicant's argument concerning the alleged lack of accessibility and foreseeability of the domestic law applied in his case."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "74fdbc04-ae6c-474a-8035-d2b2d76b90b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint had been thoroughly examined by the national courts, which had applied the law in force at the relevant time to the particular circumstances of the case. They emphasised the fact that in its judgment of 8 April 2005, the Craiova District Court had taken into consideration the Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "10", "id": "8e6224d0-ba85-4d28-8b5d-d0d15eb3cfda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants alleged a violation of their right to peaceful assembly. They complained, in particular, about the disruptive security measures implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square, the early termination of the assembly and their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "533e6ddd-e282-409c-ae7a-84cadb9e8a62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government emphasised, firstly, that Turkish legislation, while granting public-sector employees the freedom to set up associations to defend their rights, did not guarantee trade-union freedom in the public sector, covering the rights to strike and to conduct collective bargaining. They noted, secondly, that the trade union's representatives had argued from the outset before the national courts that their association was a trade union of public-sector employees and that the concept of trade union included the rights to strike and to collective bargaining. Referring to National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium (27 October 1975, \u00a7 39, Series A no. 19) and Schmidt and Dahlstr\u00f6m v. Sweden (6 February 1976, \u00a7 34, Series A no. 21), they asserted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not secure any particular treatment of trade-union members by the State or the right to conclude collective-bargaining agreements. They alleged that the Convention's requirement was that trade unions be authorised to strive for the protection of their members' interests through means that the State was free to determine. In the instant case, the decision to dissolve T\u00fcm Haber Sen had been intended to prevent unlawful unionisation, and the interference had been justified in terms of Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "0df094ff-d167-4aa4-afa5-038245316f37", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicants furthermore maintained that physical force had been used against them by police, and that that force had not been necessary in a democratic society and had in any event been disproportionate to whatever legitimate aim the Government had claimed to be pursuing. While reiterating the Court\u2019s reasoning in the case of Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2007\u2011III), they submitted that the public authorities should have shown a certain degree of tolerance towards their peaceful gatherings at the University. Lastly, in their view, the imposition of administrative fines had only served to punish them for their having exercised their rights under Article 10 and Article <mask> of the Convention and had been intended to have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d upon anyone who might have been willing to protest against the Government\u2019s reforms in the educational sphere."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "d181d597-1702-4eff-8908-547db16e7d7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicants alleged that their conviction under Article 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of Articles 220 \u00a7 7 and 314 \u00a7 3 of the same Code, and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly. They stated that the interference in question was not prescribed by law, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, since they had been unable to anticipate that their participation in the demonstrations of 17 December 2005 and 19 February 2006 and their conduct during those events would lead to them being prosecuted pursuant to these provisions and to the sentences imposed on them. They stressed in this connection that both the ESP and the SGD, in whose activities they had participated, were legal civil society organisations and that the demonstrations in question had been lawful and peaceful."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "7f522768-d171-4ddd-8c58-4d3f8c3ce8c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The Government considered that neither Article 10 nor Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached. The interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression and freedom of assembly by their detention had been justified. It had been based on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (a), of the PSOA, a provision which had been sufficiently precise to be foreseeable in terms of its application to the applicants. It had pursued legitimate aims, as the applicants\u2019 detention had been in the interest of public safety and for the prevention of crime."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "11a3a838-9a02-468c-8873-d02739c65244", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant organisation complained that there had been an unlawful interference with its right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, on account of the prohibition issued by the municipality of the public rally planned for 19 April 2000. It also complained of the lack of an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 11 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts having declared null and void the prohibition issued by the municipality almost a year after the date of the planned event and also in view of the alleged inability to seek redress for the actions of the municipality."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "fd5ae721-48b7-42b0-a5d4-7a549cf891e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained that the disciplinary sanction that had been imposed on him for his participation in trade union activities, had amounted to disproportionate interference with his rights under the Convention. In this regard, he relied on Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention alone."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "5b448ba5-a708-4b1f-b780-7626a29d580e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that freedom of association could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of national security and public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "90206c91-2248-40c3-9b17-0f729eb571f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant union urged the Court to reject any narrow concept of trade-union freedom of association that would be limited to the protection of the strictly personal interests of individual workers. Such an interpretation would impoverish the substance of Article 11. In the many cases it had decided involving strikes, the Court had never attached any significance to what was at stake for the workers in the dispute. It was entirely legitimate for unions to pursue broader, common objectives. Trade unionism was fundamentally about solidarity among union members and among workers more generally, and the wording of Article <mask> of the Convention should be construed in keeping with this. Workers should be able to take industrial action to protect those who may be prevented from doing so, or who, on their own, lack the collective strength to defend their interests at work. This broad concept of freedom of association was espoused by the two most eminent international bodies in the field of trade-union rights, the ILO Committee of Experts and the ECSR. Both had repeatedly criticised the United Kingdom for its ban on secondary action, which they deemed to be incompatible with the relevant international legal standards. These had been interpreted to mean that the only acceptable condition that could be attached to secondary action was that the primary dispute itself be lawful. The applicant union urged the Court to adopt the same position. If that were overbroad, a criterion of proximity might be envisaged, that is to say, a requirement of a link of some sort between workers engaged in primary action and those striking in sympathy with them. Such a link was present here, since the group of workers concerned had originally been Jarvis employees and continued to perform the same work at the same sites after the transfer. A worsening in their terms and conditions could have had negative consequences for all workers in that sector. In the modern economy, the workforce was becoming increasingly fragmented through the transfer of undertakings or part of them, the creation of complex corporate structures, agency work, privatisation, the contracting-out of services leading to further sub-contracting, non-genuine self-employment, and so forth. This led to a situation in which persons performing the same job at the same place of work could have different employers, meaning that they could not legally support one another in time of industrial conflict."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b0b2b3e1-1710-4268-9f05-b87b0fe4fa20", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government stated that the meeting in issue had been organised unlawfully. They pointed out that the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention imposes limits on the right of peaceful assembly in order to prevent disorder. In their view, the organisation of the Labour Day celebrations in Taksim would have caused major disruption to public life. While the Istanbul Governor\u2019s office had pointed out that a meeting in Taksim Square would not be allowed, as an alternative, four other squares had been indicated, namely two on the European side and two on the Anatolian side of Istanbul. The Government maintained that the gathering of the representatives of the trade unions was permitted by the Beyo\u011flu district governor, and as a result a small group of representatives could have celebrated Labour Day at the Taksim Square to commemorate their friends who had lost their lives during the demonstrations of 1 May 1977. The Government further stated that they had received intelligence reports that a terrorist organisation would interfere in the Labour Day celebrations to provoke commotion. They also maintained that there were terrorists in the DISK\u2019s headquarters and stones were thrown from the windows towards the police force. Referring to the testimony of the Chief of \u015ei\u015fli Etfal Hospital, the Government stated that it was the demonstrators who had attacked the hospital and the police had intervened to secure the area."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "26b81a60-9bc6-4378-969a-288514776730", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["237.  The Government further noted that there was sufficient eyewitness and video evidence proving the violent intentions and violent actions of the demonstrators, as a result of which a number of police officers and civilians had been injured and a significant amount of public and private property had been damaged. On the basis of the above, the Government argued that the demonstration could not be considered a \u201cpeaceful assembly\u201d and, accordingly, could not be afforded the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "99d31670-dcd6-40e4-92fe-1b8139f2c4fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "a1138385-de30-4579-8364-65c78ed45b08", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants considered that the suspension of T\u00fcm Haber Sen's activities and its dissolution constituted a violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government argued that there had been no interference since, in their opinion, the domestic courts had penalised the applicant trade union on the ground that it laid stress on its supposed legal attributes to strike and to conduct collective bargaining, attributes which fall outside the scope of Article 11 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "dd366387-d5a0-4afb-8520-d0a6ca885461", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant party contended that the interference with its right to freedom of association had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It stated that the interference in question was based principally on Article 69 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, which provided that \u201cthe income and expenditure of political parties shall be consistent with their objectives\u201d. There was, however, no guidance in the law or elsewhere to clarify what expenses could be lawfully incurred within the scope of the \u201cobjectives of a political party\u201d or what would be considered to constitute \u201cpolitical activities\u201d. Moreover, section 74(1) of the Political Parties Act, which entrusted the Constitutional Court with the duty of inspecting the \u201clawfulness\u201d of the finances of political parties, was also framed in imprecise terms, thereby leaving that court at liberty to adopt an overly formalistic and restrictive interpretation of the vague requirements of the Act. That uncertainty as regards the exact nature of the expenditure requirements, coupled with the lack of precision regarding the scope and extent of the Constitutional Court\u2019s authority, had made it impossible to foresee the possible consequences of the expenses incurred. By way of example, it had had no way of knowing that travel expenses, legal fees or court costs, gifts and flowers presented at weddings, or official dinners connected to the party\u2019s political activities could not lawfully be charged as party expenses."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "5c638d73-b075-4680-9daa-ff9dea28af99", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government agreed that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the applicant association had amounted to an interference with its rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The refusal had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, in particular adherents of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, the reasons adduced by the courts had been relevant and sufficient. In this connection they averred that in the domestic case file there had been no proof attesting to the Macedonian nationality of the applicant association\u2019s founders, a fact which the applicants had failed to remedy in the impugned proceedings."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "4e8b70ec-fcc6-46dc-ad46-8f8b80eacb81", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. In particular, it was open to the applicant to lodge an acknowledgement claim under Article 68 of the CAP contesting the actions of the police, namely the dispersal of the assembly at Freedom Square. They argued that this remedy was effective both in theory and in practice, stating that at the material time there had been cases in which plaintiffs successfully brought proceedings before the Administrative Court concerning rights protected by Article 11 and submitting in support of their argument copies of three judgments rendered by that court between August and October 2008. Having failed to avail himself of this remedy, the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies and his complaint under Article 11 was therefore inadmissible."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "ea973d39-decf-42a9-abed-ed25c3da128f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "ae065463-3e48-4153-ba39-19d389b4949d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that they had been forced to become co-owners of their company with persons with whom they did not want to be partners. The Court considers that they failed to substantiate their complaint, given that the domestic courts did not order them to be partners with the employees, but to split the assets of the company, effectively ending any form of cooperation with them. In any event nothing prevented the applicants from leaving the company at any time."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "a9dc674d-9bb4-4005-a650-07150c26a1b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register the public association in a timely manner had constituted an interference with his freedom of association. As the Ministry evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of the founders' registration requests and breaching the statutory time-limit for the official response, his association had not been able to acquire legal status. This allegedly constituted a violation of his right to freedom of association, as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "41452117-b286-4608-b40e-12312ab4cbf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["201.  The applicant argued that, where a person falls into a category of people who are at risk from unlawful violence from State officials on account of trade union activities, the issues under Article 2 and Article 11 need to be considered separately. She asked the Court to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "4dcc5647-94c1-4f5a-bcf3-4e3cf0f25cb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The demonstration in which the applicant had taken part was not held in a permitted location and the measures taken by the national authorities had not furthered the aim of preventing the dissemination of ideas. Those measures had been taken with a view to preventing disorder and crime."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "18d53b2b-3663-4fd2-a7fc-64ebadd93abe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as although the applicant had raised a claim under Article <mask> of the Convention in the EAT it did not press that submission at the oral hearing and accepted that the EAT should proceed to interpret section 174 without reference to Article 11. It was then not able to pursue an appeal against the EAT for ignoring that claim. In particular, the applicant did not require the EAT to apply section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, by seeking to construe the legislation so as to make it compatible with its Convention right. It was only concerned to ensure that it could rely on Mr Lee's various activities as the basis for expelling him; it did not propose any construction of section 174 which would have accorded with its case before this Court, namely that it had an Article 11 right to determine its own membership. They submitted that Article 35 \u00a7 1 was not satisfied where an applicant relied on some other ground for impugning a measure, ignoring a possible Convention argument (Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2004\u2011III). They asserted that, if the applicant had pressed its submission that Article 11 entitled it to choose its own membership save where exclusion or expulsion caused loss of livelihood and that submission had been accepted, there was ample scope for a creative interpretation of section 174 which would have given effect to that conclusion, including the possibility of reading in a clause \u201csave as necessary to avoid breach of Convention rights\u201d."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b820ca97-eab7-42a5-9bc1-9ead87c2f2ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "f787dfbc-d6ef-49a1-a67a-0224c52a4071", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government raised two objections to admissibility before the Grand Chamber: one to the effect that it was impossible to rely against them on international instruments other than the Convention, particularly instruments that Turkey had not ratified; and the other to the effect that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants as they were civil servants and not ordinary contractual employees."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "050c0ec2-c128-431f-9086-50d12f2db2ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that under Article <mask> of the Convention the right of assembly was not an absolute right and therefore could be subjected to restrictions. In Hungary, the possibility of interfering with that right was laid down in an Act of Parliament. The holding of certain assemblies and meetings on public areas must be notified three days ahead. Under section 11(2) of the Assembly Act, the police were empowered to remove from the venue those who disturbed the assembly. In the course of securing an assembly, a police officer might, upon the well-founded suspicion of an administrative or criminal offence, apprehend the perpetrator; under section 142(2) b) of Act no. LXIX of 1999 on Administrative Offences, disobedience was punishable with a fine. Thus, the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly had been restricted in compliance with the conditions prescribed by law."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "366ff03d-2c69-4b75-aa70-9f27e312a27b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants submitted that the authorities\u2019 suggestion to change the venue of the \u201cdemonstration\u201d, the forceful termination of the \u201cdemonstration\u201d, their arrest and the fines imposed in the administrative proceedings constituted an interference with their right of peaceful assembly under Article <mask> of the Convention, considered in the light of Article 10. In the applicants\u2019 view, the applicable legislation did not meet the quality of law required under the Convention because this legislation did not indicate the scope of a public authority\u2019s discretionary power to change or restrict the location or time of a proposed gathering. The legislation did not determine the legal consequences of non-compliance with the authority\u2019s alternative proposal regarding the venue and/or timing of the event. It was not clear whether failure to comply with the proposal entailed administrative liability."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "cb674336-6c23-49ef-963a-2c57074bc93e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained of interference with their freedom of association on account of the acts directed against them, the participation of the clergy and municipal authorities in those acts, and the inactivity of the police when a group of demonstrators broke into and ransacked the party headquarters. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "40a962b3-3e10-44d0-8412-804adbef6340", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["232.  The Government alleged in the present case that the demonstrators had been the first to attack the police, which proved that they had had violent intentions. The applicant, however, contested such an account of events, both before this Court and the domestic courts (see, by contrast, Primov and Others, cited above, \u00a7 158) and claimed that, in fact, the exact opposite had happened and the police had been the first to attack the peaceful demonstrators camping at Freedom Square, brutally dispersing the assembly and intentionally provoking clashes. The Court notes that the Government\u2019s allegation appears to be based on the official account of events as provided in the above-mentioned letter of the Deputy Chief of the Armenian Police (see paragraph 22 above). Those findings, however, do not appear to have been reached as a result of any impartial and independent investigation and seem to be based entirely on the testimony of the police officers who had played an active role in the events of 1-2 March 2008, including the confrontation at Freedom Square, and were, moreover, alleged to have used excessive force against the demonstrators. The findings in question are not backed by any objective evidence and, moreover, appear to contradict a number of other materials of the criminal case, including the decision to institute criminal case no. 62202508 and several other documents, from which it appears that the clash at Freedom Square between the demonstrators and the police may in fact have been the consequence of certain unspecified measures taken by the police, aimed at forcibly terminating the demonstration, as opposed to it being a preemptive attack by the demonstrators as alleged by the Government (see paragraphs 15, 28, 29, 30 and 39 above). It is noteworthy that the courts examining the applicant\u2019s criminal case did not in any way address the circumstances of the clash, including the question of who initiated it, omitting from their judgments any relevant details. Even the applicant\u2019s disputed assault on police officer A.Arsh. was presented as a sporadic act, without any assessment of whether the violence was premeditated or a spontaneous development (see paragraph 84 above). It is true that the applicant was also found to have carried a clasp knife, which may suggest that he had had violent intentions. However, taking into account the manner in which that finding was reached and the evidence on which it was based (see paragraphs 208-210 above), as well as the absence of any evidence or even a suggestion that the applicant ever tried to put the alleged knife to use, the Court does not consider this, in the particular circumstances of the case, to be a sufficient and reliable element to deprive him of the protection of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court lastly notes that there are a number of credible reports produced by various international and domestic bodies regarding the events of 1 March 2008 which allege that the demonstrations at Freedom Square were peaceful and cast doubt on the official account of events, including the circumstances of the clash between the demonstrators and the police (see paragraphs 124, 125, 129, 131, 132 and 134 above). Lastly, the Government, while referring to the testimony of a person called V.N., did not, however, provide any details or explanation regarding the identity of that person, his alleged involvement in the events of 1-2 March 2008 or the relevance of his testimony to the applicant\u2019s particular case."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "efb2329a-1bbf-4e56-987d-40f3192cd0cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants criticised the manner in which the Government had raised the question concerning interpretation of the Convention. They pointed out that the Chamber had not applied the above-mentioned provisions of the European Social Charter in the present case, but that it had taken into account, in its interpretation of Article <mask> of the Convention, an opinion of the Committee of Independent Experts (now called the European Committee of Social Rights) concerning the connection between the right to organise and collective bargaining."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "6282b9a5-be7f-4689-87c7-5aa99c785b37", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants complained that their peaceful protests at the University over the period of 19-20 June and 3-4 July 2006 had been violently dispersed and that the prosecuting authorities had failed to initiate an investigation against the responsible authorities. They also denounced the imposition of administrative fines on them in connection with the events of 3 July 2006. They relied on Article 3, Article 5, Article 10 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which in their relevant parts read as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "9f46ff04-9e4d-4f84-9301-c0d2ec51162a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["261.  The applicant complained that the refusal by the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot authorities to allow her to cross the \u201cgreen line\u201d in order to attend a meeting organised by a radio station in southern Cyprus had prevented her from exercising her right to freedom of assembly and assembly with Greek Cypriots in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "afa8dd55-2cdc-4b08-92f8-2697da349fef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "927e447a-027a-4578-9184-6f19c7337a38", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["160.  The Government contended that the disorder at Bolotnaya Square had occurred when some of the organisers and participants had refused to follow the agreed plan, disregarded the police instructions to proceed to the designated venue at Bolotnaya embankment, and sat on the ground causing scuffles and disorder. The intervention of the police had been justified since the assembly had ceased to be \u201cpeaceful\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In dispersing the protesters, the police had not resorted to excessive force: only police truncheons had been used; only the most aggressive perpetrators had been targeted; and no tear gas or smoke bombs had been deployed."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b07cee25-8dec-42c2-b5c5-db614a5ab5c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants maintained that the provisions on political parties and Article 84 of the Constitution, which established a system of automatic forfeiture of parliamentary office following the dissolution of a political party, were incompatible with the Convention, in particular its Preamble and Articles 9, 10 and 11. They submitted that they had in no way caused the dissolution of the DEP by their words or deeds and concluded from that that the interference in question had not been justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b824e675-2207-4f6c-899c-a0492f954cbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The applicants complained that the unjustified refusal of Russian authorities to grant the applicant community re-registration as a religious organisation violated their rights under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that complaints about the refusal of registration fall to be examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 (see The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 74 and 75, with further references). As the religious nature of the applicant community was not disputed at the national level and it had been officially recognised as a regional religious organisation, the Court considers that this approach must be followed in the instant case."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "9851d5dd-3ec4-472b-ae96-e5696524c8af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention encompassed a negative right to freedom of association on an equal footing with the positive right and that consequently the Danish Protection against Dismissal due to Association Membership Act of 9 June 1982, as amended on 13 June 1990, violated that Article. In effect, it allowed an employer to require an employee to be a member of a trade union or a specific trade union in order to obtain employment."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "a93e62ba-21ec-4355-9563-d5ccafaec082", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant submitted that since in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov (no. 2) (cited above) the Court had already examined the authorities\u2019 actions in relation to the rally on 12 September 2007 and found a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, it was no longer justified to examine that complaint. By contrast, his complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 in relation to that rally still required examination."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "daad98e8-c1a9-4684-95e1-959d89bfd631", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that her unlawful detention for preventive purposes violated her right to liberty as provided in Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. That detention further served the purpose of preventing her from expressing her views on the transport of castor containers in demonstrations or by climbing actions, in breach of her rights under Article 10 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Articles 5 \u00a7 1, 10 and 11, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "0224fc19-7b64-469f-90fa-a803b68f70a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government submitted that in some of the cases about which the applicants complained there had been no interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, on 30 July 2000, even though the mayor had banned the meeting and the District Court had upheld that ban, Ilinden had been able to hold it without interference by the authorities. Likewise, there had been no interference with Ilinden's meeting in April 2000. Despite the provocative attitude of some of the organisation's leaders, the police had been able to preserve public order without impinging on their freedom of assembly. Further, there had been no interference with the meeting held on 22 April 2001 near the Rozhen monastery. The applicants' averment that the police had ordered the removing of the band on the wreath laid by members and followers of Ilinden and had arrested one person was untrue. The police had merely taken one person who was drunk out of the area where the meeting had been taking place. This could not be interpreted as an interference with the applicants' freedom of assembly. There had been no interference with the meeting held on 4 May 2001 either. The members and followers of Ilinden had gathered in the centre of Blagoevgrad and the police had asked them to continue the event in a nearby church only with a view to protecting them. The applicants' averment that the police had seized a camera and had ordered the members and followers of Ilinden to remove the band from the wreath they had laid at the monument was untrue. Finally, the meeting held on 12 September 2002 had not been interfered with. Despite the presence of a hostile crowd, the police had been able to secure the members and followers of Ilinden access to the site of the event. Only the adequate actions of the police had prevented the occurring of serious incidents."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "2f9df18f-1125-4322-a966-0f744a4b6f65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant association complained of a violation of its right to peaceful assembly. It claimed that the ban imposed on it on holding a demonstration had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "017ac774-74e3-40f8-ae0f-7e984e9cd862", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant finally complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that trade unions did not protect his rights, that the judgment of 18 December 2002 remained unenforced and that he could not receive the wage arrears because the proceedings in his case had been excessively long. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "25978813-2b34-4c4e-bdb5-df8fd3b5a2b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained about the refusal of the domestic courts to register it as an association. It further complained that it could not even reapply for registration, given the fact that by the time the registration request had been refused the deadline for the setting up of such professional associations had expired. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b92bd73d-f3a0-4c19-895e-7e30435e3e28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of association, arguing that the rejection by the domestic courts of the application for registration of the association founded by him and four other associates had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for that restriction. The relevant part of the aforementioned Article reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "57f323e4-41c0-4593-b043-36de595c7eb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of expression and to freedom of association had been infringed in that they had not been admitted to the ABA because of the views that they had expressed about the state of the legal profession in the country. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 complaint does not raise a separate issue under Article <mask> of the Convention and falls to be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "d57d99d4-c0db-4265-ac82-77d542dff19c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision declaring the Association\u2019s Articles and Programme null and void had violated their freedom of association, in that it led to the dissolution of the Association and deprived its members of the possibility jointly to pursue the purposes they had laid down in its Articles and Programme. In so far as relevant, Article 11 of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "5a7d0d56-00ef-48f8-94a0-4a1955bc04ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The Government further alleged that the disorder at Bolotnaya Square had occurred when some of the organisers and participants had refused to follow the agreed plan and had attempted to march outside the agreed area. They had disregarded the police instructions to proceed to the designated venue at Bolotnaya embankment, even though the venue had been accessible, and had sat on the ground, causing scuffles and disorder. According to the Government, two State Duma deputies, the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation and a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation had supported the police\u2019s demands and tried to convince the protesters to follow the route, to no avail. Then, at 6 p.m. one of the organisers, acting at the request of the police, had announced the early closure of the meeting; from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m. some of the protesters had attempted to break the police cordon and had thrown various objects at the police. From 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. the police had gradually forced the protesters to leave and had arrested those who offered the most active resistance. The Government submitted that the intervention of the police had been justified since the assembly had ceased to be \u201cpeaceful\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In dispersing the protesters, the police had not resorted to excessive force: only police truncheons had been used; only the most aggressive perpetrators had been targeted; and no tear gas or smoke bombs had been deployed."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "643020f2-5d16-4037-b77f-f0dd0b44a0f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants complained that the refusal of the respondent State to register the applicant association as a religious association had been in violation of their rights under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. For the reasons stated in the Ohrid Archdiocese case the Court considers that these complaints should be analysed from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 (ibid., \u00a7 61). They further alleged that the refusal had also been in violation of Article 14 to the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 9. These Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "44c87188-2153-41d2-925c-75296ed400ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicants argued that the refusal to register the Civic Committee had not been in accordance with the law, that it had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society. The applicants also alleged that their case concerned several aspects of the national legislation and administrative practice which run counter to the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "ec46c52e-ce09-4a99-94c6-b458f111bbeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government submitted that in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov (no. 2) (cited above) the Court had already given a broad ruling in relation to interference by the authorities with rallies organised by Ilinden. It was therefore not warranted to take up the same issue in a case brought by an individual claiming to have himself suffered a breach of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Although the applicant had not been a party to that earlier case, he did not have any separate legal interest requiring protection, and could not claim that he had suffered separate damage calling for an award of just satisfaction. Nor did the case concern a continuing breach, so as to require consecutive rulings by the Court."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "882006e9-63f8-4207-ad12-e2669e23e0b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicants submitted that the reasons given by the Sofia Court of Appeal to uphold the refusal to register Ilinden had been arbitrary, insufficient and contrary to this Court\u2019s case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Sofia Court of Appeal had not properly explained the link between, on the one hand, the allegedly tense situation in some unidentified \u201cneighbouring States\u201d and the migrant crisis affecting Europe and, on the other hand, Ilinden\u2019s registration. Nor had it duly substantiated its finding that the applicants had caused breaches of public order, basing it on a mixture of speculation and hostile propaganda by the Bulgarian media. The applicants noted that it was them who had in the past fallen victim to provocations by nationalist groups and violent acts by law-enforcement officers. The Sofia Court of Appeal had also overstated the meaning of the statements contained in Ilinden\u2019s articles of association in relation to the treatment to which Macedonians had been subjected in the past. Ilinden had not levelled allegations in that respect against ordinary Bulgarians but against nationalist groups and the public authorities. Moreover, contrary to the position of the Sofia Court of Appeal, the mere inclusion of such statements in the articles of association had not restricted the possibility for others not to believe them. The approach of that court had been contrary to pluralism and to the possibility, in a democratic society, to express opinions which offended, shocked and disturbed."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "16e32eb2-ca87-4285-9e29-4c8b1f172ff2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained that the suppression of the demonstrations and the arrests made by the police were in violation of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly as provided in Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. In respect of the events of 3 February 2009, the first applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the State had not discharged its positive obligation to protect his right to freedom of assembly. The applicants also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their deprivation of liberty had been unlawful. Article 5 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "42c49eba-cb4e-4207-afef-c3904f6b7230", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["262.  The applicant contended that she had been invited to attend a meeting to be held on 20 June 1997, which had been organised by a radio station on the side of the line controlled by the Cypriot Government. The applicant and her daughter had applied, in advance, to the \u201cTRNC\u201d regime's Foreign Ministry for permission to cross over to that side. Permission had been refused without any reason being given but journalists from the northern side had been granted permission to go. This impugned measure had constituted an unjustified interference with her right to freedom of association under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "473d9af8-9fbd-43bc-aa08-02f12130f197", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicants complained that the dispersal of the demonstrations of 20 October 2012, 12 January, 26 January and 30 April 2013 by the police and their arrests and convictions for administrative offences had been in breach of their right to freedom of assembly, as provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention, and their right to freedom of expression, as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "1a581c7d-a266-4083-a6f4-a7a3d6276ff1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register their organisation in a timely manner constituted an interference with their freedom of association. As the Ministry evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of their registration requests and breaching the statutory time-limits for the official response, their association could not acquire legal status. This allegedly constituted a violation of their right to freedom of association, as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "6055c322-a015-432a-ad16-c2b27700fd6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant disagreed that the prohibition on participating in strikes for certain categories of railway workers was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged that the right to strike could be restricted, but not completely prohibited. Furthermore, such restrictions had to be \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, pursue a \u201clegitimate aim\u201d and be \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, as provided by Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and Article 8 \u00a7 1 (a) and (d) and \u00a7 2 of the ICESCR. The applicant argued that (in violation of Article 26 \u00a7 2 of the 2003 Railway Act) no federal law had specified for which categories of railway workers strikes were prohibited and unlawful. In any event, the applicant asserted that the right to strike of the railway workers and locomotive drivers could not be restricted to such an extent as to impose a blanket prohibition (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, \u00a7 82, ECHR 2005\u2011IX). The applicant submitted that the Russian courts should have examined the particular circumstances of his case, such as specific nature of his duties (see, for instance, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, \u00a7 107, 12 November 2008), whether his participation in the strike had indeed affected the railway traffic and whether it had been possible to replace him by other workers not participating in the strike."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "321aeed1-87a7-48b1-a60d-d46eda954c80", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicants complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register their association in a timely manner constituted a violation of their right to freedom of association. As the Ministry had evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of their registration request and breaching the statutory time-limit for the official response, their organisation could not acquire legal status. Moreover, they complained that the founders\u2019 failure to include the description of the association\u2019s activity in its name, as well as to sign its charter, could not be a ground for refusal to register the association. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "c9f885ef-bd6e-4674-9cdf-783e1d8fcddf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicants pointed out that the interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been lawful. The police had had no power to give them orders because they had not committed an administrative or criminal offence. The authorities had failed to effectively inform the demonstrators of the termination of the protest and of the order to disperse. The applicants had been unaware of their decision to end the protest. They pointed out that pursuant to domestic law the police had been required to suspend the protest first, and to give the organisers time to remedy any breach before they had terminated it. However, in the present case no time had been given either to the organisers or to the demonstrators to follow the police instructions to disperse."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "736f6f47-835b-442a-837b-10947a5be189", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant reiterated that the Court had held \u2013 for instance, in National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium (27 October 1975, \u00a7 39, Series A no. 19) \u2013 that the Convention safeguarded freedom to protect the occupational interests of trade union members by engaging in trade union action, the conduct and development of which the Contracting States had to both permit and make possible. Article <mask> of the Convention nevertheless left each State a free choice as to the means to be used towards this end. The granting of the right to strike represented without a doubt one of the most important of these means, but there were others. Such a right, which was not expressly enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention, might be subject under national law to regulation of a kind that limited its exercise in certain instances (see, for instance, Schmidt and Dahlstr\u00f6m v. Sweden, 6 February 1976, \u00a7 36, Series A no. 21)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "712efb71-5507-429e-b6da-9829a0953ca5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government accepted, in view of the domestic courts\u2019 findings, that the refusal to renew the applicant party\u2019s registration and its dissolution were unlawful. However, they maintained that there has been no violation of the applicant party rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia, acting as a supervisory instance, acknowledged that and on 5 September 2002 ordered the registration of the applicant party."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "005496b7-f737-45d6-9f0b-3a49b5a85672", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government of the Republic of Moldova submitted that the Chamber had not struck a sufficient balance between the freedom of association claimed by the applicant union and the freedom of religion and right to autonomy of the Orthodox Church. They contended that Article <mask> of the Convention could not be construed as imposing a positive obligation on the State to recognise a secular association within a religious community where such recognition would be at variance with the State\u2019s duty of denominational neutrality."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "1b64a9cb-e979-4bce-ac4d-943a8a96dfd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicants further complained of violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c), Article 10 and Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they alleged that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and that their rights to freedom of expression and association had been breached since they had been prevented from participating in the festivities."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "17bf71b9-3b79-4698-b129-ec9fc162f3c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicants also complained that the levying of the monitoring fees on their wages had violated their right to negative freedom of association under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the fees had been tantamount to forced membership of the Union and had contributed to the general union activities. Moreover, under that Article, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, they claimed that, through the payment of the fees, they had come to support the Union\u2019s political and ideological programme. Finally, under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they asserted that they had been discriminated against in relation to members of the Union as well as members of other trade unions."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "a07bdd1f-c523-4f6c-a135-0e196ddc5da5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained of a violation of his right to peaceful assembly. He claimed that the ban repeatedly imposed by the Moscow authorities on holding the Pride March and the picketing had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "6cd04cef-b029-42e9-9fe0-3802e5d36429", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant union complained, firstly, that the domestic courts had refused to recognise it as having the necessary representative status for collective bargaining within a company as a result of their incorrect approach to the calculation of its membership among the employees of Tuka\u015f, and secondly, that the legislation and the courts had not prevented the company from eradicating trade unions from its premises by means of wrongful dismissals. To that end it relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "06830472-a954-4247-b43f-ec9181e0b7cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants contested the Government\u2019s interpretation, which they considered restrictive, of the concept of \u201ctrade union\u201d set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They affirmed that that article, including its aspect relating to trade unions freedom, concerned \u201ceveryone\u201d, and not just persons with employee status. That meant that Article 11 was also applicable to farmers. The applicants submitted that to exclude farmers from the scope of Article 11 of the Convention would be to deprive a large number of persons of the possibility of collectively defending, by means of trade unions, their professional interests, which they summarised."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "d80f3915-8336-47bf-910d-8b8a221fa150", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicants argued that the fact that they were fined for organising and/or participating at the CDPP gatherings amounted to a breach of their right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. According to them, the present case was to be distinguished from Ziliberberg v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 61821/00, 4 May 2004) because the CDPP gatherings were peaceful, they concerned a matter of major public interest and contributed to a public debate, and that the highest fines possible under the law had been applied to them."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "edfc47d1-dbfe-42b5-96fa-8afcddf0f1bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention that it had been arbitrarily stripped of its legal-entity status as a result of the refusal to re-register it as a religious organisation. The Court recalls that in a recent case it examined a substantially similar complaint about the refusal of re-registration of a religious organisation from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 (see The Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, \u00a7\u00a7 74 and 75, ECHR 2006\u2011...). The Court observes that the religious nature of the applicant was not disputed at the national level and it had been officially recognised as a religious organisation since 1994. In the light of this, the Court finds that the applicant's complaints must be examined from the standpoint of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "0cbe71b4-f84e-4a82-bc1b-b3c11da8a48e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "1efddead-9b42-4274-b5db-266cbc975782", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government considered that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the present case on the grounds that neither the first applicant nor the other persons wishing to join the applicant trade union had held employee status. They pointed out that in its relevant well-established case-law the Court had confirmed the applicability of the part of Article 11 of the Convention relating to trade union freedom exclusively in cases in which the applicants had, in fact, been employees. The Government quoted the examples of the Case of National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium (27 October 1975, Series A no. 19), Case of Swedish Engine Drivers\u2019 Union v. Sweden (6 February 1976, Series A no. 20), Wilson, National Union of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, ECHR 2002\u2011V) and Sindicatul \u201cP\u0103storul cel Bun\u201d (cited above)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "04e4dc44-b442-483e-bf8f-b6fb469570ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government further argued that the bans had been prescribed by law, namely section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. Also, the measures complained of had pursued a wide range of legitimate aims: protecting national security and public safety, guaranteeing public order in the local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder and crime. They had also been necessary in a democratic society, because the authorities had acted in conformity with the laws of the country, their actions had not been arbitrary and they had complied with their positive obligations to guarantee the citizens\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II, pp. 652\u201153, \u00a7 45), the Government submitted that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed to attain a legitimate aim."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "ea776c2a-241a-4145-8446-960669f56bda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN had been declared unconstitutional and as a result dissolved. They submitted that this interference with their freedom of association had not been prescribed by law, as in its interpretative judgment no. 7 of 1996 the Constitutional Court had held that restrictions of freedom of speech \u2013 which, in the applicants\u2019 view, applied mutatis mutandis to freedom of association \u2013 would only be justified if the speech in issue posed an immediate threat of violent overturning of the constitutional order and democracy. The applicants further submitted that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society, as the Constitutional Court had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "e886a55c-081f-4429-b0a4-3658557344a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant argued that his convictions under Article 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of assembly. He stated that the interference in question had not been prescribed by law, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, since he had been unable to foresee that his participation in the funeral of 28 March 2006 or the demonstration of 5 March 2007 and his conduct during those events would lead to his prosecution and conviction for membership of an illegal organisation and a prison sentence of seven years and eleven months. The applicant referred to the opinion of the dissenting assize court judge (see paragraph 21 above)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "99102261-1ee7-4dc7-98d6-0067894a0f4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant alleged a violation of his right to peaceful assembly. He complained, in particular, of disruptive security measures implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square, the early termination of the assembly, and his own arrest followed by his conviction for an administrative offence. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "fe193df5-c4cd-440b-a9d4-aa432f97992e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["229.  The Government did not appear to contest that the fifth applicant, regardless of the fact that proceedings against him had been discontinued, could still claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of his right under Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had been an interference with that right (see paragraph 199 above). In any event, like the other applicants, the fifth applicant was removed from the site by the police, which in itself constitutes an interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and later formally reprimanded for his actions (see paragraphs 43 and 62 above). Therefore, the applicant can continue to claim to be the victim of an interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "4615230d-2e3c-492d-bb5e-2ccb224a9134", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicants submitted that the ban on meetings organised by them in commemoration of certain historical events, and the attitude of the authorities at the relevant time were aimed at suppressing the free expression of ideas at peaceful gatherings. As such they amounted to an interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, seen against this background as lex specialis in relation to Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "96dbefe9-b7c1-4fde-82c1-b8ebfcd13fc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government went on to say that in upholding the mayor\u2019s decision to ban the rally, the Blagoevgrad District Court had not relied on the fact that the organisation staging the rally had not been registered \u2013 grounds previously found deficient by this Court \u2013 and therefore no issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to that aspect of its reasoning. That court had relied on public-order considerations and had had regard to the discretion enjoyed by the mayor in such matters. The rally planned for 30 September 2006 had coincided with an event planned by the municipality, and the mayor had been entitled to take measures to ensure that that event unfolded smoothly."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "a0fdf66f-ae1e-4653-98e3-7a194f9e073f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants complained of an interference with their freedom to hold opinions, the opinion in question being that an employee should be allowed to choose to be represented by a trade union in negotiations with the employer. The Court does not, however, consider that any separate issue arises under Article 10 that has not already been dealt with in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention. It is not, therefore, necessary to examine this complaint separately."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "c93d3870-7a67-4d78-a921-95f2f757573a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The Government further submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law. They noted in this regard that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 23(b) of Law no. 2911 and Articles 220 \u00a7 6 and 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code. According to the Government, these provisions, and in particular Article 220 \u00a7 6 of the Criminal Code, fulfilled the requirement of \u201cforeseeability\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "6673c66b-7d41-408e-8f67-9cda71dad261", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings had been excessively long and that the courts had been partial and biased because they had ruled against him. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the imposition of an administrative fine. In so far as the applicant complained about the unfavourable outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning his right to freedom of assembly, the Court notes that this issue has already been addressed above and has led to a finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The proceedings lasted less than one year, which is not in excess of a \u201creasonable time\u201d, and the allegation of partiality and bias is not supported by any material in the case-file. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "018ec8b5-9206-4309-a822-f1dc147e502e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant organisation claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for the non\u2011pecuniary damage arising out of the violation of its Convention rights. It claimed that its opposition to the actions of the municipality had been frustrated which had been further intensified by the involvement of the police and the latter's insistence that its leaders sign declarations that they would not violate the issued prohibition. The applicant organisation also claimed that the lengthy proceedings before the domestic courts and the uselessness of the resulting judgment created further frustration and a sense of helplessness in the face of the unlawful actions of the authorities. It also referred to other cases against Bulgaria, where the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and had awarded compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage to the applicants in those cases (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, cited above, \u00a7 121; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, cited above, \u00a7 122; and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, \u00a7 67, 20 October 2005)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "0de56083-9b6f-4a84-ba52-53214afe8abd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["169.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s punishment for participation in mass disorder and using violence against the police officer related to acts unconnected with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly. The Court observes that the acts imputed to the applicant included chanting anti-government slogans during the dispersal of the assembly and throwing an unidentified round yellow object in the direction of the police cordon; the object hit police officer F. causing no injury. The Court has previously examined a number of cases where the demonstrators had engaged in acts of violence and found that the demonstrations in questions had been within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention on the basis that the organisers of these assemblies had not expressed violent intentions and there were no grounds to believe that the assemblies were not meant to be peaceful. The Court found that the applicants in those cases enjoyed the protection of Article 11 of the Convention and examined whether the measures taken against them were justified under the second paragraph of this provision. In one of these cases it found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention on account of a disproportionate sentence imposed on the applicant for attending a demonstration and throwing stones at the security forces (see G\u00fclc\u00fc v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, \u00a7\u00a7 91-97, 19 January 2016). In other cases it found that the authorities\u2019 response to violence had been proportionate and complied with Article 11 of the Convention (see Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001\u2011X; Protopapa v. Turkey, no. 16084/90, \u00a7\u00a7 104-12, 24 February 2009; and Primov and Others v. Russia, no. 17391/06, \u00a7\u00a7 156-63, 12 June 2014)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b46ba075-6fea-4ed8-b808-cbce57759f4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register the public association in a timely manner constituted an interference with her freedom of association. As the Ministry evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of the founders' registration requests and breaching the statutory time-limit for the official response, her association could not acquire legal status. This allegedly constituted a violation of her right to freedom of association, as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "594de469-5a51-45c3-811f-50fb5278c388", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "4a580b56-9065-4d21-a858-c3b528b588cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant alleged a breach of her right to freedom of peaceful assembly with other aliens for the purposes of denouncing their treatment. The interference with that right was not prescribed by law (as the evacuation order was illegal), and was neither justified by a legitimate aim, nor proportionate. She alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "c3061a7c-e498-495a-b808-de981a47c302", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of their freedom of assembly. They complained that there was no effective procedure which would have allowed them to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. Article 13 of the Convention reads:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "7f3feac6-6717-4992-a265-35dc1b00f193", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant complained that the statutory ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public deprived her of the possibility of wearing the Islamic full-face veil in public places. She alleged that there had been a violation of her right to freedom of association and discrimination in the exercise of that right. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, taken separately and together with the above-cited Article 14. Article 11 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "5c357f1a-0901-49a2-b94c-04fd5187cd2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicants maintained that their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached since their employer had acted with the intention of deterring and penalising trade union membership. They submitted that the State had been directly involved in a number of unfavourable acts against them as members of the DUR trade union, as it controlled the Kaliningrad seaport company. They alleged that twenty percent of the shares had been held by the Kaliningrad Regional Development Fund and a further thirty-five percent had been controlled by Mr Karetniy, who had held simultaneously the positions of first deputy Governor, manager of the Fund and member of the board of the seaport company."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "e72bfacb-332c-40b7-8113-525e32f78af4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. They submitted that the ban of the meeting in issue in the present case had been only one of many such bans. They also pointed out that despite the numerous rulings by the Court relating to earlier breaches of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Bulgarian Government\u2019s policy toward them had improved little if at all. This had made them feel a particularly acute sense of injustice and helplessness, and had exacerbated the distress suffered by them on account of the breach of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "e355bf73-cd2b-4751-8f8d-f45b0fd90b1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants went on to argue that the only reason for the violation of their right to freedom of association had been their Macedonian ethnicity. That was evident from the broader context, and in particular, two elements. The first was the systematic restrictions of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, as well as the rights of other ethnic Macedonians, during the past two and a half decades, and the second element was the Bulgarian State\u2019s policy of denying the existence of a Macedonian ethnic identity in Bulgaria (see Kiril Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 17599/07, \u00a7\u00a7 66-67, 11 January 2018)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "64eb36e7-9d6a-49ac-a6a1-5cee69ab1a6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to demonstrate under Article <mask> of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "dc1e5563-94b2-4fd2-9c11-6106fcf72392", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant association complained that the refusal of the respondent State to register it as a religious community constituted a violation of its rights under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. For the reasons stated in the OOA case, the Court considers that these complaints should be analysed from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 (see ibid., \u00a7 61). These Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "256a3dd1-d198-4af9-96ae-318b096b60f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicants pointed out that the articles and drawings were not signed and concerned a debate in exclusively employment and trade-union matters, conducted via the union\u2019s medium of communication. It was thus arbitrary to consider that its members had all been personally responsible for this publication, resulting in either disciplinary liability of a collective nature or a patently illegal action, requiring the dissolution of the trade union within the company by dismissing its founder members in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "3c205fe5-76c0-491c-89e5-6ea4e8aae3de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government objected that the dismissal of employees of the Tuka\u015f company had not interfered with trade-union freedom as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Even assuming that there had been such an interference, the labour courts had afforded redress for it by finding in favour of the dismissed employees. Each of them had received compensation for wrongful dismissal equivalent to one year\u2019s wages."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "806cb140-6fb5-475e-b43e-b49a58c44fce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicants pointed out that the interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been lawful. The police had had no power to give them orders because they had not committed any administrative or criminal offence. The authorities had failed to effectively inform the demonstrators of the termination of the assembly and of the order to disperse. The applicants had been unaware of their decision to end the assembly. They pointed out that under domestic law the police were required to suspend the assembly first, and to give the organisers time to remedy any breach, before they could terminate it. However, in the present case no time had been given either to the organisers or to the demonstrators to follow the police instructions to disperse."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "8c26ce85-4dea-48c7-81d0-499b85218e21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicants placed particular emphasis on the deficiencies of the reasoning adduced by the domestic authorities. Both sides asked the Court to re-examine the proportionality of the \u201cinterference\u201d, while raising a disagreement about certain circumstances having significance for such an assessment. The Court, for its part, is not satisfied that the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the \u201cinterference\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention were sufficient for then sentencing four applicants to detention. Faced with the domestic courts\u2019 failure to give reasons that would be both relevant and sufficient to justify the interference, the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have \u201capplied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11\u201d or to have \u201cbased themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts\u201d (see paragraph 131 above; see also Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, \u00a7 152, 26 April 2016, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, \u00a7 24, 26 January 2017)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "e686733a-c8d9-41c1-b4c8-0cdfe66eefb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The Government were of the opinion that the applicant was free to put his Convention complaints before the civil court in summary proceedings. There was nothing to prevent the applicant from seeking an interim measure in summary proceedings, for which legal representation is not mandatory and, in any event, free legal aid was available to him. Moreover, the applicant was well aware of this possibility because, together with four other inmates of the Point Blanche Penitentiary, he took civil proceedings before the Court of First Instance of St. Maarten, claiming the same remission of sentence granted to detainees in the Koraal Specht Prison on grounds of overcrowding, as well as claiming the right to create an association of detainees in the Penitentiary. This resulted in a judgment of 18 April 1997 in which it was held inter alia that, on the basis of Article <mask> of the Convention, inmates could claim the right of assembly and that, consequently, in all reasonableness and for the purposes of formalising the proposed association, the inmates\u2019 representative and notary public could not be refused entry to the Point Blanche Penitentiary. It therefore ordered the authorities of the Netherlands Antilles to allow a notary public entry into the establishment. However, for reasons that are unclear, the applicant failed to avail himself of this remedy."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "7aa2ea80-68ea-455f-afa0-498eb5cd6377", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes in this connection that the applicants had permission to organise a meeting on the premises of the University on 3 July 2006 and that they had availed themselves of that opportunity. During the first phase of their protest on that day they gathered, as duly authorised by the University administration, in one of the lecture halls (see paragraph 11 above). They moved, however, soon afterwards to the acting Rector\u2019s office, protesting against the ongoing University reform and demanding his resignation. The events which developed subsequent to their unauthorised entry to the Rector\u2019s office do not represent, in the Court\u2019s view, a standard situation of a \u201cpeaceful assembly\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. As noted in Kudrevi\u010dius and Others, although not an uncommon occurrence in the context of the exercise of freedom of assembly in modern societies, physical conduct purposely obstructing the ordinary course of life in order to seriously disrupt the activities carried out by others is not at the core of that freedom as protected by Article 11 of the Convention (cited above, paragraph 97; see also Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, \u00a7\u00a7 123-128, 25 July 2017). Nevertheless, the Court notes that the applicants were not held responsible for using violence. While the events at issue happened in a situation of tension, the applicants\u2019 conduct was not established to have been of a violent nature. The Court thus does not consider that the applicants\u2019 protest on 3 July 2006, viewed as a whole, was of such a nature and degree as to exclude them from the scope of protection under Article 11 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 10."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "be70bca7-1952-45d7-9f96-f5c64e6d642c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government disputed that there had been any restriction on the applicant\u2019s right of association, as provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention, with respect to either his right to form and join trade unions or his right not to belong to an association. The applicant was not a member of the FII and had not been coerced in any way into becoming a member. The applicant was only one of 10,000 \u2013 in a country with a population of 300,000 \u2013 who were subject to the industry charge. The amount of the industry charge was very low, constituting 0.08% of business turnover. It was not a membership fee but a tax imposed for a specific purpose laid down in statute, in the Industry Charge Act (\u201cthe 1993 Act\u201d), namely to promote industry and industrial development in Iceland. Like other taxes, the charge was collected by the State. In accordance with the Act, the funds were disbursed to the FII, which was obliged to use them for the stated purpose. It should be stressed that, even though the FII was a non-governmental organisation, it had been given a clear and legally prescribed role in one aspect, which was to use the industry charge for the benefit of industry as a whole. This included the applicant as a self-employed individual."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "ffa69603-305d-479f-a1d5-cd7e01377fe2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government disputed that there had been any interference with the negative aspect of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of association, as provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. It submitted that the applicant company was merely under the obligation to pay contributions to the Social Welfare Fund which were used to pay benefits to employers and employees in the building industry. The applicant company did not become, nor was it obliged to become, a member of the Social Welfare Fund on account of the declaration of general applicability of the VTV, nor of the employers\u2019 associations which concluded the VTV. It was not threatened with sanctions or other disadvantages if it did not join. There was, therefore, no compulsion that the applicant company join an association."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "482e759a-fe01-4a44-8e52-a8b66e0b1ee9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant invokes two separate Convention provisions: Article 10 and Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Court\u2019s opinion, in the circumstances of the present case, Article 10 of the Convention is to be regarded as a lex generalis in relation to Article 11, which is a lex specialis. The thrust of the applicant\u2019s complaint is that he was prevented from attending a peaceful assembly, the March of Dissent in Samara. The Court therefore finds that the applicant\u2019s complaint should be examined under Article 11 of the Convention alone. At the same time, notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 of the Convention must also be considered in the light of Article 10, where the aim of the exercise of freedom of assembly is the expression of personal opinions as well as the need to secure a forum for public debate and the open expression of protest (see Kudrevi\u010dius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, \u00a7\u00a7 85 and 86, ECHR 2015)."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "434cd827-44f6-44cb-8526-5be75226a7d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants alleged a violation of their right to peaceful assembly. They complained, in particular, of disruptive security measures implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square, of the early termination of the protest and about their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offences. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "7b4b4a11-987f-440f-b1cc-22566dd386d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicants complained that, as they had been victims of aggression in relation to their participation in a peaceful assembly, by failing to conduct effective investigations the State had breached its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken alone or together with Article 14. They further complained that they had had no effective remedy at their disposal to complain either about the fact that the crimes against them had been motivated by their sexual orientation, or that the criminal investigation had lasted too long and had been inefficient, thus hindering their access to civil redress. The complaints were communicated to the respondent Government under Articles 11, 13 and 14, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "f06328ba-e037-4e71-9087-de00141e51af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants alleged that the forfeiture of their parliamentary seats following the dissolution of the DEP by the Constitutional Court had infringed their right to freedom of association under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also alleged a violation of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "66b8fa31-94b0-4ca3-8520-41e85f5c785e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government submitted that the main reason why the domestic courts had declared the Annex null and void, with retrospective (ex tunc) effect, was that it had not been entered into by all the trade unions that had concluded the main Collective Agreement for the Health and Health Insurance Sector (see paragraphs 23 and 26-29 above). Given that the applicant union must have been aware of that fact before calling the strike, the Government concluded that the union must also have known that the Annex had been invalid from the outset and that therefore any industrial action in support of it had been unlawful and unnecessary. In particular, given that the main ground for the strike had been the alleged non-observance of the obligations arising from the Annex (see paragraph 14 above), the applicant union must have been aware that by organising and holding the strike it could not have forced the State to comply with the invalid Annex. Consequently, in the Government\u2019s view, the applicant union could not have protected the interests of its members by holding the strike in question and thus could not complain of its prohibition by relying on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "7b64a7c7-e84f-4bdd-ac2b-916cc1241cb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government conceded that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the applicant association amounted to an interference with its rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the refusal had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Furthermore, the reasons adduced by the courts had been relevant and sufficient. In this connection they submitted that the language used in the minutes of the constituent assembly (see paragraph 4 above) demonstrated that the applicant association was disrespectful of the MOC and offended the religious beliefs of its adherents."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "b1637ac4-1294-424a-b200-a907a205c1dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that given its violent character, the demonstration was clearly outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention and constituted an unlawful assembly. Knives and other cutting instruments had been found in the possession of some of the arrested demonstrators. The Government referred on this point to sections 70, 71, 80 and 82 of the Cyprus Criminal Code, which was applicable in the \u201cTRNC\u201d (see paragraphs 22-25 above) and recalled that according to Chapter 155 of the Criminal Procedure Law (see paragraph 26 above), the police had the power to arrest persons involved in violent demonstrations. Moreover, it was an offence under the laws of the \u201cTRNC\u201d to violate the borders of the State."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "09d7ef16-f1db-42a7-8025-f415365e2359", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government contested that argument. They considered that the proposal made by the city authorities as to the change of the venue of the rally ignored by its organisers should not be construed as an infringement of the applicant\u2019s rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the applicant\u2019s arrest and ensuing administrative proceedings, the Government considered such measures proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order pursued by the law enforcement authorities. Lastly, they submitted that the fine in the amount of RUB 500 imposed on the applicant had not been a severe sanction."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "230b85ce-df9d-45ae-834a-42eb9e5ba023", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant asserted that the State had the positive obligation to secure to him the effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Wilson, National Union of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 30668/96 and 2 others, \u00a7 41, ECHR 2002\u2011V, and Gustafsson v. Sweden, 25 April 1996, \u00a7 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II). He considered, in particular, that it was the authorities\u2019 primary obligation to enact legislation governing the effective execution of railway employees\u2019 right to strike. However, Parliament had failed to enact a federal law listing those categories of railway workers who were prohibited from participating in strikes under Article 26 \u00a7 2 of the 2003 Railway Act."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "dee78516-0e04-4998-a6ae-d055ab60cb28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government conceded that the Zagreb County Court\u2019s judgment of 8 April 2005 (see paragraph 19 above) prohibiting the applicant union from holding a strike on 11 April 2005, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 27 April 2005 (see paragraph 23 above), had constituted an interference with the applicant union\u2019s freedom of association. The Court, having regard to its case-law according to which strike action is protected under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Enerji Yap\u0131-Yol Sen v. Turkey, no. 68959/01, \u00a7 24, 21 April 2009, and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2014), sees no reason to hold otherwise."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "5891e4c4-f619-4ebf-a85a-a3db3454a023", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicants alleged that the dissolution of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and the temporary prohibition barring its leaders \u2013 including Mr Necmettin Erbakan, Mr \u015eevket Kazan and Mr Ahmet Tekdal \u2013 from holding similar office in any other political party had infringed their right to freedom of association, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "obj_label": "11", "id": "4886db29-7696-4f05-9765-be11cf2f9a0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicants claimed jointly 50,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for the non\u2011pecuniary damage they had sustained as a result of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention found in the present case. In support of their claims they stressed that the applicant party had been politically active for approximately a year before being dissolved and had successfully participated in local government elections. They further argued that as persons who identify themselves as ethnic Macedonians they faced a long\u2011standing policy of denial of their political rights, which was apparent from the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (cited above). In their view, this called for a higher award of non\u2011pecuniary damages."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "f27e3fda-8491-47e0-84cd-bac4eb984576", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government maintained that in all cases where there had been an interference with the applicants' rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, that interference had been lawful and had been based on the unambiguous wording of section 12 of the Meetings and Marches Act. This was the sole basis for the decisions of the mayors and for those of the courts examining the applications for judicial review of the mayors' decisions."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "f51dab30-a659-453e-ae71-64c1f2459ebf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant submitted that for an employee to lose his job for exercising his right to freedom of association struck at the \u201cvery substance\u201d of that right. Consequently, he contended that the Government had a positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to enact legislation which would have afforded him protection from the termination of his employment by Serco on the ground of his involvement with the BNP. However, since he had less than one year\u2019s qualifying service, he was unable to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996."], "obj_label": "11", "id": "41ae2590-15b0-41cf-88cb-21803346c564", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in his case. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the courts dealing with his case had not been impartial. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully induced to sign an administrative record documenting his offence. He finally alleged that he had been discriminated against on the ground of social status, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "65d5b686-9e96-434e-b722-33579c658323", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (paragraph 13), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 46-48). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b952af79-728b-46cd-a134-70f8d0c8b529", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy by which to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings in her case. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "18b9bfbe-4c77-442b-a5d0-1368117818fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a1995255-ee6e-45af-adc7-899a57b5e2a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2e7756f4-953e-49d0-af12-ac7435f84df3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained about the Bankya mayor\u2019s refusal to comply with the judgment of the Sofia Administrative Court of 9 January 2009 ordering him to issue a certificate and a plan of the plot of land. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is of the view that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "41408339-bf4d-4d21-9e29-e8db00f541e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that he had been arbitrarily held in detention in Turkey for a long time. He also argued that he had had no domestic remedy whereby he could obtain compensation for his allegedly arbitrary detention. In this connection, the applicant relied on Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention. He further invoked a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that he had no effective remedy whereby he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c97537b9-12fe-4899-a014-6cf7a2a0657a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the killing of Khozh\u2011Akhmed Akhmadov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. Moreover, she could have applied for civil compensation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ecf36d72-6072-4390-be59-1e5ebaa236ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings which concerned each of them had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The second and the third applicants further complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that they had not had effective remedies in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e449c827-d7d1-4544-a858-7023dd693b66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government\u2019s main argument was that Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 did not apply in the instant case. Firstly, since 7 November 2005 (the date on which he had obtained refugee status), the applicant no longer faced a risk of deportation, with the result that the complaint under Article 3 was no longer \u201carguable\u201d and Article 13 could no longer be relied on in conjunction with that Article. Secondly, the Government argued, the applicant had lost his status as victim, as Article 13 could not be dissociated from the Articles to which it applied. As he could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3, neither could he claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with that Article."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "41525941-ae9c-4f78-bfc0-9addba389902", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicants also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the administrative proceedings conducted against them. In view of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "637f8a5a-ec15-4e87-b437-b4fcabe4774e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s allegations were effectively examined in the course of the relevant criminal inquiry and investigation. The Court notes that, in addition to the theft, the domestic criminal law provided for a series of offences which potentially covered the actions complained of by the applicant (see paragraphs 33 - 35 above). Moreover, the applicant\u2019s civil claim was joined to the criminal case concerning the alleged theft for a joint examination of criminal responsibility and civil liability arising from the same culpable actions (see paragraph 15 above). Accordingly, the Court will examine whether the criminal procedures pursued by the applicant were effective for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "710842fb-1e98-4551-959d-72e25e55cc4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicants maintained that they had become direct targets in China on account of their political and religious beliefs. For that reason, they would be exposed to a real risk of being executed or subjected to incommunicado detention, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if returned to China. They further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy at their disposal with regard to their complaints under Articles 2 and 3, whereby the risks involved in their deportation could be subjected to meaningful judicial scrutiny in a timely manner. The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "efd8c700-1816-4887-a030-812bc6674185", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicants complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, that they had been ordered to pay into the insolvency estate the money received from K. without any proof of bad faith on their part and without any reasonable chance to recover that money, in particular by joining the insolvency proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e017e175-cba1-4c8c-85d9-03ccc93cd2dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been threatened with deportation to Iran or Iraq, alleging that he would be exposed to a clear risk of death or ill-treatment if deported. He maintained that removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of death or ill\u2011treatment. In particular, as a former member of the PMOI, he runs the risk of being subjected to the death penalty in Iran. The applicant further submitted that, in Iraq, he would be subjected to ill-treatment as in that country he is considered by the authorities to be an ally of the former Saddam Hussein regime. The applicant finally submitted under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In this connection, the applicant maintained that he had not been served with a deportation order and that he had been denied access to the asylum procedure in Turkey."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ca2558ea-1b87-4975-9eeb-36ce32a8e918", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "87afcb3c-647b-4082-9811-7e9bdc42c9d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government submitted that the applicant's right guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention had been fully respected as police officer Mr N., who had broken into the applicant's house and had beaten him and his daughter up, had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. In addition, compensation of RUB 25,000 had been awarded to the applicant and his daughter. The Government stressed that the applicant's tort action against State bodies, including the Yemelyanovskiy district police department which had employed officer N., had lacked any legal basis as \u201cdual compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the same actions of the person concerned [was] impossible\u201d."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d632cd89-0027-44a3-b99c-c172de0c2e74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "71dabe3a-397a-43bd-86cb-a6e438b15072", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, that his rights during the enforcement of the judgment against him had been breached, and that the District Administration had acted unlawfully in taking the books from the publishing house, not returning them in accordance with the court order of 5 October 2000, and distributing them as they saw fit having cut out the pages containing the disputed statements. In addition, he complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies to complain about various elements of purported procedural unfairness in the proceedings to which he was a party and the allegedly unlawful conduct of various authorities and cited Article 17 of the Convention with respect to the facts of the present case."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "27eec568-ba43-46cf-9c5a-ae48753280ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, and the first applicant had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3b5249ce-b133-448d-b23c-e922734e0119", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant also alleged that the police had purposefully delayed the criminal proceedings to cover up the unlawful search, seizure and retention of his property and that there had been no way for him to obtain redress for this situation. In this connection, he referred to Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "90860d56-1fb9-4bfc-a5c0-d040a95eacb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "287d2b4d-12ec-4188-ad15-0a6ba02cebd6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been deprived of property they had acquired by virtue of the Sozopol land commission\u2019s decision of 20 October 1997 and the Burgas District Court\u2019s judgment of 26 July 1999. Relying on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, they further complained that the restitution procedure, taken in its entirety, had continued for an unreasonably lengthy period of time."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b6a85c3a-15f4-4911-807c-dfeda6bab018", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not had at his disposal an effective remedy for the complaint that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being deprived of effective medical care and being detained in inadequate conditions at the medical colony. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3355b16e-bd48-4960-aca5-d1905c48d824", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicants complained that, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. They noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates to judicial positions in Azerbaijan was performed by the Judicial Legal Council under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The applicants alleged that, in such circumstances, the judges of the domestic courts could not be independent and impartial in the proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, because their subsequent re-appointment to the courts would depend on the discretion of the Minister of Justice as the Chairman of the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermore, in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1, the applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because they had never ruled against the Ministry of Justice in cases concerning the delays in registration of non-governmental organisations."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f6594037-27ec-4dfc-a3be-b2c976ca3e1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The Government contended that, in so far as the applicant\u2019s allegation could be considered to constitute an arguable claim, the Romanian legal system had offered an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been able to contest the decisions of the prosecutor\u2019s office before independent and impartial courts and those courts had examined his complaints."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f34a0481-23df-4240-a2fe-0fe241a3b6ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government have raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for the complaint that he was being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being detained in inadequate conditions. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "68dcdf6e-8ab9-4f06-beb6-8c87f5dd51c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant also submitted that she had no effective remedy whereby she could raise the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings in her case. Furthermore, the domestic legal system did not provide for any measure that would oblige defendants in paternity disputes to comply with a court order for DNA tests to be carried out. In her view, that amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8d292a27-9fcc-40f0-a085-97b20f0fcd76", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0f61e263-2072-4862-84a4-de817d059530", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and that they could have also claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b9c4c05c-c62c-46e6-a4d0-547a7f4fa970", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, about the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court and about the outcome and length of the proceedings. She further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies against the Administrative Court\u2019s judgment. She additionally complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her Serbian origins. Finally, she complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she had been deprived of her severance pay."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e768c76d-4920-46d9-906f-b76b172b61ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicants. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, \u00a7 54, 8 January 2013, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, \u00a7 70, 10 January 2012)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0bfbd7e1-7ac7-4d86-926c-9e951eead7a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a lack of an effective remedy in respect of the two contradictory judgments given by the Supreme Court on 12 March 2002 and on 2 October 2002 on the same issue (see paragraphs 34, 42 and 43 above). In this regard, he pointed out that the Commission had followed the first judgment by annulling his appointment of First Officer of Town Planning and totally ignored the second one by not appointing him as Director of Town Planning."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "26b134bd-3d76-4c08-9cc7-8b058c5e9a7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicants complain that their removal, direct or indirect, to Serbia and the refusal to regularise their stay in Belgium amounted to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in that it put their oldest daughter\u2019s life at risk and placed all of the applicants at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment (see paragraph 173). Furthermore, they complain that they did not have access to an effective remedy, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 174)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5665cd96-936d-4dce-999a-0d1f1eb8525a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments given in their favour in due time. They invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The first, the fifth, the seventh, the ninth and the tenth applicant additionally invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, complaining about their inability to obtain the judgments debts within a reasonable time. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a818ac69-3aa0-48c3-b80f-f4ddefc9b9b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair and that the authorities had failed to enforce a final decision in his favour. Under Article <mask> of the Convention he complained that there was no effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of a final court decision. He also made a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6fe2d5bc-c71c-4193-bdb0-6cca0ddaa80a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["163.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b89219c9-75de-4cec-87cd-fad75fc4fbb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and had not been prevented from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure or to bring civil claims for damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "091567ec-df28-4a41-979f-f21d2183e39b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention claiming that they did not have an effective remedy at their disposal against the decision of the Regional Land Reform Board of 26 March 2008 to interrupt the proceedings for three years which resulted in a standstill of the proceedings. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "592bd684-e2d4-4b22-a1e7-2ef293e01024", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e372d57f-99d5-4de0-adf1-5487b14e416f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the applicants had been declared victims and had received reasoned replies to all their requests made in the context of the investigation. They also argued that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, it had been open to the applicants to lodge a court complaint in respect of the actions of the investigating authorities or, if the applicants had considered that any action or omission by public officials had caused them damage, to seek compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of that argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Urus-Martan Town Court dated 6 August 2004 which had ordered the Urus-Martan prosecutor\u2019s office to resume the investigation into the disappearance of a claimant\u2019s son, a decision of the Shali Town Court dated 13 March 2006 by which a claimant had been allowed access to a criminal investigation file, a judgment of Nazran Town Court dated 26 February 2003 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the federal armed forces, and a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted as a result of the unlawful actions of a prosecutor\u2019s office. The Government did not enclose copies of the decisions to which they referred."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d3ba025b-cec9-4750-b0aa-786dca814834", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["369.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0875cfce-9661-4203-9bc4-e33238ba669c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. It had also been open to them to file a civil claim for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a2da8287-802d-44f2-ba0c-3b836f3cfac3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicant also alleged that he had not had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 concerning the conditions of his detention and the standard of medical assistance available to him in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs, Sokyriany Colony and during his transit to Torez Colony, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "893b776b-a6c0-403e-94e1-b6d7eaefe168", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Prosecutor General had refused his requests for a supervisory review of his conviction in the first set of criminal proceedings. The Court reiterates that no provision of the Convention guarantees the right to the reopening of proceedings which have been closed by a final judgement (see Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, \u00a7 35, 8 January 2008, and the jurisprudence cited therein).  It follows that the applicant\u2019s complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e59d9a57-0dcc-4d47-a1fb-a74159b067e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings he instituted in October 2002 against the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, as a recent authority, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, \u00a7 23, 13 March 2007), finds that the above complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 of the Convention, which was cited above."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e6a53478-00ff-412d-9263-8f711af3a33b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ef552924-1d8f-4f64-925f-1fd2d272cfbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants disagreed with the Government\u2019s allegation that they had not exhausted domestic remedies and claimed that they had attempted several avenues of redress. They maintained that they had not had an effective remedy for their complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and transfer. They pointed out that on 6 December 2011 the Justice of the Peace had refused to examine their complaints concerning the conditions of detention and transfer, without giving reasons. 103.  The Court considers that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy for the complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being transferred and detained in inadequate conditions. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "242a8012-ebf3-408f-8028-e4e53c27aba7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3d0202d8-149c-44b7-b1bc-d5ae0e18029d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 14), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 46-48). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "29e98605-a3f4-4f10-9f94-37dca29e46f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. The first and fifth applicants also complained of the lack of effective remedy in domestic law in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as relevant, these provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "330b7fca-aeaa-42f1-a25a-8fb5c2ec72cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant maintained that, although he had taken every reasonable step in order to ensure that his son\u2019s disappearance was properly and thoroughly investigated by the State, the investigation conducted by the authorities had been insufficient to meet the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also alleged that the respondent State tolerated the practice of ineffective investigations into allegations of disappearances involving Kurds."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d7c491e9-03cf-485d-b439-618fb49b9180", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant further complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint, described above, about the conditions of his detention in the remand centre; that there had been no effective investigations into his complaint. The Court will examine the above grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "36a1f51d-fdb4-4cfc-a77c-52a7b7af2789", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government argued that a constitutional complaint was an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention to complain about the length of criminal proceedings and the applicant therefore should have exhausted that remedy. The Court\u2019s findings in its judgment of 8 June 2006 in the case of S\u00fcrmeli v. Germany ([GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006\u2011...) that a constitutional complaint was not an effective remedy to complain about the length of civil proceedings and that applicants therefore did not have to avail themselves of that remedy did not apply to complaints about the duration of criminal proceedings. In the latter case, the Federal Constitutional Court could not only find that the duration of criminal proceedings had been excessive, it could also provide both preventive and compensatory redress. According to its case-law (compare paragraphs 43-44 above), measures to be taken to redress an excessive delay in the proceedings included the limitation of criminal prosecution pursuant to Article 154 and Article 154a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the termination of the proceedings by dispensing with a penalty or by issuing a warning with sentence reserved, a mitigation of the penalty or the discontinuance of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 153 and 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a rule, the criminal courts provided such redress on remittal of a case from the Federal Constitutional Court. However, the latter also had jurisdiction to discontinue the criminal proceedings itself in exceptional circumstances if it considered that the excessive length of the proceedings had led to a constitutional impediment to the proceedings. The Government stressed that a constitutional complaint could be used to complain both about the excessive length of terminated criminal proceedings and, under the conditions of section 90 \u00a7 2 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 45 above), to complain about the duration of pending criminal investigation proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "71648390-71df-4eaf-8687-217e431a028f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and to bring civil claims for damages, but had failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "dcf95a38-115e-4008-84fb-f95097d8e2be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government argued that Article 13 was not applicable in the absence of a violation of either Article 6 \u00a7 1 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They added that the applicants had not used all available domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 13, such as requesting the initiation of administrative or criminal proceedings against the person responsible for non-enforcement. They relied on the direct applicability of the Convention in Moldova's domestic legal order. Finally, they conceded a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the second applicant."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ae09b453-c9f2-4645-a2b2-c86233eb4754", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Some of the applicants also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaints must be examined solely under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "08f11e7e-8aaf-4791-bdad-0b2491ce1e48", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings, and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c8da763f-f90d-4e34-80ac-8d13021eb2f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The Government submitted that, even assuming that there was an arguable breach of any of the rights invoked under the Convention, an effective remedy was provided for any breach of Article 2 by the procedures of criminal investigation, the civil proceedings for damage and the inquest proceedings. These were capable of satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention taken together. The applicant also had the possibility of challenging by way of judicial review the DPP's decision not to prosecute."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ebc4dd67-91b2-4bf8-918f-bbc73d33ca5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, but had been unwilling to make use of them. They submitted that the first, fifth and twenty-third applicants had been granted victim status and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the criminal proceedings, and in particular, the right to give oral and other evidence, to file motions, to receive copies of procedural decision, and to access the case file and make copies of the materials of the file on completion of the investigation. The Government further argued that if the applicants had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused them damage, they could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of this argument, the Government referred to decisions by the domestic courts, which they submitted to the Court (see paragraph 67 above)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3511a73a-69aa-4f8b-98e9-69bfbd2d7d32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants in the first, fourth, sixth and ninth applications complained that they have not had an effective domestic remedy in connection with their complaint about the irreducibility of their whole-life sentences. The applicants in the first, seventh and tenth applications complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in connection with their complaint about the \u201cspecial\u201d detention regime. They all relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "26e7d312-1da2-48b5-9a51-1e70e6ac97c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant submitted that in her further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, the highest competent domestic tribunal in the matter, she raised six elaborate complaints which were dismissed by the Division without giving any reasons. In her opinion, it cannot be said that this part of the legal system constituted an effective legal remedy for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f1d88533-efcd-49c1-8e84-4c902db15d8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, relying on the same arguments as in the case of \u0160trucl and Others (cited above). In the latter case the Court joined the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. After finding a violation of the latter provision it rejected the Government\u2019s objection (\u00a7\u00a7 62 and 98-113). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It further finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It should therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7f575398-7324-48cf-bd48-ae2cb72e866b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, they could have lodged a claim for compensation under Article 151 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "40bef824-4b79-4a32-a5fc-1a9ac9e698ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, due to the excessive length of the proceedings, he had been time-barred from bringing a new application and, consequently, from raising his relevant property claims before the domestic courts. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the above complaints."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b0d943cb-9267-47e3-9b1d-801e04161e17", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The applicant, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and on Article <mask> of the Convention, complained about the excessive court fees in the proceedings for damages against the State and the alleged lack of effective remedies in that respect. He also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the State unduly benefited from court fees system applicable to such claims. He contended that the compensation awarded in respect of the conditions of his detention had been very low and had been rendered meaningless by the requirement to pay high court fees on the parts of his claims which had been dismissed by the courts."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c94bc1e3-9a20-4ebe-b079-5b0c64676d74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1-3 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's inability to effectively challenge his detention under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention and to the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention. In addition, the Court observes that Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention constitute lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69, and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III, p. 927, \u00a7 73)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d173f30d-f647-4f7c-a8f5-c71c5d1a2c2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that the panel had not given reasons for detaining him in prison and that the latter's decision of 14 February 2009 had been given in private following the public prosecutor's appeal, which had not been communicated to him. He also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that Articles 6 and 13 complaints are in fact a restatement of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention and should be considered accordingly. This Article, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1f7602c7-f146-46ff-9508-277104263565", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to a fair hearing. In particular, he maintained that the judicial authorities, in adjudicating the case brought against him, had arbitrarily refused some of his procedural requests; had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the law. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "90b46bd3-f814-4d61-8615-7badc44f317d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. The Government also stated that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. They further pointed out that the applicants had successfully applied to domestic courts for compensation for damage caused by the death of Bilkis Askhabayeva. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2d54817d-ea31-4ea9-b669-1c22533413fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the killing of Asradiy Estamirov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. Moreover, she could have claimed damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "53257957-c0ec-4580-ac35-fcb825f63588", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12. The Government submitted that the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 should be declared inadmissible since no complaint about non-enforcement has been raised under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and no violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 in that respect has been found by the Court. They further alleged that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable since no issue arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4949572f-dc0e-4380-aa40-24971ef5cf07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant claimed EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage, of which EUR 5,000 was claimed for the breach of his right not to be detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, EUR 2,000 for the breach of his right to correspond with his mother and EUR 2,000 for the breach of his right to have contacts with his wife and daughter. Insofar as Article <mask> of the Convention is concerned, the applicant submitted that a finding of a violation would be sufficient just satisfaction for him."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "48de9fd1-0e30-41f8-8787-6156b193ec00", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. The Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1-3 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's alleged inability to effectively challenge his detention under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention and to the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention. In addition, the Court observes that Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention constitute lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III, p. 927, \u00a7 73). Accordingly, the Court must examine the complaint that the applicant lacked effective domestic remedies under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "69aa29aa-754e-41c1-b33a-82a00860220b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "858ed08b-9a25-421c-8afa-87b6fa55f2cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that the authorities had lacked diligence in investigating the circumstances of Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death, and that as a consequence the investigation had been ineffective and the criminal proceedings against A.Y. had lasted an unreasonably long time. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which read as follows, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6f851738-65f8-4623-bb92-930fde906f62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["159.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ce50f851-de28-43fb-ada6-e306950e018b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The Government argued that the applicant had effective remedies at his disposal, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he had been granted victim status, which had enabled to him to participate effectively in the investigation concerning the alleged ill-treatment. Furthermore, the applicant had successfully applied to a higher-ranking prosecutor, who had reopened the investigation into his ill-treatment complaint, and to a court, which issued a decision on the applicant's complaint on 17 March 2005. The Government also referred to favourable court decisions issued in similar circumstances, without providing copies of them. In their submission, the applicant could also have applied to civil courts for compensation under Articles 151 and 1069 of the Civil Code. In that connection the Government referred to a successful example of the use of that remedy by an unnamed person, without providing a copy of the related decision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d011e04d-0ffe-440f-9e8d-897bb9f16e73", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal dealing with his case had been biased. In his submissions dated 22 March 2011, the applicant further complained under the same provision about a violation of the principle of legal certainty as the judgments in his case had been quashed several times. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, he also complained of the lack of domestic remedy for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a758655a-a833-43f1-9e67-06ad4e363cfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government referred to the ongoing investigation into the murder and contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed herself of it. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "611df27e-b9e0-4358-8cc2-4e345dbc6ff9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["177.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "82d43e0f-6a29-45d1-a811-0d3e11d12f5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The applicants did not however have available to them an appropriate means of obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority failed to protect them from serious ill-treatment or the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the damage suffered thereby. Consequently, they were not afforded an effective remedy in respect of their claims of a breach of Articles 3 or 8 and there has, accordingly, been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "73e8f66b-c628-4442-8fc1-95d1b63fdb8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings on Z.\u2019s claim had been unfair and she had been prevented from accessing courts in the Donetsk region. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, she complained of the lack of prosecution of K.Vi. and K.Vo. for taking her and O.\u2019s property and assaulting their honour and reputation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "05d50446-6325-4b3e-af35-45ee4d301bf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant companies complained that the implementation of the New Regulations and the introduction of a completely new schoolbook management system by the State, without providing any opportunity for them to seek judicial review or redress, amounted to violations of their rights under Article 6, as well as under Article <mask> of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4af59ec0-c383-4a4e-9115-9ba6fdb8b782", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["381.  The applicant complained under Article 13 that neither he nor the Orhans had an effective domestic remedy in respect of the Orhans' disappearance or in relation to the destruction of Deveboyu. The Government referred to the investigations conducted into the applicant's allegations. They also suggested that the applicant could have taken administrative or civil proceedings seeking damages or made a criminal complaint to the public prosecutor, which constituted effective remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d92dc632-d4f4-48aa-a11e-ebfb09dc34e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had been granted victim status; moreover, they had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "534dae0d-bad1-4837-952e-83de127db707", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant maintained that a constitutional complaint about the non-enforcement of a final court judgment was not effective as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments (see paragraphs 21\u201327 above) were limited to the finding of a violation of a declaratory nature. They did not provide a remedy or eliminate the continuing violation in respect of the non-enforcement of a final court judgment."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6f3953dc-da1e-4cc3-a43d-72864db73579", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Khamzat Umarov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "dc3ecd40-3e92-48e6-8413-f330ba3b672c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9b00cce2-6f95-4935-bb83-75a5d1cb4ce7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government enclosed statements by several inmates who confirmed that cold water had always been available in the living premises and that hot water could be obtained from heating facilities. In support of their position they provided the statements by other inmates summarised above. They also challenged the witness statements originally submitted by the applicant on the ground that some of the persons who had allegedly made them had subsequently repudiated their statements. They considered that the applicant\u2019s complaints had been thoroughly examined, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "187d28bb-115a-4c83-9bf0-fc4b28867f22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government argued that the applicants\u2019 reference to section 205 of the Civil Procedure Law was not relevant, as it provided an option for a party to request that a judgment be executed without delay. As the applicants had not requested it, the 23 May 2002 judgment did not contain such an obligation. In as far as the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was concerned the Government submitted that the domestic law provided for effective remedies. They referred to section 632 of the Civil Procedure Law (a civil remedy) and sections 15 (civil, criminal and disciplinary remedies), 53 and 54 (a disciplinary remedy) of the Law on Bailiffs."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "625ac059-23c7-4b36-befb-4a053e205355", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant further complained that the prosecution authorities' refusal to institute criminal proceedings against A. (a pension expert) amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person is not, as such, guaranteed by the Convention (see, Kubiszyn v. Poland (dec.), no. 37437/97, 21 September 1999). It finds, therefore, that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and rejects it in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3d608d2d-6948-41c8-944f-ddb64f084d5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant also complained that in the second case he had not had an effective remedy to protect his right to freedom of assembly, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, referring to Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention the applicant complained that the real reason or motive for his arrest and conviction was his political activism."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "41686303-09f7-4289-8289-72f2882a6aa1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant company further complained that the Supreme Court had dismissed its appeal on points of law and that in its two decisions the Constitutional Court had refused to examine its complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court of 5 February 2002 and the Supreme Court judgment of 12 June 2003. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "802db492-56ae-4db7-b3d8-844d0d986a90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["280.  The applicant bank also complained that it had no remedy in the Croatian legal system to recover the sum seized from it in the enforcement proceedings, despite the fact that it had managed to prove that this enforcement had had no basis in law. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8b6b3940-242e-461b-8a60-931d50e305a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["165.  The applicants further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. They lastly complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated on the basis of their national origin \u2013 they submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1360e31f-eec3-48f7-a86f-b25377f28069", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not received any answer from the prosecuting authorities regarding her criminal complaint lodged with the C\u00e2mpina Prosecution Office in 1994 against A.M. and that the courts had lost her file. On 14 December 2007, in her observations in response to the Government\u2019s observations, she also complained of the lack of domestic remedies by which to complain of the unreasonable length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2b46e359-cf7c-498d-8bfa-84f7f4c5dcf4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6e12b3e7-c3fd-456d-a1f0-5583105524dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b0a137dc-0bbd-4e9f-906a-1f95adc39b67", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained about the State authorities\u2019 failure to execute the judgment of 6 October 1998 of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa. He alleged that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable, in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and that he had had no effective remedies in respect of the non-enforcement, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. These provisions provide in so far as relevant as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a11ca0f2-1af5-444f-9ba6-35a2d8c0ced9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants complained under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers. They further alleged under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of their allegations of ill-treatment and to duly examine the evidence they had submitted in support of their allegations. The applicants claimed that the authorities had also failed to punish the police officers responsible, which cast doubt on their independence and impartiality. Lastly, the applicants maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the decisions of the Izmir public prosecutor and the Kar\u015f\u0131yaka Assize Court lacked reasoning."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1f7f73d5-f102-425e-bf33-d1c1cf4a584b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that no effective remedies had been available to him to challenge his conviction. As the judicial review had been inadequate, there had been no possibility to appeal; a constitutional appeal could have been lodged in exceptional circumstances but had not been available in cases such as his. Lastly, he complained that the administrative authorities and the local court had not given reasons for their decisions, which had compromised his right to an effective remedy."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c58f23d7-7f78-4aca-bf8b-c3cb8fa54f8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant also invoked Article 13 in respect of his complaint about the length of the proceedings. Having regard to its findings under Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see paragraphs 34 above), the Court concludes that this complaint is admissible, but considers that it is not necessary to rule whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Kushnarenko v. Ukraine, no. 18010/04, \u00a7 25, 13 November 2008, and Kukharchuk v. Ukraine, no. 10437/02, \u00a7\u00a7 39-40, 10 August 2006)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f80b0ee5-da3c-4be8-a96f-5483d8664e44", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants had received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e157a2b8-8a0f-44be-8aa0-6ba25190b7ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their close relatives, who they claimed had been unlawfully detained. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed under Articles 2 and 3. Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1832a0d2-6de9-463e-8fcc-ac65ba65057f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Government further pointed out that the first applicant had availed himself of the opportunity to appeal before a court, under Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Prosecutor\u2019s Office\u2019s decision to extradite him. Under that provision a court must examine an appeal within one month and either declare the extradition decision unlawful and quash it or dismiss the appeal. In the latter case a cassation appeal could be lodged against the decision. The fact that the first applicant\u2019s appeal had eventually been dismissed did not mean that the remedy had been ineffective, as the requirement of effectiveness did not mean that the outcome of the proceedings should be favourable to the applicant (relying upon Kaijalainen v. Finland (dec.), no. 24671/94, 12 April 1996). The Government also noted that the effectiveness of the remedy was further corroborated by the fact that in the cases of Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, \u00a7 27, 5 June 2012; Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, \u00a7 19, 5 June 2012; and Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, \u00a7\u00a7 26\u201127, 12 June 2012, the Russian court had annuled extradition orders issued by the Prosecutor\u2019s Office. Therefore, the first applicant had had an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3 as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f75f4fbc-4903-4b4c-b5c1-e900b81ba67f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government contested these arguments in general terms. They pointed out in particular that Article <mask> of the Convention does not require that recourse to a remedy always be successful irrespective of an unfounded claim. They argued that in the present case the applicant was able to raise her arguable claims of ill-treatment before the competent authorities but her claims were not found to be justified. The remedies provided for by the Hungarian criminal law qualify as effective remedies for well-founded claims. Therefore, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention was manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "247728ba-8355-4915-bdf9-dabeffc1a57c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government raised an objection arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that the applicants must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 3 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3a00b49e-c08c-44f2-bed5-247fcbed9faa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 about the refusal by the Supreme Administrative Court to review the merits of the decisions of the STC and the NRTC. They also claimed that they had been denied an effective remedy on account of the need to go through two separate sets of proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4d6b540c-918e-4f71-a5e6-da07b249a87d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They pointed out that the first applicant had made use of domestic remedies available pursuant to Articles 124 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as she had brought her complaints both to a higher prosecutor and to a court. The mere fact that the outcome of such complaints had not been favourable for her had not undermined the effectiveness of those remedies. The applicants had not brought any complaints in relation to Adnan Akhmadov\u2019s kidnapping to courts of the Stavropol, Krasnodar and Rostov Regions or to the courts of Kabardino-Balkaria and Ingushetia. Furthermore, the applicants could have brought civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9e91e7be-db6b-481c-a92f-54569947de62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further complained of the fact that in Turkey there was no court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of proceedings. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "70c17123-f661-4e12-9ed7-5f23e3c1539a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained about the State authorities\u2019 failure to enforce the judgments taken in their favour in due time. In this regard they invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mr Shylkin also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in that respect. These provisions provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "917136cf-b08a-4215-a8e5-792487347860", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they had not applied to the law-enforcement bodies. Furthermore, relatives of the deceased persons had objected to the exhumation, which considerably impeded the conduct of the investigation. Moreover, the applicants had not brought any complaints concerning the actions of officials of the law-enforcements bodies in connection with the investigations into their relatives\u2019 deaths and injuries. The Government also pointed out that it was still open to the applicants to file a claim of damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3c67c904-2adb-47b8-abac-ee39d2d89e30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no domestic remedies available under Turkish law whereby they could challenge the unlawfulness of their pre-trial detention. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, being the lex specialis in the matter (see El\u011fay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18992/03, 11 September 2007)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b94eb8ac-c1e5-449a-9cc4-655bfbdbc85b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer immediately after his detention and that for fifteen days his lawyer\u2019s access to him had been restricted. He also complained that the fact of being held in a \u201ccage\u201d with metal bars during the court hearings had violated his defence rights. He further complained that he had no effective remedies to his above complaints. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3f25f865-22eb-4532-82d3-d69bafa97877", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7f79dab4-d57a-411f-91e5-2980c514c3fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. They lastly complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their national origin \u2013 they submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "77f284e8-e223-46b0-97a0-6c3d18041018", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicants complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "64ef02ae-0858-4167-9e28-367b1ead0b62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8a25e51d-54e7-4166-b0f7-7eb9c34e92a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the principles of equality of arms, legal certainty and a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d had been breached and that the requirement for decisions to contain proper reasons had not been complied with. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant alleged that there had been no effective remedy in his case."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a2c63783-7e3d-4dc5-89b2-22f9bc42e062", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant also complained that the remedy she had resorted to in order to complain about the length of the enforcement proceedings had proved ineffective as the Vara\u017edin Municipal Court had not complied with the Vara\u017edin County Court\u2019s order of 22 February 2012 to complete the enforcement within six months (see paragraphs 37 and 39 above). She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e98d4ffe-14e7-452d-adf5-79e5abe37eb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant made the following additional complaints. First, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, he complained that the refusal of the Court of Session to grant leave for him to proceed without the necessary signatures on his summons violated his right of access to court. Secondly, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 he alleged that there was a lack of a fair hearing in three aspects: (i) that the Sheriff Court and Sheriff Principal refused to hold oral hearings on preliminary matters before them; (ii) that the Court of Session while it heard oral argument, essentially based its ruling on preliminary, written pleadings; and (iii) that the Court of Session failed in its duty to make a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties. Thirdly, under Article 6, the applicant complained that the courts hearing his case, while themselves independent and impartial, were not in fact independent and impartial by virtue of the corruption and contempt of court of the legal representatives before them. Fourthly, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant complained that there was no effective remedy in respect of these alleged violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1. Finally, he complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the council, by entering his property to carry out the repairs, failed to respect his right to respect for his home."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ea7bd41c-144a-47cd-81fc-a9c0ce855207", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2d0a01b0-6767-4f18-b580-d9f3a6d66255", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government further maintained that the applicants had not made use of any remedies regarding their complaint that their right under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated. They held that a distinction must be made between a remedy within the meaning of this provision, taken together with Article 3 of the Convention, that is, proceedings in which the applicants can raise their claim of the risk of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the one hand, and proceedings in which it is possible to remedy a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on the other hand. Given that the applicants only allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they should have exhausted the latter remedies."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "460dae3d-112f-4a50-8191-bc15a53d1333", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants replied that the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d was not an effective remedy. They considered, firstly, that it was not effective in principle: the Government had not provided any example or statistical information in support of their contention that it could in practice serve to reduce delays. Secondly, even if it could be considered an effective remedy in principle, it had been introduced too late to serve any useful purpose since most of the delays in the case had occurred before July 1999. The applicants further referred to their arguments in support of their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6169334a-4b14-4d3a-83dd-9898a00a0344", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["195.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The investigation into their relative\u2019s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicants had not applied to the domestic courts with either civil claims or complaints concerning actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. The Government referred to the domestic courts\u2019 decisions over claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5b52ab0b-f80a-439e-aa8b-d791155da781", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The Government contended that the applicant had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bd15bff4-6b61-4d92-bbe8-3718c5950fb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The applicant also alleged that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy by which to complain about his treatment during and after arrest (see paragraph 57 above), his treatment in Jelgava prison (see paragraph 63 above), the conditions of detention in Daugavpils prison and the specific conditions of detention in the segregation unit and disciplinary cells nos. 22 and 14 in that prison (see paragraph 80 above). Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "74d86206-4794-4f17-8312-7548af1bf76c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["322.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4de525a7-0a0e-4783-a01a-fcae997fc301", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["147.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In their submission, this was corroborated by the fact that the first and fourth applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the alleged inaction of the investigating authorities were upheld by the Urus-Martan Town Court. The applicants had not filed any other complaints, but it remained open to them to file a civil claim for damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e8a44b72-93b4-4d0b-89b9-45bdd8fddb50", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["190.  The applicants also complained that they had neither had access to court nor an effective remedy to complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention because of the refusal by the domestic authorities to allow them to pursue criminal proceedings against the first applicant\u2019s father for the criminal offence of child abuse. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1de49675-4c14-4a6b-b762-692123c97468", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government pointed out that in its judgment of 16 May 2012 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision of 28 April 2011 as unlawful. In their view, this should have provided the applicant with an action for damages under the State Liability Act. Moreover, should the applicant have any complaints in relation to the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment, he could have made them before the Constitutional Court by way of a fresh individual complaint of his own. These remedies were compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and, consequently, the complaint under that provision was manifestly ill-founded. As the applicant had not used them, as regards the underlying alleged violations he had failed to meet the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e415f29c-d7ef-4f35-bd7a-3cc76ceb8136", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment of 8 April 2003 in due time. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further complained that he had no effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f4e7dd2c-d31b-44eb-9004-89c23032fb45", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained that as a result of the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings and the consequent non-examination of her civil\u2011party claim, she had been denied effective access to a court. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings she had joined as civil-party against the driver who had caused her physical injuries."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9c6a471f-5b94-457a-9023-3a574ae5211b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of her right to respect for her home. She also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in respect of her related civil claim, which she considered to have mainly undermined the effectiveness of that remedy."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0466fda8-6141-4a7b-a1e4-04fe67c9c8cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "05f80fa5-6742-4235-bb82-16644af89012", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8, that the domestic courts had refused to examine his complaints concerning restrictions on family visits and correspondence. He pointed out that on 21 December 2001 the Constitutional Court had confirmed its established case-law that all decisions by an investigator should be amendable to judicial review. The crux of the problem had not been the theoretical availability of remedies in the domestic law but rather the arbitrary application of the law by lower courts. As a consequence, he had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint concerning restrictions on correspondence and family visits."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "164392cb-201c-4a44-b8e6-76e48eaecc9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants also claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their submission, the formal manner in which the courts had reviewed the decision to expel the first applicant had aroused in them feelings of injustice and had humiliated them. The first applicant further claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, on essentially the same basis."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0f51b45d-c48f-405c-bfbb-c86872beb871", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants also complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that they were de facto denied access to a court, because (1) they could not challenge the continued seizure of their possessions before a court and (2) they lacked an effective domestic remedy for their claims against the authorities for compensation stemming from the prolonged inability to use those possessions. The Court recognises that the applicants complained of the lack of a substantive right of action under domestic law rather than of the existence of procedural bars preventing or limiting the possibilities of bringing potential claims to court. Thus, it considers that this complaint should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies against the interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, rather than under Article 6 of the Convention as an access to court issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294 B, p. 49, \u00a7 65, and Karamitrovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53321/99, 9 February 2006)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a0160595-d632-41f4-96fa-11cb6f8b79c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicants complained that Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention had been violated as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also claimed that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3b8215c8-63e5-408e-b71d-8ca71f5bcb97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicant further argued that, quite apart from the discriminatory practice of forced disappearances, members of the Kurdish population in south-east Turkey were discriminated against in respect of the investigation of such disappearances. In support of this argument the applicant referred to a number of judgments in which the Court had found violations of Article 2 and/or Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to carry out effective investigations in cases exclusively involving members of the Kurdish population in Turkey."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3b71cee3-3712-4b21-b00c-48f19a4dcb30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicant complained that the domestic authorities, both administrative and judicial, had failed to consider effectively his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, and that the domestic courts had confirmed the validity of the expulsion order before the completion of the asylum proceedings. He further complained that he had not had effective domestic remedies at his disposal against the inhuman and degrading detention conditions. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "06f3fb91-58df-4014-80ac-75ba53420780", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c), 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully arrested, that no record of his arrest had been drawn up, that there had been a delay in charging him, and that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. Under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention he further complained about the length of the proceedings and maintained that the investigator had not allowed him to study all the case-file material, that the courts had been biased, and that they had refused to admit the statements of certain defence witnesses as evidence. The applicant further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that his case had been examined by the courts at only two levels of jurisdiction, that the hearing before the Supreme Court had been brief, and that he and his lawyer had not been allowed to make oral pleadings. Lastly, he complained of violations of Articles 1, 5 \u00a7 1 (a), 6 \u00a7 3 (a), 8 and 17 of the Convention, without providing any further details."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c9453b39-06e2-480b-8fac-b0a25d2b121f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had not been able to join the criminal proceedings against the police officers Zharov and Volkov as a civil party, that their acquittal had not been justified and that the proceedings had been marred by procedural defects. The Court observes that the only element in which these complaints are distinct from the issues that have already been examined from the standpoint of the procedural limb of Article 3 above is the question of the availability of a civil-law remedy for the applicant\u2019s claim for compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, \u00a7 66, 3 July 2008, and Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, \u00a7 125, 29 May 2008), which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d92fdb1f-42b6-43a2-ab91-4a8f52171767", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c7281c6c-2c4a-4cd5-9c26-1e3b404f7b6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that the \u201ceffective remedy\u201d mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the \u201cTRNC\u201d nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c3cd92e7-7ab4-4fc6-8d51-979fba08a950", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant company complained, in its original application of 22 March 2005 which was subsequently amended on 21 June 2005, of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that after the 2004 election the proceedings concerning the 2004 bidding competition before the courts of general jurisdiction and the commercial courts had been conducted in an unfair manner."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "99aacd66-996b-4b0a-b594-955e6db06537", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant argued that the domestic regulations referred to by the Government were of restricted use and therefore unavailable in any official sources of legal information. He had had no criminal record, had been charged with non-violent crimes and had demonstrated orderly behaviour throughout the proceedings. His placement in the cage could not therefore have been justified. Furthermore, the proceedings had been followed by several journalists and several television channels had released news reports on the trial. For example, the \u201cKZN\u201d television channel had released a news report entitled \u201cSentence to Drug Dealers\u201d showing him in a metal cage. This report had been viewed by several thousands of people even before the conviction had become final. Showing him in a cage had created an image of an extremely dangerous criminal, which had caused him feelings of shame and helplessness. The applicant further submitted that, contrary to the Government\u2019s assertions, he had not been free to choose a comfortable position or move around the cage: he could not stand up or have any exchange with other participants of the proceedings unless authorised by the presiding judge. Besides, as could be seen from the photographs provided by the Government, the cage had been very limited in size, which had made it impossible to get into a comfortable position. Lastly, the applicant submitted that his confinement behind a metal barrier in the remand prison for his participation via a video link in the examination of his case on appeal had not been warranted by any security risks or courtroom order issues. The applicant further maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0015314c-4d7f-4e2c-b24a-6eb00e512e68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused her by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. The relevant parts of these Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c6d52446-ff1e-468d-bee0-20db27271309", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["216.  The Government submitted that, in view of the well-established case-law of the Bulgarian courts in conditions-of-detention cases brought by prisoners, a claim under section 1 of the 1988 was an effective remedy with respect to the material conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention. In any event, no issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention as the applicants\u2019 claims were not \u201carguable\u201d for the purposes of that provision. The Government went on to say that the possibility to challenge omissions of the authorities under Articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 was an effective remedy in respect of poor material conditions of detention. The Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act of 2009 and its implementing regulations clearly set out the minimum conditions that the prison authorities had to provide to inmates, and any failure to do so was therefore actionable under those Articles. The Government referred to two cases (see paragraphs 151\u2011152 above), one of which involved Mr Harakchiev, in which first-instance administrative courts had allowed such claims."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "25e2ab7b-363b-4c22-afb4-c7f352001a63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of detainees. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9cce6e12-5f81-4469-95f7-b09229df98a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the trial court cannot be considered as impartial, as the judges sitting on the bench of the court had been changed several times. She also complained under the same article that the trial court failed to collect all relevant evidence and erred in establishing the facts of the case. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there was no effective remedy for the alleged violations of her Convention rights, and under Article 14 that the State Security Courts had procedural rules different from ordinary criminal courts."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c0c78707-7cf9-4cca-bed5-27e0ca758476", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy available to defend his right to freedom of expression. The Court notes that the applicant was found guilty of defamation as a result of court proceedings instituted against him by V.P. He had been able to appeal against the judgments of the Briceni District Court and the B\u0103l\u0163i Court of Appeal and he had his case examined twice by the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicant did not explain why, in his opinion, such a remedy cannot be considered effective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. The fact that the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings does not automatically trigger a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept the applicant's contention that he had not had an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention. The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "276d83d2-438a-413c-8742-3eae531bc06f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. They stated that the applicant had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and to lodge civil claims for damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f04967f8-ad7b-431e-9364-87b19cf3efbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "46b56f0f-4da5-4540-800b-8b5933ce8097", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention that they had been unable to participate in the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court and that the latter had decided to suspend the publication and distribution of their newspapers without obtaining their submissions in defence. They further contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had not had a domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of the national court decisions, as their objections to the suspension orders had been dismissed without trial. The applicants also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that these orders had violated their right to be presumed innocent, since the national courts had held that criminal offences had been committed through the publication of news reports and articles in the newspapers for which they had been responsible. The applicants further submitted under Article 7 of the Convention that the decisions to suspend the publication and distribution of the newspapers amounted to a \u201cpenalty\u201d without any legal basis. Lastly, they complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decisions to suspend the publication of Yedinci G\u00fcn and Toplumsal Demokrasi had constituted an unjustified interference with their right to property."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9df30747-2a05-43a3-944f-8d36819b60a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Rizvan Aziyev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a510ca46-bc7b-40d4-8534-a8d742195833", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of his freedom of assembly. He alleged in particular that he had not had at his disposal any procedure which would have allowed him to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. Article 13 of the Convention reads:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f837bf34-8b3d-4456-ad59-3f448e589fd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedy against the interference (search) other than the possibility of seeking a review of the lawfulness of the seizure. Even if the District Court did order the seizure to be revoked in response to such a request, that decision was overturned on appeal before the copied hard disk could be restored. Even assuming that the applicants had been successful in having that copy restored, the police had had ample time to peruse the documents thereon."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "507bbb8d-a692-4c0f-b89f-121b3577bae5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants submitted that the German legal system had not provided them with an effective remedy to review the effectiveness of the investigation. At the outset they submitted that, given the hierarchical structure of the public prosecutor\u2019s office, the general public prosecutor had not been sufficiently independent. Consequently, the complaint before the general public prosecutor under Article 172 \u00a7 1 of the CCP could not be considered an effective remedy in the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards judicial remedies at their disposal they referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, \u00a7 93, 15 May 2012) and argued that an effective remedy would have required that the domestic courts had had the power to examine all relevant evidence, to overturn the prosecutor\u2019s decision to discontinue, and to initiate enquiries. This, however, had not been the case for them."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8dd73ca2-99d0-423d-9802-742d63121bd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["177.  The applicant submitted that he and his family had taken every reasonable step possible in order to ensure that the abduction, detention and murder of his brother was properly and thoroughly investigated by the national authorities. However, the response of the various authorities to their complaints and petitions had been utterly inadequate. The necessary remedies either did not exist or they were, in practice, useless. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "66bc938a-2d3c-4bcc-9e58-bdc93e7d91f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that the length of two sets of her civil proceedings, including their enforcement stage, had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Additionally, she complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgments given in her favour breached her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had no effective remedies in respect of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings and the non-enforcement of the judgments. These provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d55eb5af-bdd6-426b-b309-2cd3e75a3516", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have any effective domestic remedy in respect of his allegedly infringed rights, as the Senate of the Supreme Court had ruled that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers was a political decision. He considered that an application for supervisory review by a public prosecutor was not an effective remedy since a decision by the latter in the instant case would not be subject to appeal."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "dbcc9b4f-b555-4fae-81d0-18c8099d495d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant complained that conditions of his detention were contrary to Article 3, regard being had to the tolerance of smoking in the cells, shortage of medicaments and inaccessibility to him of quality medical assistance. He further complained under the same provision that in March 2004 he had been ill-treated by police officers and that the investigation of his respective complaint had been ineffective. In the latter respect he also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "db454d05-10d1-4921-bafb-deb580085e6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by refusing to examine the proportionality of the sanction imposed on her, the Supreme Administrative Court had deprived her of an effective remedy, and that Bulgarian law did not lay down any criteria governing the manner in which the Minister of Justice was to exercise his powers in relation to the striking of persons off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "75bd6689-1337-4d86-8312-052e334b4af7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that the courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. In addition, the applicant claimed that his appeals of 28 June 1999 and 11 October 1999 were decided in violation of the requirement for a speedy decision and that the courts did not hear his appeal of 8 September 1999. The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ffaf66c9-9279-485e-8e65-002ec0bbc906", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b635e7de-a9b3-4444-bfc3-01b180b207b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2e1c930e-59df-42f5-afb6-76908ada980c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government contended that either the applicant could not be considered to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention or the complaint was manifestly ill-founded, because the applicant had access to an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention, but chose not to make use of it. The Government noted that the Bankruptcy Court had a supervisory duty and could set aside decisions made, or give the trustee directions, or do whatever else was necessary if the debtor\u2019s rights were infringed, (see section 128 of the Bankruptcy Act then applicable). Thus, the Bankruptcy Court could have given the trustee directions about the administration of the estate, ordered the trustee to complete the accounts, or removed the trustee pursuant to section 113(3) of the Bankruptcy Act then applicable, inter alia, due to slow or otherwise incompetent administration of the estate. It could also have fixed an ultimate date for the final meeting of creditors in the estate or decided to apply section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act at an earlier stage of the proceedings, even if all the parties to the case, including the applicant, objected. Accordingly, regardless of whether the courts could have provided the applicant with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred, the remedies which could have expedited the decisions taken during the proceedings had to be considered \u201ceffective\u201d."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6694edf1-0b37-48b2-a6c0-ea1e7cab1ce6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicant company complained that it had been deprived of a fair hearing and had not had an effective remedy because the domestic courts refused to accept its complaint in 2012, stating that it was under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above) while it was impossible under domestic law to address the Constitutional Court with an individual constitutional complaint. The applicant company relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in the present case should be viewed as lex specialis in relation to Article 13. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "02a2048f-3745-48d5-a08c-3fc0a22e5118", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a4825a8d-888f-4a61-906b-2ee3ad5f05c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented the applicants from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants should have made more use of that possibility which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "96f31590-cd76-44e4-bc65-712c7fd3f144", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to her. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "78f77f22-d9c6-400b-88be-214618837336", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant, who submitted that he would run a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were removed to Eritrea, complained of the absence in domestic law of a remedy with suspensive effect in respect of decisions refusing aliens leave to enter the country and ordering their removal, whether or not they were asylum-seekers and whatever the risks, alleged or real. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3, which provide:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "af4fa35a-5c12-4cbe-850f-7ba5bb9bb1b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicant also complained that there had been no grounds for his arrest on 13 October 2010. Furthermore, his arrest had been conducted in violation of the domestic law and he had been taken to the police station under a false pretext. He also complained that the domestic courts had not taken into account the time of his actual arrest and therefore he had spent an additional twenty-six hours in detention. The applicant maintained that the domestic legislation did not provide for compensation for unlawful detention in cases like his. He complained that he had had no effective domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest and detention after the three-day period of administrative arrest had expired. He referred to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (a) and (c) and 5 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3c21c41d-2ead-4e41-b12f-35fd10a7eb33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that (1) the domestic courts, in determining the dispute concerning the annulment of the sales contract and of the certificate of joint ownership, incorrectly evaluated the facts and evidence, and made unlawful conclusions; (2) they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings of 4 October 2002 and (3) they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings which terminated with the decision of 29 November 2002. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in connection with all three sets of proceedings, which, in so far as relevant, provide:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "59486905-2c6b-42f0-b5a3-16e83434a81e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the national courts' ruling that his contact with I.K. had to be supervised because he suffered from a mental illness; under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of the violation of his Convention rights; and that the fact that custody of I.K. was given to his former wife violated Article 5 of Protocol No. 7. He also invoked Article 17 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1cd71543-4f22-4db4-9382-4fa54bf3aedc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained that the proceedings in his case had been unfair, stating in particular that his conviction had been based on false evidence and self-incriminating statements obtained under torture, that the courts had refused to call defence witnesses or allow him to put questions to the prosecution witnesses, including the father of one of the victims, and to the experts, and that his appeal in cassation had been heard in his absence. He relied upon Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "12052c11-2724-465f-8fa7-f2746678cba5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They submitted that the relatives of the missing person had been declared victims and had received reasoned replies to all the requests they made in the context of the investigation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5512fa47-2d0f-4223-b4ba-3129414445e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that the \u201ceffective remedy\u201d mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the \u201cTRNC\u201d nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "655efb70-2e69-49a8-a34a-61df80a2da69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he had not been duly summoned for the hearing before the Court of Appeal and that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted an unreasonably long time. Lastly, he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 without further specification."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "baf1c9f0-359f-47d8-b1e0-10912e77c2df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant also complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 23 March 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, which is a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69 and M.A. and M.M. v. France (dec.), no. 39671/98, ECHR 1999-VIII)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "14c0cabc-f1c3-4647-8b13-9ed633539493", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained under Articles 5, 6 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully detained, that he had not been assisted by counsel on 7 August 2001 and that counsel had not been invited to an interview with the assistant prosecutor on 19 October 2001, that the domestic courts had refused to observe certain items of evidence, that his request for various expert examinations had not been successful, and that the investigating authorities and domestic courts had committed various procedural violations."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "295d8fd5-362b-449e-9f4f-edf568a5d0a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant also complained that, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. She noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates to judicial positions in Azerbaijan was performed by the Judicial Legal Council under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The applicant alleged that, in such circumstances, the judges of the domestic courts could not be independent and impartial in the proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, because their subsequent re-appointment to the courts would depend on the discretion of the Minister of Justice as the Chairman of the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermore, in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because they had never ruled against the Ministry of Justice in cases concerning the delays in registration of non-governmental organisations."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "38056e11-6425-4668-b0f1-75dd45813432", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["283.  The applicants submitted that had there been a court order banning their assembly, an appeal to a higher court against such an order would have been an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of their right to freedom of assembly. As far as prosecutions were concerned, appeals to higher courts constituted an effective remedy which the applicants had exhausted. However, they had not been prosecuted under Article 185-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, thus depriving them of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint. For them, this constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "88350034-08e7-486a-aff1-3c0daad5a0b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "be5345f1-9df9-4db6-ad27-64cf8579ba97", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a1d6a20c-2c1a-47a8-8b0d-c3779335a11f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The applicant complained that he had not had an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Finally, relying on Article 14 of the Convention the applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against because he had been tried by a State Security Court instead of a juvenile court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f6e73dc4-de23-4b85-9553-ccae191d66f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4ef1f776-9939-4be7-86cb-64f3788b8174", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["245.  The applicant maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the failure of the public authorities for which Turkey was responsible to conduct a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation into the circumstances of her husband's murder, and their failure to carry out a proper post-mortem examination, indicated that those responsible for investigation and public prosecution had a similarly blinkered approach to the allegations of a politically-motivated killing by agents of the \u201cTRNC\u201d regime or of the respondent Government. She claimed that the same considerations applied to her allegations of a campaign of monitoring, harassment, intimidation and discrimination against her. In further breach of Article 13, the applicant had been denied any effective remedy because of the failure to secure the independence of the legal profession in the territory controlled by the \u201cTRNC\u201d regime, with the result that qualified lawyers had repeatedly refused to give legal assistance to the applicant to obtain effective legal redress."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1af946f1-5ad3-4c76-b501-832b882a547a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "baf06501-bc88-4a1d-b887-1f370effaac1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["148.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court and in fact made use of it when challenging lawfulness of the decision of 20 September 2003. They could also claim damages through civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "97788115-2ea6-4ea4-a327-2149112de727", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of \u201cvictim\u201d, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "941d3cb1-84d0-4335-a5d0-4da6ae781f36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. Lastly, they complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their national origin \u2013 they submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9758b891-4061-4eff-9d84-937493e7161a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["473.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "61ffed7a-15bc-4a8e-883c-29ad4a6b5115", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained that on 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002 he had been beaten and humiliated by officers of the special-purpose unit of UIN. He also complained, referring to Article <mask> of the Convention, that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the events of 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s substantive and procedural obligations flowing from Article 3, cited above."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a1556d1a-03f1-4b67-b14d-2e8f248b7dc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, which they had failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fb3f9a64-c524-48ce-b5a5-08517e3777e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government raised an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant, claiming also that he did not have victim status in respect of his complaint of lack of effective remedies. The Court considers that these two issues are closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being detained in inadequate conditions, including in solitary confinement, and being deprived of effective medical care. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a1bfe854-0831-49be-aa79-6f1a104d054e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant association complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention, that it had not had an effective remedy against the alleged violation of its freedom of assembly. In particular, it alleged that it had not had at its disposal any procedure which would have allowed it to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. These provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1462909f-b7a3-49c9-82d7-b9a03713076e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed themselves of it. The Government further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "98fe6685-596f-423d-a0b9-3214082cbaab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that she had received reasoned replies to all her requests and queries made in the context of the investigation and had been able to lodge a court complaint against actions of the investigating authorities, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the Government, the fact that this complaint was disallowed by the domestic courts did not indicate that the remedy invoked by them had been ineffective. The Government further argued that if the applicant had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused her damage, she could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor\u2019s office. The Government did not enclose a copy of that decision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "eb67a034-00c9-45f4-9428-795038b6baec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant complained of the discontinuation of the judicial proceedings in respect of his application for a residence order and an order depriving A.\u2019s mother of parental authority. He also complained of the failure to inform him of the appeal hearing of 27 February 2013. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "440ed682-af73-4f30-b9e2-566cecb0583e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the lack of access to a court and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. The Court notes that, although the applicant invoked both Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, her complaint is more properly examined under the latter Article alone. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "57de5ea1-16c7-47de-97fb-8fd05c19c5c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants submitted that the refusal by the domestic courts to examine the merits of the application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision had deprived them of an effective remedy. They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (cited above), and argued that the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the competent bodies enjoyed unreviewable discretion when examining applications for licences had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which required a remedy allowing full examination of the necessity of the interference with their Article 9 and Article 10 rights."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "08b1cba0-8590-4883-b84e-aff2bdf8fd12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant complained that he had not had an effective legal remedy at his disposal in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been unable to get the sale of the house revoked on the grounds that the debt to company J. had been repaid. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2490fb46-eae3-453b-951c-9a809e044179", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies with regard to her complaint about the length of the proceedings. They submitted that administrative hierarchical complaints about the length of proceedings may be lodged with the president of the competent court, with the president of the superior court or with the Ministry of Justice, and that this system, governed by Act no. 335/1991 (which was replaced on 1 April 2002 by Act no. 2/2002), is complemented by the possibility of filing constitutional appeals and complaints under State Liability Act no. 82/1998 (which amended Act no. 58/1969). Moreover, the system of domestic remedies against delays in the proceedings was completed by the appointment of the Ombudsman (Act no. 349/1999). The Government concluded that this system fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a07f33b7-d7fc-45a8-86e2-6b0529af097a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations alleged, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0b3f15b0-8a92-4420-9c42-a8fb5e441d4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants stressed that their applications concerned their summary expulsion on 13 August 2014 and not the subsequent proceedings referred to by the Government, which related to different facts. In any event, only domestic remedies which had suspensive effect, and were therefore deemed effective, had to be exhausted. In the applicants\u2019 submission, Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention were closely linked (they referred to Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, \u00a7 212, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). As far as their summary expulsion on 13 August 2014 was concerned, they had not access to any effective remedy which they could have exercised before applying to the Court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "90f36510-245c-4bae-954b-7d07e5cc8069", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["160.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the authorities had opened a criminal investigation on the date on which the applicants\u2019 relatives had been killed and during that investigation the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal, both to senior prosecutors and to a court, against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, or against the decision of 24 April 2003 to discontinue the criminal proceedings. In addition, throughout the investigation and after its termination it had been open to the applicants to file a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. In this latter respect the Government relied on the Khashiyev case in which the applicant had sought and obtained compensation for the death of his relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 39-42)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9b30bfdf-55be-4f39-ad21-5299ec543e05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments of the Krasnyy Luch Court given in their favour in due time. They invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The third applicant additionally invoked Article <mask> of the Convention on the same grounds as Article 6 \u00a7 1. These provisions, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "93f10b49-8da5-4179-b6ba-3afe7296ad32", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "484adb3d-140a-4362-ba55-030955780cf9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["179.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "687a8685-ca04-451f-80c6-51d789ed6e12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["138.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c68e0b92-754e-49fd-98c7-f6d9e02d05fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, whereby he had been deprived of his Lithuanian citizenship, had been unfair. He further argued that he had had no remedy, in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention, to challenge the loss of Lithuanian citizenship following the decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 December 2003. In the same connection, the applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against as a person of Russian ethnicity, to the extent that he had automatically lost Lithuanian citizenship following the acquisition of a Russian passport."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "328171a6-0d9f-46c3-8b79-b75b8ad4fe4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings, and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9dac955b-af11-4b0d-9f23-9e074a85a2da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants had received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "102d59b9-2876-4f79-8119-23af373da15d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal to a court against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants had not made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a8b2e71a-936f-458b-be62-3982fb5eaecd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. She could also have claimed civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c6a94cc7-fd6c-431e-8968-b7d737347d68", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Kamil Mutayev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "29c3559c-eecd-4676-a9b3-97480f7b7c53", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. She had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4cf161c2-2380-4ea5-a8ee-d05e4d957000", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant submitted a bill of costs in the amount of GBP 6139.38 (inclusive of value-added tax \u2013 \u201cVAT\u201d). The Government considered this to be excessive and suggested that a reasonable figure would be GBP 3000 (inclusive of VAT). They referred, inter alia, to the number of hours of legal work billed as regards the applicant\u2019s response to the Government\u2019s first observations, to the similarity between this case and the above-cited Hood case for which latter applicant the present representative also acted and to the fact that certain complaints were declared inadmissible (under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5, Article 6 \u00a7 3(a) and (b) and Article <mask> of the Convention)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c59ad33b-355b-4ae3-8627-4922eb1419ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicants contended that the investigation into the murder of Ali and Umar Musayev had been pending with no tangible results for several years, and that their attempt to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the unlawful detention of their relatives had proved unsuccessful, and that they therefore had no effective remedies against the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8fba16e8-c7a5-4f11-82e1-2f1587473c5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained about a violation of his rights in respect of the Warsaw Regional Court\u2019s decision of 13 January 2005 which rejected his complaint about the excessive length of proceedings. He did not invoke any provision of the Convention in this respect. The Court considers that the applicant raised in substance a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. Article 13 reads:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "da9f3b62-7889-41d9-b133-b55c91f0aeaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and in one instance from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "60c8b544-940a-4942-8aa0-8fd3c099c67c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in respect of his reinstatement and compensation claims, including their enforcement stage, was incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and that he had no effective domestic remedies for this complaint as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Convention provisions in question provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c8b7f011-2883-4619-9041-9955e41b6a0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f3fc1769-f563-4bae-a11c-1da28a68380f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant further complained that she had no effective remedy to complain about the length of administrative proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her length complaint in the first set of the administrative proceedings, but it found the second set of judicial proceedings too long, despite the fact that the circumstances and the time-frame in both cases were almost identical. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention.  The Government contested that argument."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5b7acf57-8fca-43ff-839d-2fe09e82082f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had a possibility to introduce different procedural petitions with the courts hearing her case seeking to expedite its processing. For instance, in case of a failure of the respondent party to appear for hearings it was open for the applicant to ask for examination of the case without its participation or require that the respondent party's representatives be obliged to appear before the court. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of the lack of effective remedies for the applicant's complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as to the length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c65723f3-67cf-4dca-89f9-242e8eb16ccb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained that his complaint was not examined by the court because of his absence and that his right to defend himself though counsel was breached. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) as well as Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the case falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention, which in relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bca3969d-b2ab-4430-a48b-8559f119b1b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["145.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d821e6b6-b6bc-4cca-af44-09899e41da8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the investigation into the death of the applicants\u2019 son had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b0df4559-1bc7-48a7-9f54-a89720b0a12e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government maintained that no separate issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention and that the applicant had effective domestic remedies which she had failed to exhaust. In particular, the applicant could challenge before the Regional Court any procedural step taken by the first-instance court which in her opinion contributed to the delay in the proceedings. They also referred to the remedies invoked in their preliminary objection."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4d5edb9e-b4f5-4f4c-9d11-ee9623efd85c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court has examined a similar objection in several previous cases. Having assessed a number of legal avenues put forward by the Russian Government, as well as remedies employed by applicants, including a civil claim, the Court found that applicants who were detainees did not have effective domestic remedies at their disposal to complain about continuous and ongoing violations of their right to receive adequate medical assistance in detention. That conclusion also led to the Court\u2019s finding of a breach by the Russian Government of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, \u00a7\u00a7 75-91, 27 November 2012, and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, \u00a7\u00a7 62-80, 8 January 2013)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3f858427-41ad-45d0-9857-1db46dd4dfaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant also complained that the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an effective investigation capable of providing redress for the ill\u2011treatment suffered by the applicant constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, he complained that he could not effectively challenge, before a court, the decision not to prosecute taken by the military prosecutor in favour of the police officer who had allegedly injured him."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3b3927df-3a03-45f7-9e24-0f74615fb80e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c8eee678-f75d-4aef-aa3e-4479a5b7d47a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f6b9cc56-e77d-4522-a876-8c5aec8a2a12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["324.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could have made use of their procedural status as victims in the criminal cases. In particular, they had an opportunity to appeal against the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. The Government referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to two cases in 2003 and 2004 in which victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor\u2019s office."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "568733fa-316d-4def-be68-331dc6735690", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["223.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a0656c62-8fac-401c-840b-c429ce19f218", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government further submitted that, following the delivery of the Court's judgment in the case of Kud\u0142a v. Poland (application no. 30210/96, judgment of 26 October 2000), the applicant could have requested, with reference to Article 144 of the Constitution, that the domestic courts should apply the State Liability Act of 1969 in accordance with the requirement of an effective domestic remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court. In the Government's view, in such case the domestic courts would be obliged to compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the protracted length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "da55fac3-f8e0-4af4-ad96-4a818b3d9849", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the State authorities\u2019 failure to enforce the judgment of 30 July 1999 given in his favour in due time. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedies for his complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "35dbc674-e4e3-404e-a9f9-fe548ec41a9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant company alleged that the fine imposed on it pursuant to section 134 of Law no. 2004 had constituted a breach of its right of access to a court, since it should be construed as a penalty for having exercised its right to bring a case before the domestic courts. It relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d5d4507b-5f14-49ad-8983-03d0b5fe0e7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicants complained that their handcuffing during the court hearing of 26 January 2007 had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that they had had no effective means at their disposal to remedy the situation. Both of them relied on Article 3, Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Mr Sabev relied additionally on Article 14."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7a0a250e-c424-494c-9a11-1a7b2b14ef6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities. They also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. They relied in that connection on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "738ab4d0-7dc1-44e2-8f2b-6aa14b02c757", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that the invalidation of the election results for their constituencies due to the alleged incompatibility of the ConEC records of results with the requirements of the Electoral Code had been arbitrary and unlawful. The Constitutional Court\u2019s decision to invalidate the election results lacked any factual basis, was contrary to the domestic law and breached the principles of a fair trial. In particular, the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision contained no indication as to which specific documents had been examined, what specific requirements of the Electoral Code had not been met and what the specific nature of the shortcomings found in the ConEC records had been. As the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision was final, there was no remedy available in respect of the alleged violation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a84b360e-72d3-4866-a8e1-61057e9ab538", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0909af7d-0c7c-4d84-b89d-00b32eb1fd46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. In particular, the applicant had received reasoned replies to all her complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, under Article 125 of the new CCP she could complain to a court about actions or omissions of the investigating authorities. Moreover, it was open to the applicant to file a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. In this respect the Government relied on the case of Khashiyev v. Russia in which the applicant had sought and obtained compensation for the death of his relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2002)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "420f957e-f82f-4bb8-9872-2a13c0dacab3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of the non\u2011enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the length of civil proceedings. Lastly, relying on Articles 6, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that in 1997 he lost his apartment; that the amount awarded to him by the judgment of 23 September 2008 was insufficient and the civil proceedings were unfair."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "19c2e973-aaf2-4edf-b3f9-70371814cc2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings, instituted first in 1989 and a second time in 1990, had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1. In this connection they also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. It is not clear what matters this allegation concerned other than the length aspect as such. In the view of the Court this matter can most appropriately be considered under Article 6 \u00a7 1 which, in so far as is relevant, reads:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "43235640-f8a4-4096-875f-159d543fffad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "17137dcb-f7d0-4d37-8088-3c035bf2d7b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government contended that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as he had failed to raise his complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. According to the Government, the constitutional complaint had to be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the means by which the Federal Constitutional Court was able to influence the length of pending proceedings, the Government maintained that the mere fact that notice of a constitutional complaint satisfying the admissibility criteria was given to the Federal Government or the government of the Land in which the court in question was situated had the effect of speeding up the proceedings. The same applied for a decision establishing a violation of the Basic Law. Furthermore, the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions were often published and discussed in the legal press exerted a preventive effect."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7f98017d-b4f5-49fd-930c-97afc5a98184", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["152.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had challenged the actions of the investigators in court, but had not appealed against the first-instance decision. They could also have complained to higher prosecutors or claimed damages, but failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "825399a4-516d-4ab6-a3ec-21e95fffe41e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e11a8d09-af3e-4a47-ad75-5f7fc9f95189", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicants submitted, relying on the Court\u2019s findings in Soldatenko (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 82-83), that the domestic legal system did not provide for an effective remedy to prevent or challenge a decision on extradition on the ground of a risk of ill-treatment. They also argued that the Instruction on the procedure of consideration of extradition requests by the prosecution bodies, to which the Government referred in their submissions, had not been published in accordance with the domestic rules and was not accessible to the public for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b2e43986-a7b8-49ad-a32e-4f5da5f28772", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 22 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention, which are lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports 1997\u2011III, p. 927, \u00a7 73)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0aff01ee-4d0d-4201-a0e9-c679b87f68fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her two sons and the unlawfulness of their detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "81423029-6f09-4f87-a7fb-27565088cc10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f3fd75ff-e36e-4bfa-92c6-0787c6994da5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 11), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, \u00a7 46-48, 29 June 2004). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ac884092-e773-4453-b03d-a4e8e824f90c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant submitted that he had been tried and convicted by the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which was neither independent nor impartial. He further complained that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of a lawyer in police custody, before the public prosecutor and the judge. In this respect he invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention. "], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4480e308-2eb9-454a-8953-bba448fb709e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. For instance, they could have complained about the investigators\u2019 actions both to higher prosecutors and to the courts. Their access to such remedies had not been restricted. The first applicant had been granted victim status and thus had had all relevant procedural rights. Moreover, he could have lodged civil claims for non-pecuniary damage. The Government referred to several cases concerning the events in the Chechen Republic in which awards for non-pecuniary damage had been made by Russian courts."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d38ea20c-e7d7-43f5-a3fc-624c3f76cd89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant began his argument with a submission relating to domestic remedies. In particular, he drew the Court\u2019s attention to a number of cases against Russia where it had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in view of a lack of domestic remedies in respect of complaints about the poor conditions of detention. He referred to his complaints to various authorities, including prosecutors, which had not brought about any improvements to his situation. He further maintained his description of the conditions of his detention both in the temporary detention centre and the correctional facility. He argued that the lack of personal space in facility IZ-47/1, his lengthy solitary confinement, and the degrading sanitary conditions in the correctional facility had been in contravention of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. With regard to the issue of his solitary confinement, he stressed that it had only been authorised in view of his life sentence. There had been no other considerations which could have required his detention alone in a cell for almost two years. It had never been argued that he was a danger to himself or other inmates or guards. He had never attempted self-mutilation or escape, or attacked those around him. The authorities had never reconsidered his solitary confinement and whether it could be cancelled. They had never assessed his physical and mental health to determine whether he was fit for solitary confinement."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7791d612-1f56-4010-a8ac-931a184bebe3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court only in connection with the proceedings on his action of 16 November 1999 (no. 7 Cb 73/99). On the basis of his complaint, the Constitutional Court found a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The fact that the redress obtained at the domestic level was not sufficient for the Convention purposes does not render the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution in the circumstances of the present case incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention (see \u0160idlov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, \u00a7 77, 26 September 2006)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6ca2bd35-495a-49f1-b5b1-db0c5c4684f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["149.  The applicant complained that the response of the authorities to the complaints and petitions about the detention, torture and killing of Kadri Ate\u015f was utterly inadequate. According to the applicant, the necessary remedies either did not exist or they were, in practice, useless. The applicant submitted that there had been a very clear violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3584fa1b-cdb7-47f1-af6e-dc6c31ae1248", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government did not consider that any issue arose, in particular as no arguable claim of a violation was disclosed for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant could challenge the reasonableness of the Council\u2019s actions in judicial review proceedings and require the Council to show in the County Court that they had lawfully determined the licence. The applicant could also have taken action against any individual officer who had acted unlawfully and the law of tort was available to remedy any unlawful interference with his property."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "84c6362b-ed19-4af5-841c-5ed8e554e679", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 13), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 46-48). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a4bd1a9f-9369-4b65-a851-f3f5adf2c3f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 16), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Vasylyev cited above, \u00a7 41). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e37b2313-d986-491d-b763-95cd961a50af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention that they were not able to participate in the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court and that the latter had decided to suspend publication and distribution of the aforementioned newspapers without obtaining their submissions in defence. They further contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had not had a domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of the national court decisions, as their objections to the suspension orders had been dismissed without trial. The applicants also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 that these orders had violated their right to be presumed innocent, since the national courts had held, that criminal offences had been committed through the publication of news reports and articles in the aforementioned newspapers, for which they had been responsible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0c01a5d2-dac3-430a-a659-1c09064a6915", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The Government also argued, albeit in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention, that an effective remedy did not necessarily mean one in which the State was a defendant. They underlined that the Court did not find a breach of Article 13 in Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, \u00a7 27, Series A no. 247\u2011C) as the applicant was able to sue the private school or its authorities for assault. They also relied on the sufficiency of the negligence action in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy (cited above). They considered Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001\u2011V) to be distinguishable: that respondent Government had conceded that a negligence action was the only effective remedy but that that action did not lie against local authorities."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fdc81bfb-2f43-4906-b04f-fb8f8b6faefe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had declared her constitutional complaint of 25 March 2008, lodged against the decisions of the Supreme Court of 22 February 2008 and the Zagreb County Court of 12 February 2008, inadmissible solely on the ground that a fresh decision extending her detention had been adopted in the meantime. In the applicant's view, such a practice ran counter to the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7938a744-7796-4eb3-b638-d49308eabb5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["253.  The Government conceded that prior to Mr H.K.\u2019s statement the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy as required under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5. They further admitted that in the absence of any conclusions of the criminal investigation, the civil avenue of redress, as such, could not be regarded as effective in relation to the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ac673d15-b807-45e3-80f9-2f5f607d0bc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant also considered that Article 5 \u00a7 4 had been violated in that he could not have his detention reviewed after he had been committed for trial in May 2000. He also complained about the fact that he could not appeal against the detention orders issued by the Senate of the Supreme Court. Finally, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, he considered to have had no effective remedy to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9ed00136-a3f8-485b-8b3f-0c4064f18503", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because his request for registration as a candidate had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, \u00a7 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5c0c6cca-82da-4d26-811b-97fc6a06e141", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicants complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court finds that the applicants\u2019 complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, as this provision is the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 which the applicants invoke (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96 \u00a7 69, ECHR 1999\u2011II). Article 5 \u00a7 4 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c096129c-fc36-4608-aec4-e2b16b5df209", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The applicant maintained that neither of the investigations had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended, in particular, that the disappearance and ill-treatment of Cemal U\u00e7ar between 5 October and 2 November 1999 had never been investigated although his son had told the authorities that he had been subjected to torture between 5 October and 2 November 1999. In this connection, the applicant contended that the prosecution authorities and the police had failed to take a detailed statement concerning his allegations of torture from Cemal U\u00e7ar. Nor did they make any efforts to obtain other evidence, such as forensic evidence and witness statements."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ffc0125a-97fc-41cc-bfd3-e02b853a08b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that in addition to complaining to a higher court the applicant could have complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Chancellor of Justice in the course of the proceedings, who may, as necessary, draw the court\u2019s attention to the delay in the proceedings. They also referred to the amended Penal Code, which in its Article 7 (3) provides that the lapse of a considerably long period since the commission of the offence may be considered as a ground mitigating the punishment."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c68b8be5-8249-4715-8933-df1c07b19569", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant submitted that he maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention after having made use of the new domestic remedy in that regard. He alleged, in particular, that the new domestic remedy was not effective and that the proceedings before the complaints panel of the Federal Constitutional Court had not been fair within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3f6bfd6d-43bd-45f7-aab3-2f1d953ccc90", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants further complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the civil proceedings could not be considered an effective remedy in their attempt to obtain damages from the State. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the complaint concerns the applicants\u2019 right of access to a court, as guaranteed under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "01bb018d-a80d-442c-ac37-55432e8a0715", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The Government noted that the applicant had asked the prosecutor\u2019s office to provide information about the operational measures, their lawfulness and the subsequent actions by the KNAB. In their submission, the prosecutor\u2019s office was an institution exercising judicial functions (they referred to section 1(1) of the Law on the Prosecutor\u2019s Office and the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling in case no. 2004-06-01, referred to by the Constitutional Court in paragraph 19 of its judgment in the present case, see paragraph 24 above). The prosecutor\u2019s office had examined every facet of the applicant\u2019s complaint. As regards the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the Government emphasised that pursuant to section 655(2)(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law its judgment would serve as a sufficient basis for the re-opening of terminated proceedings. However, given that the criminal proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case were still pending, they referred to section 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which provided that the interpretation of a legal provision by the Constitutional Court was binding on domestic criminal courts in terms of its assessment of the lawfulness of the operative measures against the applicant and the co-accused, as well as the admissibility of evidence obtained in that connection. The Government concluded that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3d13b5dd-2142-4c05-a315-47f8c01ba064", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["193.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants or their close relatives had been granted victim status in the criminal case and could have taken full advantage of such status in order to bring a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2579fd4e-38ae-43a1-8021-7e365d6e7037", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had the opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there was no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5046dc28-48ff-48b6-8d55-6426486ca485", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicants further complained that the trial conducted by the Denizli Assize Court could not be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, they argued that the Denizli Assize Court was not an independent or impartial tribunal and that the proceedings against the village guards had not been concluded within a reasonable time."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fe71ad78-d234-49a8-8a67-40eabf564c62", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings concerning the sexual assaults against her had been at variance with the respondent State\u2019s positive obligation to provide effective legal protection against sexual abuse, as they had been unreasonably delayed, lacked impartiality, and had exposed her to several traumatic experiences by violating her personal integrity. Moreover, the applicant claimed not to have had an effective remedy in respect of her complaints, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "83b5608b-1272-4d44-bfc7-5d2e74fce9a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant, in his observations on the merits, repeated his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was deprived of an effective remedy in respect of his claims under the Convention. As pointed out to the applicant, this part of the application was rejected in a partial decision on admissibility on 28 January 2003. It therefore falls outside the scope of the Court's examination on the merits and has not been considered further."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cdd5bbcd-ee90-4d74-a63e-5c5e78945c8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant also complained that, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. He noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates for judicial positions in Azerbaijan was made by the Judicial Legal Council under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The applicant alleged that, in such circumstances, the judges of the domestic courts could not be independent and impartial in the proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, because their subsequent reappointment to the courts would depend on the discretion of the Minister of Justice as the Chairman of the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermore, in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because they had never ruled against the Ministry of Justice in cases concerning delays in registration of non-governmental organisations."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4f542537-125b-496c-960b-36f404aff319", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation, since the District Court had reduced his sentence owing to the length of the proceedings. In addition, the statute of limitations had provided an effective remedy in that the District Court had dismissed some charges as time-barred. In any event, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies since the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts, which may mitigate a sentence or waive punishment, inter alia, on the ground that a considerably long time has passed since the commission of the offence (Chapter 6, Articles 7(3) and 12(4) of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen; as amended by Act no. 515/2003)). They also made reference to the Supreme Court judgment of 11 June 2004 (KKO 2004:58) in which it was held that although there were no legal provisions justifying the dismissal of a criminal charge due to an unreasonable delay in proceedings, such a dismissal or the declaring of a case inadmissible might in some exceptional circumstances be the only effective remedy satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "eb28476a-1db2-43e4-a277-1f37ac9382fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with proper medical treatment. They also argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant whereby he could have complained about the lack of adequate medical care in detention, in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they cited the possibility of lodging complaints with the administration of the penal institutions, the regional branch of the FSIN, the regional prosecutor\u2019s office, or the domestic courts. However, the applicant had failed to use these remedies."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fbe33e28-edd8-4cb1-8169-4acccf7f74d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained that the proceedings for a review of the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair. He alleged that he had not been informed of the date of the hearing before the Court of Cassation and complained about the dismissal of his applications for the judgment delivered by that court on 15 February 2000 to be set aside. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7 3, Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ff57639d-7957-466e-9866-2f10702a675f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, as well as to claim damages in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "dc0c7dd4-487d-4764-a871-751535c66fb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicants, for their part, submitted that in cases concerning a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 the available remedies had to have automatic suspensive effect in order to be deemed effective for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that they had not at any point been subjected to an identification procedure of any kind, a fact not disputed by the Government, and complained of a lack of legal and linguistic assistance and of any procedure in respect of their de facto expulsion to Morocco. In their view, their assertions were borne out by the written submissions of the third-party interveners, summarised above, and especially those of the Human Rights Commissioner and the CEAR. The applicants also referred to the principles inherent in Article 13 of the Convention, as reiterated in the case of A.C. and Others v. Spain (no. 6528/11, 22 April 2014). They argued that, in the context of immediate returns, the requirements of Article 13 could not be satisfied since the aliens in question were deprived of any access to procedures and to legal safeguards, and the returns were carried out in the absence of any individual decision amenable to appeal."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d9a5b492-8e4f-4457-ad76-84dd6b740c4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The applicant complained that his right to an effective remedy was violated by the prosecutor\u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the Bailiffs dealing with his case. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person and to have the person concerned convicted is not as such guaranteed by the Convention (see, Kubiszyn v. Poland (dec.), no. 37437/97, 21 September 1999). It therefore finds that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2b2f9290-b913-4ed3-b648-4acba977121e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the composition of the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He maintained that the failure of the Ministry of Defence to inform him of the charges against him amounted to a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the terms and conditions of his expulsion from the military academy violated his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 2. He lastly complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court failed to state explicitly what means of redress against its decision were available."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "711155db-bbcc-4e34-985a-23032e44bec1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government also argued, in general terms, that the applicant could have exercised his so-called \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d (see paragraph 21 above). The Court need not decide whether the procedure referred to by the Government constituted on the facts a remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention or for purposes of exhaustion within the meaning of its Article 35 \u00a7 1, since it does not transpire from the case file that the applicant was given a copy of the decision of 20 January 2006. Neither is there any evidence showing that he was apprised of his right to apply for compensation in respect of damage caused by criminal prosecution (compare Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, \u00a7 39, 8 March 2007). Furthermore, the Government did not indicate how that would have remedied the complaint currently before the Court in respect of the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings (see Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, \u00a7\u00a7 59-60, 10 January 2008). The Government produced no copies of domestic court judgments where awards had been made in the proceedings under Articles 133 and 134 of the CCrP providing redress for excessive length of criminal proceedings. Having regard to this, the Court considers that the Government\u2019s argument as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention must be dismissed."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "580ada02-f6ee-4923-9b62-4d1fd7a701c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b8dacf56-764c-43fd-bae0-0d7e11b96a0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Ramazan Umarov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages.."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cfccef1e-106a-407f-b26a-6facc6b1451e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant complained that he had had no effective remedy by which to examine the lawfulness of his detention following completion of the pre-trial investigation in his case. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention (see Tsygoniy v. Ukraine, no. 19213/04, \u00a7 74, 24 November 2011), which reads:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "624ff509-629e-477e-b094-df840c2233fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant (1) invited the Court to hold that he was entitled to appropriate remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention, referring to Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000\u2011XI). He (2) further asked the Court to award him an appropriate amount of compensation for the non\u2011pecuniary damage inflicted on him by the wrongful treatment he had suffered in the proceedings before the High Court. The fact that the High Court would not take his appeal seriously and had deprived him of basic Article 6 guarantees had caused him considerable distress."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c4ece712-5955-4dbd-9f5e-1bb937c4b1b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicant further argued that the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect his rights under Article 8 because he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the disclosures. The Government maintained that there was no breach of any positive obligation and, more particularly, they argued that the applicant had available to him such remedies. The Court considers that the issue of the availability of a domestic remedy for the impugned disclosure by the Council is more appropriately considered under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "39335355-b151-432e-84c7-ddf136ef460c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, \u00a7 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8e91a434-8286-4c39-b2b5-4b765f718977", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["204.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f4d0734e-5fa6-492c-ab08-d8c7a5c79d19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ba2e86b8-99de-4780-bc71-7350f162e48e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government argued that the applicant had had at her disposal a remedy compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of that contention they relied on the finding of the Constitutional Court to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as it fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, both criminal as well as civil. They pointed out that the applicant had failed to make use of her standing as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings, with all the procedural rights attached to it. They further argued that the applicant could claim compensation in respect of any damage of a non-pecuniary nature by way of an action for protection of personal integrity. To that end they referred to their arguments in respect of their preliminary objection (see above)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4e5a4e12-8320-4745-bdfc-b08ee0953eda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant maintained that he was a victim of a violation of Article 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention because the payment of compensation by the Government following the unilateral declaration did not represent adequate redress for the violations acknowledged in that unilateral declaration. He had never been provided with an individual remedy for the breach of his rights enshrined in Article 3, in the form of an investigation into his complaints concerning his alleged ill-treatment by police officers. The respondent Government were required to put an end to the violation recognised by the unilateral declaration and to redress as far as possible the effects of the violation. This included the Article 13 requirement to provide an appropriate procedure in the national legal system enabling aggrieved individuals to ask for and obtain reparation of the consequences of the breach of their rights."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "46cd65ae-6ac2-4b62-819a-80a09bd1dcb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government further stated that the complaint was premature as the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants\u2019 relatives had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge a complaint before the domestic courts challenging the investigators\u2019 acts or omissions. The applicants could have claimed civil damages or requested the courts to declare their relatives dead."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "aa1bd368-dce7-46f9-ba36-d4612439b0f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, \u00a7 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "458c5f34-c7c7-4a70-9574-e9d0a490f564", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the application did not disclose a violation of Article 2. The Russian authorities had conducted a thorough investigation into Mr Antonov\u2019s death and had established that he had committed suicide. There had also not been a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. Their complaints in connection with the investigation into Mr Antonov\u2019s death had been thoroughly examined by the authorities."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "943ad6c1-e581-4711-9fdc-a17a5911cf3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained that there had not been an effective pre\u2011trial investigation into the circumstances of the traffic accident which had left him with severe injuries. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0cda1bb5-a7a1-45db-bb81-228e51e99acc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant churches further complained that they had not had access to a court or an effective remedy as they had not been able either to challenge the Government\u2019s Instruction of 23 December 2004 before the Constitutional Court, or to challenge the refusal of the Religious Communities Commission to grant their request to conclude an appropriate agreement before the Administrative Court. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2a73b9f2-8eb4-44ec-a96f-f23f510808df", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5b293f2b-a746-4744-be5f-5e6c784b3104", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b70d4418-1702-4799-84a7-fa48b84e69ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings infringed his right to an effective remedy for his original, substantive claim. However, the Court observes that thereby the applicant complained essentially about the outcome of the proceedings. However, Article <mask> of the Convention is concerned with the availability of effective procedures in relation to a Convention claim, not the result of litigation, whether favourable or not for the applicant. It follows that this part of the application, as formulated by the applicant, must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "84fcd996-312f-4c7a-b1e8-4c0754dd0e8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that the Austrian Administrative Criminal Proceedings Act (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz) does not provide any legal remedy against a failure of the Administrative Court to decide within a reasonable time. Further, he complained that there was no legal remedy available to accelerate administrative criminal proceedings. He relied on Articles 13 and 46. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "864f8410-a9cc-44e7-ba01-580f679e2c63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that their removal to Iran or Iraq would expose them to a real risk of death or ill\u2011treatment. They further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby they could raise their allegations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1a0447e6-3cd6-4356-9a45-7be775361af8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8994666a-459a-4b6e-96a6-c2244c7d7837", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government raised an objection arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 3 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the applications is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b53fbe22-8131-4291-8fcf-9acd6aeb550b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["264.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3c1694cd-1e55-4cd6-a716-4281fc37c51a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 November 2002 as upheld on 25 December 2002. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002\u2011III). The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4f69c031-4df4-4db5-9720-bbce5161f0fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they did not have effective access to court to complain about the exequatur decision ordering the search and seizure of banking documents referring to them. They further complained under Article 8 that the measure had interfered with their private life and correspondence, it had not been in accordance with the law, nor proportionate, and it had failed to provide relevant procedural safeguards. Lastly, they complained that they had been denied an effective remedy for the purposes of their Article 8 complaint, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2e33ada2-61b3-4567-b7fc-0362f380b3af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. He claimed that the domestic courts failed to examine his appeals of 20 May and 15 July 1999 and that his appeal of 15 April 1999 was not decided speedily as it had not been examined for more than nineteen days before he withdrew it on 3 May 1999. Lastly, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant complained that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "97ff9f8b-9e95-4574-b5c8-94390fdbb772", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. The Government also stated that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to a case where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ff8bcbbb-844f-42b8-9250-1a77cc22e5ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["221.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b2fd5f11-4a26-4865-a504-0169798c0764", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant also complained, relying on Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, that the mother of his child had failed to comply with the final court judgment regulating his access rights. He was therefore unable to see his son regularly until the beginning of 2005. He further complained that his request to exercise jointly his parental right concerning the management of the child\u2019s property had been dismissed. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to ensure the protection of his son\u2019s property, when they had approved the exchange agreement concluded by the mother."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "569bb2be-f4d2-4580-b8a5-b04d9edf8680", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government agreed that at the time of lodging her application with the Court the applicant had not had at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, they noted that on 4 December 2001 the Polish Constitutional Court gave judgment, in consequence of which a remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings had been created. In particular, the applicant could have lodged a civil action against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code, claiming damage caused by the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Lastly, they claimed that after 18 December 2001 the applicant had at her disposal an effective remedy and \u201cencouraged\u201d her to resort to that remedy. In conclusion, the Government invited the Court to find that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1566dae3-7e0a-4f30-ba46-5076f3e64712", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. They further invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and stated that, as the Court of Cassation had refused their unconstitutionality plea concerning the Decree in dispute, they had been denied an effective remedy. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, stating that they had been deprived of their land. Finally, they invoked Article 14 of the Convention, arguing that the Decree relied on by the domestic courts had resulted in discrimination."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8492180b-f051-4371-9dad-de376e432269", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["121.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could also have complained to courts or higher prosecutors or claimed civil damages, but had failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "19d1fb75-ef5f-49d1-a978-bac3775a536f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented him or his wife from using them. They submitted that Adam Ayubov\u2019s relatives had been granted the status of victim and had received reasoned replies to all their requests made in the context of the investigation. Also, the applicant, and after his death his other son, were recognised as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings which were instituted, inter alia, in connection with the destruction of the Ayubovs\u2019 property, and therefore they could have made a civil claim for compensation for the damage inflicted. In the Government\u2019s submission, Adam Ayubov\u2019s relatives could also have lodged a court complaint against the actions of the investigating authorities, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, or if the applicant or Adam Ayubov\u2019s other relatives had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused them damage, they could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004, by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor\u2019s office, and a decision of the Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dated 28 February 2006 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful actions of police officers. The Government did not enclose copies of those decisions."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2c509c8a-22f3-45df-bb96-10f929813333", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the effective removal of her tobacco retail licence amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the loss of her retail. She further complained that she had been subject of political discrimination, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d49bb27f-b8ca-4897-87e8-8f2216d15c3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his detention by the police had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He considered that the judicial review proceedings as to the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair because the national courts had reached the wrong conclusion. The applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention (although not explicitly on Article 5 \u00a7 4), he complained that he had not had any means at his disposal to challenge speedily the lawfulness of his detention and to obtain release. Lastly, without raising any separate complaints, he referred to Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2a5fa5e5-d3b2-445a-b4e4-2f0b0c07f27f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They also pointed out that it was open to the applicants to lodge a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Articles 1069-70 of the Civil Code In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fb56776a-889b-47b3-83d5-a8a2d10f1e5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant also complained that he had had no effective remedy in respect of the breach of Article 6 \u00a7 2, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that if the case had been heard in a magistrates' court, the High Court would have had jurisdiction to consider an application for judicial review. In this latter aspect he alleged a violation of Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d562936a-638f-4f0d-826f-e111aa9a6708", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government observed that the third applicant did not raise this specific complaint before the domestic courts, namely, by challenging the judge(s) before the Audiencia Nacional or through the cassation appeal and the amparo appeal lodged with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively.  The Government further argued that the amparo appeal was an effective remedy compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "92140140-503a-4b1e-8626-29a25770e938", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government submitted that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could be found separately from Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in cases concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants' favour, because the finding of a violation of the former provision was based on conclusions regarding the latter. As the applicant did not complain and the Court did not of its own motion qualify the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, no violation of this provision can be presumed to find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case. Consequently, the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention are inadmissible too."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "75135d23-6899-4672-85db-93e58354616a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["183.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors, as well as to claim damages through civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3b57226f-d3a2-41de-8931-8eec39b23add", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention about the courts\u2019 refusal to present him with a copy of the materials in the case-file, which had been relied upon by the prosecutor in his application for remanding him in custody. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have any effective remedy in respect of the breaches of his Article 5 rights. Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "619d51ed-9d3b-4ae4-9293-b060adb744b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["137.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage occasioned by the violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and EUR 3,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She submitted that the excessive length of the proceedings had placed her in a position of considerable uncertainty and had prevented her from using, enjoying and maintaining the properties in issue in the proceedings. That state of affairs, coupled with the lack of effective remedies, had caused her considerable frustration and feelings of helplessness."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a546a236-729d-4805-aa52-24ba9787e27a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been able to obtain effective judicial review of his detention. As it has been the Court's constant approach to consider Article 5 \u00a7 4 as the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, \u00a7 69, ECHR 1999\u2011II), the Court will examine this complaint exclusively under Article 5 \u00a7 4, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3461ff7a-1e60-469c-ab58-8a2dc3fa926d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant company complained that the enforcement proceedings in its favour had been conducted incorrectly by the bailiffs and that the procedure for challenging the bailiffs' misconduct was ineffective. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant company further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the first set of proceedings had lasted too long."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b14edd67-ec63-4f6b-a72c-c2ba036af2bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicants pointed out that the Government had not cited any examples showing the effectiveness of the remedies suggested by them. A claim under section 45 of the 1951 Act would not be available, because the 1988 Act was lex specialis in respect of claims against the authorities. As for a claim under section 1 of the 1988 Act, it would not have had any prospects of success, because the civil courts were bound by the conclusion of the criminal investigation that the actions of the police had been lawful. In previous cases the Court had held that the lack of an effective investigation engaged the State\u2019s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "65ec5571-a8e3-48c0-89d5-96aff38f45e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants complained under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 that there were no effective remedies in Moldova by which to complain of a lack of reasons for the first and second applicants\u2019 detention and of the unlawfulness of the search of the applicants\u2019 homes. The Court notes that it was open to the applicants under Moldovan law to lodge habeas corpus requests (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) and to challenge the lawfulness of the search in courts (see paragraph 7 above), which they did. The fact that the applicants were not successful in the proceedings does not automatically trigger the lack of effectiveness of the remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova, no. 4834/06, \u00a7 69, 7 April 2009). Accordingly, the Court concludes that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5b7493f2-5cbe-4853-aa5d-1d3a67c87d33", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in respect of compensation for damage caused by his unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction were unreasonably long. The applicant further maintained that there were no effective remedies for his complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. These provisions read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "93006d33-b6a8-4690-b803-55c485f1d49b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor\u2019s office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "31f8edcb-31a2-4ce1-8d13-e62c3dd4dbf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant also alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in that she had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in her case. In this connection she complained that the domestic court which examined her length complaint had not taken under into consideration the period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7dd5071a-a2a8-444f-b80e-c1fc506e8a87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to examine his principal request (to order the TCA to approve the detailed area plan) and that by doing so they had failed to follow the Supreme Administrative Court\u2019s binding judgment of 15 February 2008. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c91fac3a-dbc6-4f2d-80cf-3d71dc96c92d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government holds that Article <mask> of the Convention has not been violated. Referring to its argument elaborated in the context of its objection to the admissibility of the application, it asserts that the applicants could have brought an action for annulment before the administrative courts under Articles 45 and 52 of Legislative Decree No. 18/1989, against the tacit refusal of the administration to register their children at the Aspropyrgos primary school."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1fd07e9d-763e-48bc-8488-d56c600c5576", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also lodged a number of substantively similar ancillary complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4, Article 6 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which were communicated to the Government. However, having regard to its above findings under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court does not find it necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of these complaints."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bab04f4b-e5aa-4554-8f7b-39bbc180359d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant submitted that, in accordance with the domestic law, the reopening of the proceedings and referral of the case to the Plenum was within the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court\u2019s President. Any additional cassation appeal was to be submitted to the Supreme Court\u2019s President and not directly to the Plenum. The Plenum had no competence to examine the case of its own motion in the absence of a referral by the President of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that the examination of the case by the Plenum after the Supreme Court\u2019s President\u2019s refusal to reopen the proceedings had been unlawful under the domestic law and in breach of her right to a fair trial under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3e02eb85-73a3-4211-b9f8-6806aedb5b5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained that her extradition to Belarus would expose her to a risk of torture and unfair trial, contrary to Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, and that she had no remedy with respect to these complaints as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Articles 3, 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "dbb0c786-35f1-4623-bf45-2ac2c51fb1c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["228.  The Government submitted that under Finnish law decisions concerning the treatment of a patient, such as the administering of medication, were considered administrative measures and could not be appealed against. An appeal was possible where the law required a separate decision to be made, for instance if a person was ordered to be confined for involuntary psychiatric care. The Government submitted, however, that the applicant had access to a number of other legal remedies. She could have lodged an objection regarding her treatment with the director in charge of the health care unit, or complained to the State Provincial Office, the National Forensic Medical Authority, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, or the Chancellor of Justice. She could also have claimed compensation under the Patient Compensation Act or the Tort Liability Act, or reported her concerns to the police with a view to bringing charges. The Government pointed out that the applicant had had recourse to at least some of those legal remedies, and her grievances had been examined by a number of authorities. Moreover, the applicant had the right to appeal against the decision concerning her involuntary confinement and she had availed herself of that opportunity. The administrative courts had assessed the matter carefully. The Government considered that the aggregate of all the remedies available to the applicant had been sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0a9238c3-7e9e-4ff1-a5c3-c5e9e988744f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant also complained that, as the majority of the House of Lords found, he had been unlawfully excluded from school in circumstances which wholly denied the protection afforded to him by domestic law. He had therefore been denied an adequate remedy for a breach of his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No.1. Consequently, he complained that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5874873d-aae6-4980-a6e4-2332d0214cbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicants complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "45ad323e-295e-4d02-83eb-5cd166b23aa3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, \u00a7 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "41f7f120-5a52-45ea-a5c5-7d47de0c2c66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the impossibility to have his claim determined by a court, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He said that the absurd manner in which the domestic courts had approached his action had caused him frustration and humiliation, and had stirred in him feelings of hopelessness. He further claimed EUR 10,000 for the alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and EUR 5,000 for the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1988f778-c098-4b58-a595-b02c3f72d677", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46. The Government have, therefore, not shown that any form of effective relief was available for the substantial delays caused by the domestic authorities. Accordingly, their objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning the applicant's complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings fails. Furthermore, there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby he could effectively enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7b01ef99-a888-4e66-9548-14fc0b43aedc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while he had been detained. In particular, he alleged that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been debasing with regard to the size of the cell in which he had been detained, the number of persons in the cell, the bedding and conditions of hygiene, sanitation and ventilation, nutrition, outdoor daily walks, and access to natural light and air. He further alleged that he had not received the necessary medical treatment and assistance for his diseases, and that he had been forced to work for more than 12 hours a day, for which he had not been paid. The applicant finally alleged that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint about his conditions of detention, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. He invoked in substance Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f03645b6-707b-4666-844e-5bbe77517807", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "59617237-196a-4184-82f7-6dddcf6313e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant complained that he had not been provided with legal-aid counsel during the appeal hearing of 13 September 2002. He further alleged that his hearing impairment had prevented him from participating in the appeal hearing and from defending himself adequately, especially with regard to the video link by which his appeal had been examined. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5fe8818a-d850-4e82-b314-e9abd5a2e651", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["287.  The applicants claimed the sum of GBP 40,000 per victim, in relation to all the violations suffered by the dead men, to be held for the benefit of their heirs. Z\u00fclfi Akkum also claimed GBP 10,000 in relation to the violations of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention and H\u00fcseyin Akan and Rabia Karako\u00e7 each claimed GBP 2,500 in relation to the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d854992d-3347-41e5-bea9-693c6e36d3f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c85eec82-d8b8-4957-8f39-5ab0690ba477", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant, relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, complained about the refusal of the national courts to examine his claim for damages against the State on the merits. The Court observes that the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention are less strict than, and are in such situations absorbed by, those of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see, among other authorities, Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, \u00a7 43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011III, and Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, \u00a7 45, 16 April 2013). The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will therefore examine this complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b7cbeffc-199e-4231-965e-e3b84ddcaa5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government contended that the State Language Centre was the only authority empowered to determine the level of a candidate's knowledge of the State language. They submitted that the applicant had been able to exercise without hindrance her right to a remedy by means of an appeal to the Riga Regional Court. At the hearing on 31 August 1998 that court had made a detailed assessment of the evidence before it before holding that the measure complained of had complied with the Parliamentary Elections Act. As the Regional Court had looked into the merits of the applicant's complaints, there was no reason to consider that the remedy afforded in Latvian law was not an effective one for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0bba5d48-0971-401f-8df5-f45905e0042c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the manner in which the courts had dealt with their enforcement petitions, and the impossibility to have an adjudicated claim enforced and to obtain compensation for the unjustified use of their land, despite a final and binding judicial order to that effect. In their observations in reply to those by the Government on the admissibility and merits of the present application, the applicants also relied on Article 14 of the Convention, without providing any detail."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5fe660f6-e034-4ff1-9724-1b128f001e69", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["195.  The applicants submitted that their appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board against the order to leave the country was not an effective remedy satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 for two reasons: firstly, the appeal did not suspend their possible refoulement to France. As they were a family, they could not be detained; thus they did not have access to the procedure for requesting a stay of execution of the removal measure on grounds of extreme urgency. Admittedly, they did request a stay of the measure, but they did so under the \u201cordinary\u201d procedure that did not have the effect of suspending the order to leave the country. In accordance with Fedasil\u2019s policy, in such a case material assistance was not maintained pending a decision of the Aliens Appeals Board. As they had had no practical possibility of waiting for the outcome of the Dublin procedure, the applicants had been compelled to leave Belgium, which had rendered their appeal devoid of any purpose. The applicants also complained about the limits of the review of lawfulness on an application to have a decision set aside, since the Aliens Appeals Board confined itself to examining points of law, and not the facts, on the basis of an assessment at the time the transfer decision was taken and not at the time of the court\u2019s decision, contrary to the Court\u2019s rulings in Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands (no. 1948/04, \u00a7 136, 11 January 2007), M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (cited above, \u00a7 389), and Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium (no. 10486/10, \u00a7 106, 20 December 2011). Lastly, the applicants submitted that they had also been deprived of an effective remedy against the decision refusing them leave to remain on medical grounds since they had not learnt of the decision until the proceedings before the Court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8c64dd98-b130-4698-aa36-50736aa91172", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government averred that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. In particular, she had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and received replies to all her applications submitted within the framework of the proceedings. The investigation into her husband\u2019s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicant had not applied to domestic courts with any complaints concerning either the unlawful detention of her husband or actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. They also pointed out that the applicant did not file a compensation claim in respect of damage allegedly caused by the State authorities."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "144ea3cf-4cd6-41f9-849f-0ebe2f28d247", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government submitted that an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention had been available to the applicant, namely, challenging the decision before the Central Electoral Office, a body meeting the requirements laid down in the Court\u2019s case-law. They pointed out in that connection that, under Article 24 of Law no. 68/1992, the Central Electoral Office was composed of seven judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and sixteen representatives of the political parties, that the judges were selected randomly, by the drawing of lots, that the decisions of the office were reasoned, and that the members thereof were able to formulate dissenting opinions."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6213f5da-c341-4f9d-a496-a9435cbd79da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government asserted that the applicant's allegations had been properly investigated by the national authorities. The fact that the outcome of the criminal proceedings was not satisfactory for the applicant did not mean that he had been denied an effective remedy. Referring to the Court's judgment in the case of \u010conka v. Belgium (no. 51564/99, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2002\u2011I), the Government claimed that the effectiveness of a \u201cremedy\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome. Thus, they concluded that the authorities had complied with their procedural obligations under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention by conducting a detailed and through investigation in the circumstances of the present case."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "08bba624-859e-457b-902f-85abff7c92c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicant further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of \u201cvictim\u201d, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "735eff77-d415-4a34-bad4-68ad3c2bb1bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their close relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f7df1be1-0c95-4c5e-894d-33e7a013014e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government contended that the applicant could have applied to the domestic courts claiming redress for the length of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to Article 6.272 of the Civil Code, and indeed did have recourse to that measure. In particular, on 25 January 2006 the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Vilnius Regional Court claiming that the judicial proceedings against him had been too lengthy and had been unlawful. In that lawsuit the applicant clearly expressed his intention to seek redress for \u201c10 years of unlawful criminal prosecution\u201d. If the applicant\u2019s claim had not been thus formulated, it would have been for the judge of the domestic court to return the lawsuit to the applicant for rectification. Nonetheless, on 26 January 2006 the court accepted the applicant\u2019s lawsuit for examination. It followed that the applicant had had access to an effective domestic remedy not only in theory but also in practice within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government maintained that, taking into account the fact that the applicant\u2019s complaint regarding redress for the allegedly lengthy proceedings was still pending before the domestic courts, his complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention were to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fdcf1e91-5078-4442-9bd5-782702e2c534", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant went on to say that the rally planned for 30 September 2006 had had nothing to do with Ilinden. It had been planned by the Macedonian Initiative Committee, which was a separate organisation. He therefore maintained his complaints under Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention in relation to that rally. He stated that he also maintained his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to both rallies."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0834929c-535c-4899-9ae1-c8bebd4d09f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the unlawful detention and alleged ill-treatment of Tamerlan Suleymanov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints concerning any alleged acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities or to lodge a civil claim for compensation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "441fec54-53dd-44b0-b627-a525ffdae841", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings, and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "456def93-8f76-458b-9d0d-6384a8b70550", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his detention at the K\u0131rklareli Foreigners\u2019 Admission and Accommodation Centre had been unlawful and arbitrary. He also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could obtain a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "76dbdd74-549f-420b-b653-edd54408f256", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant also complained under Article 4 \u00a7 2 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He further alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Supreme Court did not examine the merits of his appeal on points of law of 12 August 2006. Lastly, in submissions dated 23 August 2008, he complained that the courts\u2019 decisions given in his case violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8bd0f102-0e87-4ac4-be91-ac2c0990c992", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "205aa153-647b-4d31-b076-7451e4cca8c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants alleged that the findings of the domestic courts in the two sets of proceedings had been contradictory and that as a result they had been deprived of effective access to court in respect of their alleged right to restitution of a plot of 329 or 391 square metres. They also complained that as a result they had been deprived of their possessions and that they lacked effective remedies in that respect. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7f5ce190-da76-441a-8acc-fd10854adc07", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 July 2006 given in his favour against the State unitary enterprise and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1, cited in paragraph 31 above, as well as on Article <mask> of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "003d6201-cb4f-492d-87ea-15e29829ba11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85. The applicant maintained that this case-law made it impossible in practice for her to make use of the only procedural remedy in Belgian law capable of leading to the automatic suspension of the order to leave the country that had been served on her. It was the policy of the Belgian Government not to arrest or detain families with children with a view to their deportation. Accordingly, and paradoxically, the absence of coercive measures against her had deprived the applicant from the outset of the possibility of having her complaints under Articles 3 and 8 examined in a manner consistent with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ded1b13e-4a9c-4217-80f9-44672f99a378", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a34ab477-bfcd-4f32-8bf6-87415baaee65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["304.  The Government restated the arguments set out above in their objection to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and concluded that the applicants had had available effective domestic remedies which they did not pursue. In particular, they stated that Article 55 of the Constitution, Articles 248-1 to 248-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine and Article 99-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, allowed for submission of the complaints with the prison and prosecution authorities and directly or subsequently challenging their decisions to the domestic judicial authorities. They thus concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bb1e4141-3851-4497-8959-0ee99d97c8fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government contended that the exception applied in French Guiana fell within the margin of appreciation afforded to States as to the manner in which they honoured their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The exception to the principle of a suspensive remedy was justified by the particular pressure of illegal immigration in French Guiana. Illegal immigration and the criminal networks that facilitated it were encouraged by the peculiar topography there, which made the borders permeable and impossible to guard effectively. Moreover, considering the large number of removal orders issued by the prefect of French Guiana, introducing an automatically suspensive remedy might overload the administrative courts and adversely affect the proper administration of justice. The exception was also justified by the need to maintain a certain equilibrium in French Guiana and by the close bilateral ties France had with the neighbouring countries."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e9dfe514-2d08-4897-9be3-40080636cca6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants\u2019 relatives had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge an action in court complaining about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. In addition, they could have applied for civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "32dd08f1-a036-46d6-93a1-b89e1e3e3344", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["236.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0eac9e4f-d0dd-4cff-90fc-e0cce280d63a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["125.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors, as well as to claim damages in the course of civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c367ef17-779e-4db6-8af3-86d926c30114", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants complained that there had been a two-fold violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Firstly, in that the enforcement of the 23 May 2002 judgment had been unreasonably long. Secondly, in that the compensation had been paid in instalments, contrary to what had been adjudicated. The applicants also alleged that contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention they did not have effective remedies available at the domestic level in those respects."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a2a9e119-c31e-476c-a7aa-c31389439a8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of her property rights had disregarded her arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. She lastly complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she had been discriminated on the basis of her national origin \u2013 she submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a4b54054-6380-4742-a05f-9813fb98fd70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["155.  The Government\u2019s objection is based on their view that such remedies exist in Russian law and that the applicants failed to exhaust them with the exception of Ms Kosyleva. The Court notes that this objection is closely linked to the issue of effectiveness of domestic remedies and alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore joins the Government\u2019s objection to the merits."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e599322e-2c01-4a47-beb3-d0e581e63289", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that the wording of the national courts when extending his detention following his indictment amounted to prejudging his guilt. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his Convention complaints. Finally he complained under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he was discriminated against."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ab1580de-dc99-4d34-b0d4-12506d1a7aa1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of death or ill\u2011treatment. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could challenge the decision to deport him to Iran and that he had not been allowed to have access to the asylum procedure."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "28a6fc14-6f54-40e8-9cf0-00e3d522e4bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained that the proceedings were unfair, submitting that the authorities did not give her an opportunity to adduce evidence in her favour, and in particular that the witnesses she had requested had not been examined at the only hearing held by the appellate authority. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cc24a3ae-ab36-40be-a947-1f8eb1d4ab3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the first applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant in the criminal case opened in connection with the killing of her sons and she had received reasoned replies to all her complaints. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to complain of the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f4daff1a-1c10-4f34-bfd8-8b39135f9ed5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the first set of proceedings were unfair and about their outcome. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the amount fixed to be paid to him pursuant to the ruling of 7 February 2007 was unreasonably low. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 on account of the length of the second set of proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4f95f4f6-4fe4-4c55-8bb8-d1eaef283144", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued that the applicant did not raise the length issue until his appeal to the Supreme Court. The possibility to mitigate a sentence due to the lapse of a considerably lengthy period since the commission of the offence was available to him under Chapter 6, section 7 of the Penal Code already at the stage of the proceedings before the Court Appeal. According to the Government, this remedy fulfilled the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and by actually invoking the issue before the Supreme Court the applicant had accepted the availability of an effective remedy."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bebb2ed4-6765-44ba-b282-9722d9ce58b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained that she had no effective domestic mechanism whereby issues of civil liability could be determined in respect of the alleged negligent care of her deceased son and through which she could have obtained compensation for the non-pecuniary loss sustained by her including grief, loss and distress. She invoked Article 2 alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. The parties\u2019 observations, summarised below, were filed prior to the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment in Rabone (paragraphs 40-41 above)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7df5c126-d11e-4897-b28c-2cbffd75b8c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f4e6dfc4-dda4-4d80-8ac7-2b90163abb3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "330ca8eb-f0ef-49c5-aa27-6233d0aefb6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13. They could also have claimed compensation for the alleged wrongdoing from the State authorities in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c9a8f0c4-113c-4d3a-b90f-cfdee2e420c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 22 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention, which constitute a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports 1997\u2011III, p. 927, \u00a7 73)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "beeaa9e7-3613-4ee6-8e9d-fbddecd55b12", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings in his case. He also alleged that the judges sitting in the domestic courts were biased and lacked independence. In his submissions lodged in 2007, the applicant also complained of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the basis of the same facts."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7842832a-759e-44cb-a3c7-df3df3a62982", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, which they had failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8f6d6d30-e7fb-49eb-a255-7f00ff64aec6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants alleged that the expulsion of the second applicant to Italy in 2012 violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. They alleged that if the second applicant were to be expelled again there would be another violation of Articles 3 and 8. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy at national level as the FAC did not take into account their family relationship when upholding the administrative decision not to examine the second applicant\u2019s asylum request on the merits."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5db7ca3d-cfb2-4203-b85e-df26759f14e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained that neither he nor his lawyer had been duly summoned to the appellate court and the Supreme Court. Although he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows in the relevant part:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3949bf26-8dd1-4076-98ea-16954f462d9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings about his placement in the security cell violated his right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the decision given by the Gie\u00dfen Regional Court was inconsistent with its own case-law and thus violated his right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5cd57cb4-27fc-4e59-8e76-036d696e577c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. According to the applicant, the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the partiality of the courts involved. He also claimed that the Constitutional Court, by rejecting his first and second constitutional appeals in which he had criticised the delays in the proceedings, deprived him of his last domestic remedy, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a40701d7-b31b-4981-8abc-3f4b3be41199", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that, by refusing his request to become a party to the liability proceedings brought against the public administration despite his having a direct interest in them, he had not been given the opportunity to defend himself against serious allegations of harassment in the workplace in violation of his right of access to a court. The applicant further alleged that the lack of effective remedies to challenge the interference on his right to reputation and honour complained of under Article 8 had given rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "72e988e3-5229-42e4-8dad-43c9b6036a84", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["192.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. They had also not claimed damages in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "83009cee-6898-4670-9520-591053461c79", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The applicant alleged a violation of his rights under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, in that (i) his pre-trial detention had been unlawful, arbitrary and not decided upon by an independent tribunal established by law; (ii) the decisions in respect of his pre-trial detention lacked adequate reasoning; and (iii) he effectively had no enforceable right to compensation. He also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 9 and 16 March 2005 and a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in connection with the former decision by the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bb68bb05-4c03-40d1-906a-5bb6d79be4f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before higher prosecutors or courts. They could also submit a claim for non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of investigating authorities."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cb1b61d6-8a49-4dfd-bd5b-736d3fee197c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1cfdd68d-41d4-41b5-93da-2532f82af69d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant complained about the refusal of the Court of Cassation to examine his appeal on points of law of 9 February 2006. The applicant invoked Article 5 \u00a7 4, Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6cd8d736-8c57-4bfc-97f8-f8bc7afaa15f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["164.  The applicant bank also complained that in the enforcement proceedings at issue it had not been given proper notice of the hearing held on 23 September 2003 (see paragraphs 42-43 above) and thus had not had an opportunity to comment on the Commercial Court\u2019s qualification of the founding agreement as non-commercial (see paragraph 45 above). Lastly, it complained of the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 7 July 2005 whereby that court had refused to examine the merits of its constitutional complaint of 2 June 2004 (see paragraphs 52 and 55 above). Even though the applicant bank in raising the latter complaint relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, the Court considers that it falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as an access-to-court complaint."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1b56d2f0-6678-42cc-80f5-0d3f671f8592", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained that the failure of the authorities to implement the final judgment in his favour, by virtue of which a State body owed to him a sum of money, breached his right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaint at issue falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read respectively as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "aa3b4925-46d2-43a7-bd20-8675e58daf21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1ab1351e-7432-4570-be6f-ad89707d4f1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their close relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Article 2 of the Convention. The relevant parts of those Articles read:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f37ff005-29d5-461d-bd5c-043ca2a7100e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The investigation into their relative\u2019s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicants had not applied to the domestic courts with either civil claims or complaints concerning actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. The Government referred to the domestic courts\u2019 decisions over claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "10cb2c35-018c-4ede-8d0d-61fbace323cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant maintained that he was a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged that as a rule he had not been summoned to the meetings at the Bankruptcy Court but that nevertheless several times, in vain, he had complained orally against the excessive length of proceedings. He pointed out that at the relevant time the Bankruptcy Act did not contain a provision equivalent to section 127 (a), now to be found in the act currently in force, according to which a debtor may demand that the Bankruptcy Court make use of specific measures in order to comply with the reasonable-time requirement set out in Article 6 of the Convention. The Bankruptcy Act applicable during the applicant\u2019s bankruptcy proceedings did not grant a debtor any rights of that kind or any powers to influence the administration of his estate. Nor could he bring such a complaint before the relevant appeal instance, namely, the High Court of Eastern Denmark."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "004e952e-99ef-4405-891d-3c8fc9bd0091", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Appeal Court had not re-assessed the evidence in her case and under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) that her witnesses had not been given the possibility to testify and that, if they had, their testimonies had not been reflected in the Appeal Court's judgment. Moreover, she complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that the presumption of innocence had been violated as the public prosecutor could not prove her calculations wrong or her to be guilty. Finally, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not had an effective remedy as the other parties to the proceedings had been civil servants."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d0e5566a-172b-4761-b8c0-107f0d7272d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The applicants complained that the investigatory procedure in this case was not effective and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death of their relatives and that, for this reason, they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the same factual basis. The Court will consider these complaints under Article 13, which provides:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "deef7155-88d2-4ffb-b19d-0c2fcdfa5c02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained that his removal to Iraq without an individual assessment of his claims, despite the real risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment there and the risk of his refoulement to Iran, where he was likely to be tortured and executed, had breached Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had an effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could challenge the decision to deport him to Iraq and that he had not been allowed to have access to the asylum procedure."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1376111a-6752-4ca6-8a6f-051f9033e762", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicants complained that it had been made impossible for them to have their identity established, to explain their individual circumstances, to challenge their immediate return to Morocco before the Spanish authorities by means of a remedy with suspensive effect, and to have the risk of ill-treatment they ran in that State taken into consideration. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4f7f12c6-e906-490b-8e1a-7d71cc8ceaa0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicants complained that no remedy had been available to them under the domestic law in force at relevant time, by which to challenge the disciplinary sanctions that were imposed on them. They relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court notes that this part of the application should be examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3be7b1d4-980e-400c-854f-96502df226ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The applicant association complained that the fact that the judgment of 27 March 2003 given in its favour had remained unenforced for a considerable period of time had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and that it had no effective remedies in respect of the complaint about the length of the enforcement of this judgment as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Additionally, it complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgment at issue breached its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impugned provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "469dd823-b586-4371-88f2-c6c1b4c1d544", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could have brought a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage or could have lodged court complaints against the investigators. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e164faa8-7f84-4c26-b46a-cbb62884a6c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant complained, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance and treatment during his detention. He also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had not had an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3. The Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case. As such, it considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "935b7015-32a6-44b7-903b-827752d51532", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or could have lodged a civil claim for compensation. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d53a5756-22cf-4fc0-afa8-e53393d248a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the length of the second set of proceedings had been excessive. He further submitted that by not enforcing the judgment of 6 June 2003, as amended by the decision of 13 October 2004, the State authorities had infringed his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of the non-enforcement of the above judgment. The applicant also relied on Article 8 of the Convention with respect to the lengthy examination of his claim and the enforcement of the judgment in question. The above provisions provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3228c764-bc71-400e-b7df-80d2b77c4733", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure during his arrest, and that the conditions of detention in the Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre, in the SIZO and during his transportation had been inhuman and degrading. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the absence of effective remedies in this connection."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d8c68b30-3a18-445b-bf2d-2cfac784c0ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "045e79d8-eb21-49f9-ae2b-4236b0473a95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The first and second applicants had been granted victim status in the criminal case and could have taken full advantage of such status in order \u201cto influence the investigation of the criminal case\u201d or bring a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c4004c18-3127-4490-8f94-5cd77cc3e57c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government contested that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the Constitutional Court examined complaints about the length of proceedings before the lower courts. According to the Constitutional Court's case-law, excessive length was also a mitigating circumstance which might lead to a reduction of sentence. As far as the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court itself were concerned, the Government contended that under the Convention there was no obligation for a State to provide for additional levels of appeal and a further legal remedy by which to challenge decisions of last-instance courts. Such a requirement would affect basic issues of the Austrian Federal Constitution and most likely also the legislation of most Contracting States and their freedom to organise their judicial system. Having regard to the average duration of proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court: eight and a half months and twenty-two months respectively, the Austrian legislator had found no need to also provide a remedy in respect of the length of proceedings before those courts."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "eef6d19c-b026-4308-9d5f-b67664045e9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that neither the Istanbul State Security Court, nor the Istanbul Assize Court had met the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further argued that he had been denied an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention as he had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal and the Ninth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation which had examined his appeal had been politicised. He maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his statements had been extracted under duress in police custody, including by way of physical ill-treatment, and that the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court had been erroneous, had lacked reasoning and had been based on insufficient evidence. Lastly, the applicant maintained that his imprisonment following an unfair hearing had amounted to \u201ctorture\u201d within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e59f9444-e10e-4a54-a1e5-af93a673203c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Commission could not be considered an independent and impartial tribunal and that, since no appeal lay against its decision, they had been refused access to a court. On the same grounds they argued that they had been denied the right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c5135b41-b584-460d-85ff-6a6b1bb8efd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court had refused to scrutinise the validity of the assessment of his mental fitness for work. He also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that as a result of the classification of the proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court had not delivered its judgments publicly and had not allowed him to make copies of them. Lastly, he complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that when dealing with his case the Supreme Administrative Court had disregarded its own judgment of 8 February 2005."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f177665b-31f1-4a63-ab8e-7c0116830c30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["82.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed. Articles 3, 5 and 13 read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "88bbadbb-818e-4dd0-93bf-156839015baf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the undertaking not to leave the town that had been imposed on her in the second set of criminal proceedings had been a disproportionate and lengthy restriction on her freedom of movement. She also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "598947cc-d4bb-41b5-824c-6c1a17e14da2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention of lack of access to a court with respect to his complaint about the actions of the prosecutor\u2019s office; under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention of unfairness in the criminal proceedings against him; under Article 7 of the Convention of having been convicted for acts which could not be interpreted as criminal; and under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of having been deprived of means of subsistence for a considerable period of time on account of having been suspended from work without pay."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b36a26a9-38fb-45fe-b824-ecdae786ae4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["195.  The applicant submitted at the outset that she is a very vulnerable individual. She is legally incapacitated with a history of mental health problems and has been admitted to a psychiatric institution against her will for an indeterminate period. The applicant\u2019s guardian, who has the power to take decisions on all her aspects of life, is the care institution itself. In the applicant\u2019s view, on account of her vulnerability, Article <mask> of the Convention required that the State take supplementary measures to make sure that she could have benefited from effective remedies for the violations of her rights."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d05af9d6-23b1-4cc0-b956-eac4086ac6cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their close relative, who they claimed had been unlawfully detained. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed under Articles 2 and 3. Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "26158873-c779-4462-8802-df3ebc45579a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with the fairness and length of the proceedings, having challenged the domestic restitution legislation, in particular the Land Ownership Act. The Government considered therefore that the applicant\u2019s complaint was partly incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and partly manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "1be959ac-2aa5-4c8e-80b4-d5592e73fe82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "98e2a4aa-4eb7-487f-8272-87397ccb5692", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the abduction of the applicants' relative had been instituted subsequently and \u201cthe relatives of the missing person were declared victims and received reasoned replies to all their requests made in the context of the investigation\u201d. They also argued that, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, it had been open to the applicants to lodge a court complaint in respect of the actions of the investigating authorities or, if the applicants had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused them damage, to seek compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of that argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor's office. The Government did not enclose a copy of that decision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "77b9f627-a1ca-4eaf-9554-445311da75d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not been duly notified of the proceedings against her and had not been able to participate in them. In addition, after becoming aware of the judgments against her she had been unable to seek the re\u2011opening of the proceedings because of the operation of the time-limit. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the obligation to pay a substantial sum of money as a result of proceedings in which she had been unable to participate."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9dec225b-34ed-4e3a-ae3b-49fdfc114803", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had been granted the status of victim and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the criminal proceedings, and in particular, the right to give oral and other evidence, to file motions, to receive copies of procedural decisions, and to access the case file and make copies of the materials of the file on completion of the investigation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "be742509-a098-40a0-af31-060d7cbc5d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the relevant provisions preventing him from being paid tax credits in respect of maintenance payments had constitutional status and were therefore excluded from the review of the Constitutional Court. He made a further complaint under Article 6 that there had been no oral hearing before the domestic authorities and that the Austrian courts, despite there being fundamental questions concerning EU law, had not complied with their obligation to refer the case to the ECJ."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a610604e-fc2f-4db5-9451-b737d0d93a36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to a case where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a279908a-2c0e-4033-b64e-d32190f66325", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, but had been unwilling to make use of them. They submitted that the first and seventh applicants had been granted victim status and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the criminal proceedings and, in particular, the right to give oral and other evidence, to submit requests, to receive copies of procedural decisions, and to access the case file and make copies of the materials of the file on completion of the investigation. The Government further argued that the applicants could have appealed in court against actions or omissions of the investigation authorities in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, but had failed to do so. Also, in the Government's view, if the applicants had considered that any action or omission on the part of public officials had caused them damage, they could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code, but they had never attempted to avail themselves of that opportunity. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a letter of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 3 August 2007 which stated that the applicants had not complained to the courts in the Chechen Republic of the unlawful detention of their relatives, about the actions of any law-enforcement officials, or of any shortcomings in the investigation into the disappearance of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. The Government did not submit the letter to which they referred."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0ae91ee9-2696-425a-8e68-d953e281422b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant alleged that the prosecutors and police had forced her to register her residence in Zaporizhzhya contrary to Article 2 Protocol No. 4. Referring to Article 1 Protocol No. 1, she in substance complained of the assessment of evidence in the civil proceedings. Finally, she complained that since 1976 the State had continuously failed to respect O.\u2019s rights for residence, health care, subsistence and education. Lastly, in her submissions of 9 November 2009, she additionally complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1 in respect of the length of the civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "54d73301-2850-4ee6-a906-432bb97ad0c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cf0fefcd-ce14-477d-ba7e-d863ac41ccff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair. He also contended that he had had no remedy at his disposal to complain effectively about the ill-treatment, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the fact that the police had handed his car and house keys to his girlfriend and that his property had fallen into disrepair while he had been in detention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3f692da4-001a-4415-8c4d-8c96a3c076a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicants further argued that the approach adopted by the Court in the Norkin decision specifically concerned a structural problem relating to the lack of effective remedies in respect of conditions of detention. No similar findings had ever been made by the Court in relation to issues arising under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the Norkin decision had been based on the Court\u2019s earlier findings (in particular under Article <mask> of the Convention). No similar findings had ever been reached in respect of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. On the contrary, the Court had generally taken a flexible approach to the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of this type of complaint and had accepted a variety of domestic decisions for the purpose of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see, regarding \u2013 inter alia \u2013 a civil action for damages Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, \u00a7 66, 19 July 2007; Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, \u00a7\u00a7 1, 15-27 and 36, 11 December 2008; and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, \u00a7\u00a7 1, 15-20 and 31-35, 25 October 2005; see, in respect of court proceedings against the head of a remand centre Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, \u00a7\u00a7 1, 32 and 39-40, 13 March 2014)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "da3fb37f-1ae9-4ee1-b85d-2ad600822483", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court, which they had deliberately refused to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8e852e99-a234-4df0-874e-ccf40fea5b6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant, invoking Articles 5, 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention, complained that he had been unlawfully arrested and detained, that he had not been brought to a court immediately after his arrest, that he had been unable to challenge effectively the detention orders, that the trial court had not been competent to examine his case, that the courts had incorrectly assessed the facts and had failed to draw correct conclusions, that he had only learned about the charges against him on 30 December 1998 and that the trial court had not heard certain witnesses on his behalf and a victim, Ms Lo."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9f7ed955-0314-4f32-8d97-220335c0fd8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, provided in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings. The relevant parts of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e3a1586a-1c1d-42f3-836b-9ae9e69a96ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "05b1b5c2-9406-4996-aac3-68455b369db3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention the applicants further complained that no remedy had been available to them under the domestic law in force at relevant time, by which to challenge the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "179b451d-df3c-4eea-bfad-10e069ff3270", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the damages which she had been awarded had been too low. She further complained under the same provision that following the amendment to the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure her case had ceased to be reviewable by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Finally, she complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that domestic law did not provide an effective mechanism for the vindication of her civil rights."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ab43335f-e6d3-42e1-9643-37e787ab1e8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant complained that, if extradited, he would face a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and an unfair trial by the Belarus authorities, which would constitute a violation of Articles 3 and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the absence of effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The invoked provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "867c4051-d163-40d2-a223-ff64818dbe7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["121.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and that she could have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d7e4060a-a80a-49fe-9a65-93f89af1a238", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained that his expulsion to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of his right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3. The relevant provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fa078ffb-1311-43b4-b69a-edf5d61c2be4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that the length of his compensation proceedings, including their enforcement stage, had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and that he had no effective remedies in respect of this complaint as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Additionally, he complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the final judgment given in his favour breached his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impugned provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7329c1e8-052c-49d6-a95f-1b27aa012e39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. She had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. The Government added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a5068534-6b80-4c48-9fbc-bc80999cc28d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s view essentially repeating their arguments concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They observed that the Albanian legal system provided a specific remedy whereby the applicant could claim the restitution of and compensation for property which had been unlawfully nationalised or confiscated by the State. The legal framework on the restitution and compensation issue had been the subject of frequent legislative changes, owing to the significant financial and social consequences of the process. However, even without those legislative changes, which were aimed at making improvements to the system, the three remedies introduced by the Property Acts complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Government suggested without further explanation that the applicant could have filed motions for redress with the competent authority in accordance with the Property Act 2004."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "20890cae-6a7a-4c50-b1cc-5c3d15e36d75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["227.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "40b2b0a1-eca8-439e-a93e-e5fd7a5a70cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. She had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b681c57a-395f-4ec1-b390-e09ce5805e06", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of his rights. In addition, the applicant had failed to claim damages in civil proceedings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2eb17d55-0569-4ade-bfed-4c98c441d364", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government also recalled that Article <mask> of the Convention requires an effective remedy that offers reasonable prospects of success. Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, \u00a7 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, \u00a7 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, \u00a7\u00a7 77 and 81-82)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c7289906-7a64-42fd-b006-958706c65e21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 27), the Court concludes that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, \u00a7 46-48, 29 June 2004). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "02109595-fa86-401f-9b9a-fe47a105d658", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic authorities had failed to uphold their ownership rights in the apartments and under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedies for this complaint, in particular, since the Constitutional Court had refused to consider their application. Finally, the applicants invoked Article 14 of the Convention to the facts of the case."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "2e2ae85c-cf2a-48ae-9cb4-ce2e669a8f8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in so far as the constitutional courts could not be considered an effective remedy to obtain sufficient just satisfaction (covering fair rent over all the relevant years and the depreciation suffered as a result of the actions of the club) or to bring the consequences of the violation to an end. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3633c5e1-a6e9-4e6e-bf57-c6f4f98265cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. He had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7d581b33-3585-43d7-b693-e6096da34826", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["142.  The Government contended that the applicants had had access to effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that during the period when the events invoked by the applicants' had taken place the judicial system in the Chechen Republic was already operational and that applications of the residents of Sernovodsk concerning those events had been properly examined by the authorities and criminal proceedings had been instituted. The Government insisted that the applicants, as participants in criminal proceedings, had had the right to challenge any actions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities before a court. Accordingly, in the Government's opinion, effective domestic remedies in respect of the applicants' complaints existed."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "91a67791-9155-4f28-97b5-a98a7466558b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant reiterated under Article <mask> of the Convention his complaint about the absence of an automatic review of the lawfulness of his detention on remand (see paragraph 53 above). The Court recalls that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention is the lex specialis in matters of detention (Shamayev and Others, cited above, \u00a7 435, ECHR 2005\u2011III) and that the complaint about the absence of an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been already found to be manifestly ill-founded (see paragraph 58 above). The Court does not consider it necessary therefore to examine this complaint separately under Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3a9f50a2-3cd1-4e16-a3f4-4e7ab74210e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Said-Emin Sambiyev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities. Besides, she could have applied for civil damages. They also added that the applicant, having officially complained to the prosecutor\u2019s office only one month and nineteen days after the abduction, had undermined the efficiency of the investigation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "978c70f1-e1fd-4f24-b058-2273b50b3c86", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "281682bc-dde9-4bbc-8385-4a1105e79b9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The applicants complained about the dismissal of their claim against the State for damages. They argued that as the offence had been committed as a result of the State\u2019s negligence, they should be provided with a remedy that would enable them to obtain redress for the damage suffered. The applicants relied on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that substantively their complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d61e56b3-9319-4449-a3a1-234caffc1400", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government have accepted that the first applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, insofar as it relates to the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, is admissible. The Court agrees that it is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further agrees that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. The Court finds, however, that the first applicant's complaint under Article 13 read together with Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded, as it has already held that the first applicant's rights under Article 3 are not engaged."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0be63047-3e14-4a59-b9f4-6858820b75db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Ruslanbek Vakhayev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities and that she had availed herself of this remedy. Besides, she could have lodged a claim for civil damages. They also added that the applicant, having officially complained to the prosecutor\u2019s office almost a year after the abduction, had undermined the efficiency of the investigation."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "5fea8e71-0cc2-4c5a-918e-24400bdab5b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 November 2004 given in her favour against the municipal unitary enterprise and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, all cited in paragraph 32 above."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ef25a809-a8f5-4f3c-9b08-055b0743d2e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that the \u201ceffective remedy\u201d mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the \u201cTRNC\u201d nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7df7a078-c9cd-47ff-80cf-f8a875c42acd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. The applicant had been declared a victim in the criminal case opened in connection with the killing of his family members and had received reasoned replies to all his queries. Besides, he had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "683d5616-c647-4401-82df-19f263d80517", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The applicants in applications nos. 17356/11 and 31996/11 also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of this complaint. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, \u00a7 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "313f6371-089f-46eb-904c-35d57f708555", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of the delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the length of civil proceedings. Lastly, the applicant complained about certain alleged shortcomings in the civil proceedings, their unfairness, and about trespassing into his flat and theft of his belongings."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "3354e9eb-aef1-46b1-99ac-b58a63d59f61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant further complained of the fact that the Constitutional Court, by rejecting his first and second constitutional appeals of 19 January and 10 November 1998 in which he had complained of the delays in the proceedings, deprived him of the last domestic remedies available to him. This gave rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6e8dabdf-6422-487d-aedc-17c9e0b4ffd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and to bring civil claims for damages, which they failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a54c14aa-ce99-4814-b4ac-5b7229ac62e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had declared his constitutional complaint of 15 January 2008, lodged against the decision of the Osijek County Court of 27 December 2007, inadmissible solely on the ground that a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted in the meantime. In the applicant's view, such a practice ran counter to the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "44a93ac9-2cb3-4422-886a-785ebf2026b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The investigation into her husband\u2019s disappearance was still ongoing. At the same time the applicant had not applied to the domestic courts with either civil claims or complaints concerning actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. The Government enclosed copies of the domestic courts\u2019 decisions on claims for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cf2f1452-ff96-42e2-ad28-f5fc3a81e9d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government submitted that the applicant had had an effective remedy in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Domestic law had provided an opportunity, both in theory and in practice, to have the fact of his ill-treatment by the police officers established and, consequently, to seek and obtain redress. The applicant, however, had failed to avail himself of this opportunity by not lodging a timely appeal against the investigator\u2019s decision of 21 June 2005. Thus, the final domestic decision concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment had been the decision of 21 June 2005, according to which the actions of the police officers had been found to be lawful, and consequently his civil claims had had no prospects of success. Accordingly, in the absence of a finding by a relevant authority of a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention, he had no \u201carguable claim\u201d under Article 13 in relation to his allegations of ill-treatment."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "bce4dd30-3736-46a3-b501-29a34b8d9079", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of his property rights had disregarded his arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. Lastly, he complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his national origin \u2013 he submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "40048ebe-fff7-4707-ac2e-16d00e6ed955", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for the complaint that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being detained in inadequate conditions. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "91d39d3a-2e41-4659-a957-028b1a06f934", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that because his regiment had not immediately referred him to a hospital, his access to appropriate medical treatment had been delayed, which had led to the loss of sight in his left eye. He argued that, as he had been under the control of the military authorities during his compulsory military service, the State should be held responsible for the damage he had sustained. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant also complained that he had not had an effective domestic remedy which could have provided him with redress for his complaints."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4d6023b2-2bde-4fc6-8b27-7a94084ed501", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government raised an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being detained in inadequate conditions. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b74dc695-c7c1-4fb8-af93-f11651be5409", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that the \u201ceffective remedy\u201d mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the \u201cTRNC\u201d nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "25c546b7-06d7-40c8-83f3-a68dcf21279e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The Government also noted that the investigation of the abduction of the applicant\u2019s relatives had not yet been completed. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of her rights. The applicant had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a03ed3a7-ad35-44db-be11-44828002a6c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government stated that remedies were available as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Judith McGlinchey could have used the internal prison complaints system to complain about her treatment. Intolerable conditions of detention were also the proper basis for an application for judicial review. The applicants had available to them a range of causes of action, including negligence and misfeasance in public office. This was not a case where national law did not provide a viable cause of action at all. The fact that the applicants could not prove negligence on the facts did not mean that there was no remedy available."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cb00b86e-3ecd-4d3e-84de-96ee10e009ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["187.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They further argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in Mezhidovy v. Russia (no. 50606/08), Israilovy v. Russia (no. 58253/10), Shakhidova and Others v. Russia (no. 27066/09), Zaurbekovy v. Russia (no. 27987/12), Abdurzakova and Others v. Russia (no. 39694/12), and Askhabayeva v. Russia (no. 79940/12) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "31fa6476-aad2-435b-8086-af5b39440930", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ead5bc66-9ec3-492a-8423-df0807366a3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant company further complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 that the proceedings in its case were unfair, and about their outcome. It also alleged that the judges at the domestic courts lacked independence and impartiality. In its submissions lodged in 2008, the applicant company also complained that the Supreme Court, by examining the case in the absence of its representative, had violated its right to an effective remedy for the protection of its rights and deprived it of access to a court. The applicant company relied on Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c7f8e09f-dccd-4c48-8bf9-1c7304a86ca2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's inability to effectively challenge his detention under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention and to the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention. In addition, the Court observes that Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention constitute lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69, and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III, p. 927, \u00a7 73)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "23a6d243-7de0-4104-ac8c-f1b1ed75bf3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained that the authorities\u2019 refusal to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his complaints of ill-treatment in police custody and unlawful detention had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of \u201cvictim\u201d, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention. He relied on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 and 5 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f5969438-309f-4df0-b0f3-11075f32427b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["121.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that an arrest warrant issued against him during the criminal proceedings which ended on 4 February 2000 was unlawful. Furthermore, he complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings which ended on 4 February 2000 had been unfair, as had been the outcome of the proceedings which had ended with the final judgments of 12 November 2004, 13 July 2005 and 18 January 2006. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the V\u00e2lcea County Court had allegedly failed to consider his appeal during the course of the proceedings which ended with the final judgment of 12 November 2004."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0cea9b1e-b983-4ef2-a5d6-ba9bb2abecdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants had received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, they submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ba5fd6a0-8273-4645-9900-bd55e49a63e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and received reasoned replies to all their applications within the framework of the proceedings. At the same time, the applicants had not submitted their complaints concerning their allegedly unlawful detention, or any other complaints, to a court. The Government referred to a number of decisions of the courts in the Chechen Republic whereby complaints concerning the actions or inaction of prosecuting authorities had been allowed."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fcb12c76-ed7a-4cd4-bb87-7ab7921edf61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "15a93956-a881-43c2-8523-256c8438a1fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The applicants alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of all the above complaints. The Court observes that they did not explain in any detail why they considered that they were denied effective domestic remedies for their grievances. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the complaint is devoid of merit. It therefore rejects this complaint as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8b75f164-6e18-4f21-b9eb-97a748d2d99d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant also vaguely alleged that he had not had an effective domestic remedy for his complaints pertaining to the conditions of his detention, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is \u201carguable\u201d (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, \u00a7 137, ECHR 2003\u2011VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004). The Court has found that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. 16/1 are manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible. It accordingly finds that that claim cannot be said to be \u201carguable\u201d within the meaning of the Convention case-law (see Novikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 11303/12, \u00a7 40, 10 December 2013)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ba4e4649-8898-496f-aabc-f7292a6a3f3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the murder of the applicant\u2019s sisters had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities. She could also have applied for civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "b0fd5257-364d-4bb7-90de-35b0d72acd8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the courts had lacked impartiality and had wrongly assessed the evidence. He was dissatisfied that he had not been awarded compensation and with the outcome of the proceedings in general. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1. However, the Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0e0d3a70-de0d-4b66-84a9-783114926547", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1 thereof, that the Makarska Municipal Court had not complied with the orders of the Split County Court and the Supreme Court to complete the enforcement proceedings within the specified time-limit. Therefore the remedies he had at his disposal were not effective. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "00f1d066-047f-4075-bdd0-b3f1d5f17e11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government concluded that applicants were obliged to exhaust a remedy which did not lack any reasonable prospect of success, even if they had doubts as to its effectiveness. The applicants in the case at hand should have thus contested the prosecutor\u2019s decision to suspend the investigation before the Constitutional Court, which could have ordered the prosecuting authorities to investigate the events in conformity with the Convention, had that court found that that had not been the case. Moreover, the Government recalled that if a single remedy did not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, \u00a7 157, ECHR 2000-XI; \u010conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2002-I). Thus, the remedies available under civil law, the Police Act, and the State Liability made up for the lack of jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to award compensation for violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "76c134a6-b9cf-4fb8-a7c8-31450b8f5d45", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained, relying on under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, of the failure of the State to provide him with the flat allocated in compensation to his father. The Court is of the view that it suffices to examine the application under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a8f869f7-1e9c-475b-aa93-09776bd83bd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The Government referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the applicants\u2019 rights. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "81136386-1c21-472c-9115-711e7fcd8df7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in relation to their complaint concerning the breach of their right to peaceful assembly. They also argued under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 11, that they had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their freedom of assembly as they had been refused permission to organise a demonstration in Taksim Square for public order reasons, while other mass demonstrations could be celebrated at the same location."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "6f5c6f06-db14-469b-b0fb-2f2d738582a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["10.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. In applications nos. 54430/08, 69362/10, and 67231/11 they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0abb6fd6-79f5-4f3b-a1d3-a88f6e290031", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicants may be understood to complain under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judgment in their favour. The Court notes that Article <mask> of the Convention does not, as such, guarantee the right to appellate remedies in respect of a decision taken by way of supervisory review, and the mere fact that the judgment of the highest judicial body is not subject to further judicial review does not infringe in itself the said provision (see, in identical context, Murtazin, cited above, \u00a7 46)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "eb72b6ed-5a08-44c4-a014-f72ef2e46766", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["117.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had not brought any complaints in relation to Ayub Takhayev\u2019s kidnapping to courts of the Chechen Republic, Kabardino-Balkaria and Ingushetia or to the courts of the Stavropol, Krasnodar and Rostov Regions. Furthermore, the applicants could have brought civil claims for damages pursuant to Article 1069 of the Civil Code. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "913f8ce1-c3a4-468a-9dae-8c593f1c92a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["215.   The applicant complained that the failure of the Polish authorities to create a legal mechanism that would have allowed her to challenge the doctors\u2019 decisions concerning the advisability of and access to prenatal examinations in a timely manner had amounted also to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Had such a framework existed, it would have made it possible for her to consider whether she wanted to have the pregnancy terminated in the conditions provided for in the 1993 Act."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ea0bbab5-5ea2-4bc4-b3eb-4e5320cf7298", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["169.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, she could have lodged a civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "42772e9b-eb53-42dc-9712-bbc725948f09", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicants complained that the judicial review proceedings in their case had been limited in scope because the domestic courts had no competence to verify the Federal Security Service\u2019s sources of information. Moreover, the applicants had been informed in general terms only about the accusations levelled at the first applicant and had had no opportunity to refute those accusations. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "dbc4db0b-9d47-4542-ae92-d9da19527c54", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["115.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "9889eee4-0020-4e88-aa1b-dcd95d282a59", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The applicants further complained that because of their hasty expulsion they had been denied the possibility of claiming damages from the authorities for the latter's unlawful actions. In this connection, they complained under Article 6 and, with the exception of the third applicant, Ms Stankova, Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention, this being the lex specialis in the case of proceedings for compensation for unlawful detention. It reiterates in this connection that once a case has been duly referred to it, it is entitled to examine every question of law arising in the course of the proceedings and concerning facts submitted to its examination in the light of the Convention and the Protocols as a whole (see, inter alia, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, \u00a7 44, Reports 1998-I, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24). Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e9638253-c68d-42f9-9e94-a7cfdefb41a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that the length of the first set of proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaint must be examined solely under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "891f6d0e-d7c2-4190-a161-c32a5822a89a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The investigation into their relative\u2019s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicants had not applied to the domestic courts with either civil claims or complaints concerning actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. The Government referred to the domestic courts\u2019 decisions over claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7d1fb130-cfe1-4b21-8dbe-267b3b1ffb4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["166.  The applicants complained that, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in none of the cases described in the application had they been afforded an effective remedy before a national court. In no case had a prosecution been brought or any attempt made by the authorities to redress the rights of the applicants. They invoked in this connection Article 13 of the Convention, which states the following:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "f04905e1-6b50-4d62-82ee-c2fa3af3266a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have been able to avail themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8cf48f4d-7b1e-42e2-8171-92c6a6f4d1aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the absence of a remedy in the Turkish administrative law to enable claimants to increase the initial amount of their claim during the course of administrative proceedings. In that respect, they claimed that they had no available course of action to claim the remaining amount as established in the expert report of 14 June 2006."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "e7f82f6d-c5d2-47ce-8a31-92aa0faec6d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant complained that she had not been afforded a fair hearing in respect of her application for reopening of her guardianship proceedings and had not been able to have her legal guardian changed. In support of her complaints, the applicant cited Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 8 of the Convention. In addition, relying upon Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant argued that she had not been afforded an effective remedy to complain of the alleged violations."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fda99b7b-9f09-4baf-acd4-7269bed469d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of a violation of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time and under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence. Lastly, the applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, maintaining that his right to an effective remedy had been violated."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c0c65c95-f68c-4c6b-aa0d-a849cf872e61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies, including the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4343f3f0-9d3c-4820-a486-b1c113355d72", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant contended that he could not have effectively complained in court of the inadequate conditions of his detention and his ill-treatment. He could not have claimed compensation for the harm caused to him during the pre-trial investigation and trial, that being a matter outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The applicant submitted that he had availed himself of all judicial and non-judicial remedies that were at his disposal. However, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation or to adequately pursue his complaints. He concluded that he had had no effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "0788633e-4b0f-4579-94a5-fcb33e146196", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to appeal against alleged acts or omissions by the investigating authorities to domestic courts or to claim civil damages there."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "aef14331-b35f-4d48-858b-2eb2bb12d93b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive. He further contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that there were no remedies in domestic law to challenge the length of his detention on remand. The Court considers that the complaint formulated under Article 13 of the Convention should be examined solely from the standpoint of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Article 5 \u00a7 3 and 4 provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4be81bed-c360-492e-ab3d-9b66f0e5d015", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicants complained, relying on Articles 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, that they had been discriminated against and restricted in their procedural rights on the ground of their Russian nationality. The second applicant further complained, with reference to Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the allegedly unfavourable decision of the first-instance court."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "7cdc1d11-de52-4a0e-84a4-8815a9969905", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of a court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c411ca8c-1d89-4208-bc86-032e746ac9c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "fabae908-2f01-43a1-ba63-758432f3e2de", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to challenge the alleged acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities before the domestic courts or to claim civil damages."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "a7e07958-4982-4629-8977-a077aab43a11", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings were also able to claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "c04979ed-d30f-4163-b8a8-890a548a8ecb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["120.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "03dd3146-6211-490a-8e3b-29ba5f19e36c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them had been unreasonable.  They further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there were no domestic remedies available under Turkish law whereby they could challenge the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in question. The Government disputed these allegations."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "da09edd0-bdc7-4566-a575-2a944bab75cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant was able to obtain partial redress before the Constitutional Court which found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1, granted the applicant a certain sum as just satisfaction and ordered the ordinary court concerned to proceed with the case without further delay. In these circumstances, and having regard to its above finding under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "4c0f134a-b719-44fa-872e-c65430cb81d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["119.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, which they had failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "035b9fc6-bf3c-4e37-8889-90772873db4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective avenue for a complaint of inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected by being deprived of effective medical care. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "8da1697b-d825-465b-be80-38e31e1d6b41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complained about the infringement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour against the Bailiffs. They also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedies for enforcing these judgments. The above provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "60dae2ce-2771-46ce-8b06-6cb280d7d7db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) and (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention of the outcome and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, stating that the courts had not provided his mother with sufficient time to study the case materials and had not called an expert that he proposed; and under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the outcome, unfairness and length of the proceedings against the tax authorities, of the commercial proceedings instituted by the tax authorities against him, and about the authorities\u2019 refusal to institute criminal proceedings against several tax officers. Lastly, the applicant complained, without relying upon any provision of the Convention or providing any further details, that he had not been granted parole."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "685ce95d-b7c4-4190-a941-dab8c34e7327", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["157.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that she could have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d85ed862-1914-47b2-ae6a-3fef0535902f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that he had not had an effective remedy for the undue length of the restitution proceedings because it had taken too long for the Supreme Court to decide on his length complaint. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), considers that the applicant\u2019s submissions should be analysed under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "80ddd549-8882-48a3-9211-e2950c1c7529", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives\u2019 detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d575be1e-be89-4fbb-8060-2bde776acfef", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with in the present case. Firstly, they submitted that it had been open to the applicant to lodge a complaint with a prosecutor\u2019s office. To demonstrate the effectiveness of that remedy, they referred to an example in the Kaluga region, where the local prosecutor\u2019s office had in 2006 declared 13.1% of complaints about inadequate conditions of detention well\u2011founded, a proportion which had risen to 18% in the first half of 2007. They also submitted, without providing any further details, that in two detention facilities in the Vladimir and Khabarovsk regions, material conditions of detention had been improved following complaints to prosecutor\u2019s offices. Secondly, the Government argued that it had been open to the applicant to institute civil proceedings before the domestic courts in relation to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the conditions of detention, as, in their submission, that avenue of recourse constituted an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. To illustrate their point, the Government stated that an unspecified number of individuals had successfully sought damages in the courts of the Perm region and Kazan. They further referred to the case of Mr S., who had been awarded RUB 250,000 by a domestic court for non\u2011pecuniary damage, and to that of Mr D. \u2013 already cited in connection with their plea of non\u2011exhaustion. Lastly, the Government stated that the applicant had failed to properly bring his civil claims in connection with the conditions of detention in the IVS. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law (see Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, application no. 20357/92, Decisions and Reports 76, p. 80), they pointed out that a mere doubt on the applicant\u2019s part as to the prospects of success was not sufficient to exempt him from submitting his claim to any of the aforementioned national authorities with jurisdiction in such matters."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "944c0b3b-2ec3-4907-af1c-18d25221c99b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had had preventive and compensatory effective domestic remedies at his disposal. In support of their argument, they provided copies of judicial decisions taken in response to the complaints and claims lodged by inmates against the remand prisons where they were detained. In particular, they presented a copy of the final judgment of 26 April 1999 whereby Mr P. was awarded RUB 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages for having been detained in overcrowded cells at remand prison no. IZ-35/1 in the Kaliningrad Region. They also submitted a copy of the final judgment of 16 April 2003, whereby Mr Z. was awarded RUB 7,000 in non-pecuniary damages for lack of adequate medical assistance in detention. In the Government's opinion, it had been open to the applicant, during the period of his detention, to bring his grievances to the attention of the administration of the remand prison or a prosecutor. Alternatively, he could have challenged the lawfulness of the alleged failure of the remand prison administration to ensure adequate conditions of his detention. The applicant, however, did not make use of those remedies. Instead, he chose to pursue a different avenue by bringing an action for damages against State authorities after his detention in the remand prison had ended. Domestic courts had thoroughly examined his complaints and had taken lawful and reasoned decisions. Accordingly, there was no violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "ceac3865-cf72-42bc-a135-6c2490468d34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["242.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor\u2019s office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "d154b3c2-231a-4a9f-b0c6-e32999df0342", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government argued that the applicant could have applied to a court for the lifting of the charging order in respect of his bus and sought compensation in respect of the loss allegedly sustained because of the impounding of the vehicle. The Government submitted that the seizure of the applicant\u2019s bus had been lawful and that its aim had been to constitute security for the eventual penalty of confiscation of his property in relation to charges under Article 160 of the Criminal Code, if he were subsequently convicted by a court. The Government acknowledged that the investigator\u2019s failure to order the release of the bus after the decision of 20 January 2006 had been unlawful. However, it had been remedied by the decision of 18 July 2006 taken by the deputy prosecutor of the Buryatiya Republic. In any event, the applicant had not made any effort between January and July 2006 in order to obtain release of his bus. As regards Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the applicant had had an effective remedy, namely the possibility of challenging the investigator\u2019s decision to seize the bus. The applicant had used that remedy, albeit without success."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "beaf6b05-9a64-4253-a2bd-f280f04ff345", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 15 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5 of the Convention, which are lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, \u00a7 69, and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports 1997\u2011III, p. 927, \u00a7 73)."], "obj_label": "13", "id": "cc705418-9ffe-4061-a4ea-fae377d3a40f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "d2a0374f-c27c-4e10-b946-2de5ce52321f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant claimed that the reduction in her pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act constituted discrimination on the ground of sex prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that at the relevant time a married woman was only insured under the Act for periods when her husband was insured, whereas there was no equivalent rule for married men."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "55d29105-2c72-491e-9cb2-ff363ffab7e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant complained of discrimination contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the refusal to give him translations into Russian of the decision of 8 December 2003 and of other documents. The Court notes, however, that this complaint was lodged on 21 December 2004, that is, more than a year after he was allegedly not given translations of the relevant documents. This complaint was thus introduced outside the time-limit set by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and must be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "33f6062a-bfe1-4112-8d6d-5f397ac2af85", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The Government said that the applicant company had brought proceedings in the tribunal with a view to challenging the public authorities' actions and that the applicant company's treatment by the domestic courts and tribunals had not been discriminatory. They further argued that the applicant company had provided insufficient information to substantiate its complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "370ca262-e6b8-4a78-927d-ee0e366f512b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant complained under Article 3 \u00a7 2 of Protocol No. 4, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that, following the termination of his employment in 2004, he could not return to Russia from the Baikonur launch site in Kazakhstan or visit his ailing father or his mother's grave in Ukraine or go to any other visa-free CIS country, owing to the absence of a travel document. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined from the standpoint of Article 2 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "24ec8f0f-ea15-48f3-9ea3-5529075d6607", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant alleged in the present case that, in the exercise of her right under the domestic law, she had been discriminated against on the ground of her sexual orientation. The latter is a concept covered by Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999-IX). The Court also points out that in Frett\u00e9 v. France (cited above), to which the parties expressly referred, the applicant complained that the rejection of his application for authorisation to adopt had implicitly been based on his sexual orientation alone. The Chamber found that Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, was applicable (\u00a7 33)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "de15b163-6d8c-447f-bd90-2c3c4dfbaf96", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The applicant, who owns land included in the hunting grounds of an approved municipal hunters\u2019 association, complained of the fact that, as he was not opposed to hunting for ethical reasons and the surface area of his land fell below a certain threshold, he was unable to have the land removed from the association\u2019s hunting grounds in order to derive benefit from it by leasing it for hunting. He alleged discrimination on the ground of property, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These two provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "593c8dfc-ff70-4bf8-8656-a53db29f7c9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his gender and under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 about lack of equality between spouses because his former wife had been granted full custody over the child while he had been deprived of access to his daughter. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies in relation to his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Relying on Article 17 he asserted that the deprivation of access rights to his child had not pursued any legitimate aims."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8aac13fd-853d-4e45-b3b9-a5dca3cdbda1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government have relied in particular upon the Court's conclusion in Gerger, cited above, that the distinction in that case was made not between different groups of people but between different types of offence, according to the legislature's view of their gravity, to support their argument that the applicant is unable to demonstrate that he enjoyed \u201cother status\u201d. The Court observes that the approach adopted in Gerger has been followed in a number of cases, but all concerned special court procedures or provisions on early release for those accused or convicted of terrorism offences in Turkey (see, for example, Budak and Others, cited above; Y\u0131lmaz and Bar\u0131m, cited above; Akbaba v. Turkey, no. 52656/99, \u00a7 28, 17 January 2006; and Tanr\u0131kulu and Deniz v. Turkey, no. 60011/00, \u00a7 37, 18 April 2006). Thus while Gerger made it clear that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate to categorise an impugned difference of treatment as one made between groups of people, any exception to the protection offered by Article <mask> of the Convention should be narrowly construed. In the present case the applicant does not allege a difference of treatment based on the gravity of the offence he committed, but one based on his position as a prisoner serving a determinate sentence of more than fifteen years. While sentence length bears some relationship to the perceived gravity of the offence, a number of other factors may also be relevant, including the sentencing judge's assessment of the risk posed by the applicant to the public."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fab65171-31d4-4b40-a8a6-c59dd7ffd3a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicants complained that as children born outside marriage they had been unable to assert their inheritance rights and had thus been discriminated against when compared to children born within marriage. The Court considers that their complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read respectively as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a49dac06-38a0-4045-a743-be669450373f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant churches complained that they had been discriminated against because, unlike other religious communities with which the Government of Croatia had concluded agreements on issues of common interest, as referred to in section 9(1) of the Religious Communities Act, they were not: (a) allowed to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, (b) allowed to provide pastoral care to their members in medical and social-welfare institutions, prisons and penitentiaries, or (c) entitled to have religious marriages they performed recognised by the State as equal, in terms of their legal effects, to civil marriages. In particular, they argued that certain religious communities such as the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Croatian Old Catholic Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which did not satisfy the criteria set forth in the Government\u2019s Instruction of 23 December 2004, had nevertheless concluded agreements with the State and were thus allowed to provide the above religious services and were entitled to the official recognition of religious marriages performed by them. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, taken together with Article 9. Those Articles read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "58c5f9e5-254f-4497-b6f1-f512d61aa7b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The applicants alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that prejudice and hostile attitudes towards persons of Roma origin had played a role in the events leading up to the deaths of Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov. They also argued that the authorities had failed in their duty to investigate possible racist motives in their killing. The Government disputed the applicants' allegations."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6fc1f4ee-aa2f-4377-b019-b234864273d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants complained that, in determining inheritance rights, the High Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court had breached the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private and family life by unjustifiably discriminating against the first applicant on the ground of his filiation. They submitted that this had resulted in a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e00dd65f-08bc-4bc5-abb7-9e814ed29f9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the police raid at her house constituted an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her private life and her home. She submitted that the police had entered her house, stolen her money and thrown her daughter's picture on the floor. In addition, the applicant complained that she had been discriminated against on account of her ethnic origin, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained that her constant harassment by police officers and the criminal proceedings instigated against her constituted pressure on her to withdraw her application and an interference with the exercise of the right of individual petition."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "573083a0-d064-4ccd-adb7-e8f536b24fcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that both the length of his detention in police custody and the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated because he had been detained on remand for an excessive length of time. The applicant maintained that the postponement by Law no. 5320 of the date of enforcement of Article 102 of the new CCP, which regulates the maximum authorised length of pre-trial detention, to 31 December 2010 for certain types of offences including his own, violated Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy for his grievance under Article 14. The Court deems it appropriate to examine all these complaints from the standpoint of Article 5 \u00a7 3 alone as they mainly concern the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention (Ayhan I\u015f\u0131k v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33102/04, 16 December 2008, and Can v. Turkey (dec.), no.6644/08, 14 April 2009)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "d11bb998-7bdb-4874-9525-31a5fcf16046", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant also sought support for his claim of discrimination from the military service record of four soldiers of his unit \u2013 R.L., V.S., J.\u0160. and M.I. He considered that those four soldiers had been in a similar situation to that of himself, but had been treated differently. On this point the Court reiterates that Article <mask> of the Convention affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, \u00a7 31, Series A no. 255\u2011C, and Vojnity v. Hungary, no. 29617/07, \u00a7 29, 12 February 2013). However, having given due consideration to the facts (paragraphs 36-40 above), it is the Court\u2019s opinion that such an assertion is not substantiated. The professional military service histories of those four servicemen show that each of them was entitled to serve until the expiry of their contracts, despite the fact that they had reached retirement age, because, unlike the applicant, they had military specialist codes. Conversely, as the applicant himself acknowledged during the court proceedings, at the time of his discharge from the army he had no such status (see paragraphs 19 and 26 above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ee042af0-9cc7-49e5-b7c9-bd067d3c9415", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant party also complained of a violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. As these complaints relate to the same set of facts examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine them separately."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "15b404d4-6d2d-4cd3-9bd4-e7385a79626b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["185.  The applicant Ms Kostyleva alleges a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the inapplicability of the Compensation Act to domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind. The Court notes that it has already examined this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention and found a violation of that provision (see paragraphs 157-166 above). It considers it unnecessary to examine the same issue under Article 14 of the Convention and decides to reject this complaint pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "130984b1-0399-47df-b1b2-2091f1be9c4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The applicants in the present case made complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that the fact that they had been allocated to Roma-only classes during their primary education violated their right to receive an education and their right not to be discriminated against. However, the Grand Chamber sees this case as raising primarily a discrimination issue."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "962e6ea9-2251-442e-a5be-03a25587b56c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant further complained that the amendments to the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, since they constituted an unfair interference by the State in the pending proceedings to which the State was a party. In substance, he also invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that the challenged amendments discriminated against those claimants for the restitution of forfeited property whose restitution proceedings were still pending before the courts when the challenged legislation introducing a less favourable restitution regime entered into force. The applicant also complained that the challenged amendments breached his right to property as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that from the moment the criminal judgment was quashed, he had a right to obtain the full restitution of the property forfeited by the quashed judgment, as guaranteed by the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions at the material time, that is, before the challenged amendments entered into force. In addition, he claimed that the challenged amendments violated his right to full compensation for the wrongful conviction as guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. Finally, the applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, alleging that the challenged amendments deprived him of his property on a discriminatory basis, as before the challenged legislation entered into force the successful claimants were entitled to full restitution."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "3e6256ad-6b11-44db-977a-f6c2c734426b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1 thereof, that he had suffered discrimination because in the case of his colleague the domestic courts had resolved the conflict of jurisdiction and determined the competent court, after which they had proceeded with examining the merits of the case. Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8640be8c-3259-419a-958d-c586fc6a31db", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant also alleged that he had been a victim of discrimination contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He referred to repeated prolongations of the validity of the old local development plan which had prevented him from making use of the measures provided under section 36 of the 1994 Act."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "919ddc5e-5657-4203-b32f-62ada78edde9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the social-security benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely a widowed mother's allowance and a widow's payment, constituted discrimination against him and his wife on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He made an identical complaint as regards his future non-entitlement to a widow's pension."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f362e839-305e-494f-aed5-21c65d788bcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The Government considered that the finding of a violation in itself would constitute sufficient and appropriate redress in the present case. They submitted that in the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others the Court had granted the applicants compensation in the amount of EUR 10,000 for damage resulting from the violation of their rights to the free exercise of their religion under Article 9 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention (cited above, \u00a7 129). In any event, they submitted that the amount of non-pecuniary damage claimed was excessive and the sum claimed as pecuniary damage would in any event be refunded to the applicant community following a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 2009 (B 1397/08), in which it had found, in a subsequent case brought by the applicant community, that the levying of inheritance and gift tax on the applicant community was unconstitutional."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9e405dd0-4eec-44ed-87ac-4fe8ca11b7ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["93.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his political opinion in that the domestic courts had placed an unreasonable burden of proof on him, that they had distorted the definition of the term \u201cfascist\u201d, and that he had had to endure the publication of a text declaring his statement defamatory. He alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention which provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "395d5f8c-a248-4375-bc81-2a5050b03894", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 4."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f37ff9af-5cf6-4594-864a-70f4932b60f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["127.  The applicants submitted that they had been subjected to discriminatory treatment as compared to others in an analogous situation, namely other unconvicted persons whose samples had still to be destroyed under the legislation. This treatment related to their status and fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention, which had always been liberally interpreted. For the reasons set out in their submissions under Article 8, there was no reasonable or objective justification for the treatment, nor any legitimate aim or reasonable relationship of proportionality to the purported aim of crime prevention, in particular as regards the samples which played no role in crime detection or prevention. It was an entirely improper and prejudicial differentiation to retain materials of persons who should be presumed to be innocent."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9a6761b6-7676-44ca-92da-8a38fd7d2ebd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, of discrimination based on their sex and sexual orientation on account of their exclusion from the registered partnership, claiming that marriage was not a suitable alternative for them. They did not rely on Article 8 taken alone, so the Court considers that there is no need for it to examine this issue of its own motion."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "3d59b816-8a70-4e7b-a2f3-51bce7b49315", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant further complained under Article 13 that the prosecutor\u2019s inadequate response to her complaint regarding the events surrounding her arrest and detention hindered her right to bring compensation proceedings against the persons responsible for them. In addition, she claimed that the treatment which she suffered at the hands of the authorities was motivated by her sex and political opinions, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ba823b3f-ff2b-4469-949a-87de4295102a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicants submitted that, on account of their ethnicity, they had been victims of discrimination by judicial bodies and officials. Moreover, the first applicant argued that the failure of the domestic courts to provide reasons for the difference in non-pecuniary damage awarded to the three widows had amounted to discrimination contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0a780e10-bdb4-4839-81f5-657a4145c5c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants went on to argue that the Court should examine the complaint separately. The right not to be discriminated against was not a secondary one, and their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention raised additional issues which were not less important than those under Article 11 and called for a separate ruling. Properly seen, the facts which underpinned their complaint under Article 14 were not identical to those underlying their complaint under Article 11 but were much broader."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "3796fbdc-3f62-4498-bdcd-cd723e4e7993", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government submitted that as Article 8 was not engaged, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. Even if it were, there was no difference of treatment as all those in an analogous situation to the applicants were treated the same and the applicants could not compare themselves with those who had not had samples taken by the police or those who consented to give samples voluntarily. In any event, any difference in treatment complained of was not based on \u201cstatus\u201d or a personal characteristic but on historical fact. If there was any difference in treatment, it was objectively justified and within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "73098838-9f0f-4eed-9a95-185f18468c78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government maintained that Y\u2019s pregnancy had not constituted a ground for discrimination under Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that her pregnancy was not a main determinative factor for her medical treatment. She had been treated in the same matter as other patients diagnosed with UC. She had had fibro-sigmoidoscopy, histopathology and a bacteriological test. She had been hospitalised in clinics which specialised in combating this particular disease."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "d7fa7b76-be31-4dfb-b8b9-54adf3f2759f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The applicants contended, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, that they had been removed from Latvia as members of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority and of the family of a former Russian military officer. They complained that they had thus been subjected to treatment different from that of other Latvian residents having the status of \u201cex-USSR citizens\u201d. In particular, they submitted that the difference in their treatment from that of persons who had been able to obtain the status of \u201cex-USSR citizens\u201d could not be justified, in view of the fact that the level of their integration into Latvian society had been the same as that of other Russian speakers."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0ccafa54-ee63-49e4-bf9d-ea092a4d7c66", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["124.  The applicants maintained that they had been discriminated against in that because of their race or ethnic origin they had been treated less favourably than other children in a comparable situation without any objective and reasonable justification. They relied in that connection on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which provide as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ee50a5bb-8786-4a9c-90a4-061aa12d281d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicant further complained that the domestic proceedings were discriminatory in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8dddc81f-13a0-42ae-9bd5-50793a76a480", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression, as the relevant domestic authorities had not impeded their public gathering in any manner. On the contrary, the applicants and other participants of the demonstration were able to assemble freely near the Tbilisi Concert Hall and then proceeded with their march. As the organiser of the event had given a prior warning, the Ministry of the Interior deployed police units to the scene of the event. Police patrol vehicles escorted the LGBT marchers. As to the manner in which the police reacted to the clash between the marchers and counter-demonstrators, the Government admitted that that reaction had been somewhat delayed. However, they claimed that that had been done on purpose and in the marchers\u2019 best interests. Thus, the Government asserted that where a serious threat of a violent counter-demonstration exists, the domestic authorities have wide discretion in the choice of means to employ to protect assemblies. They referred to the Court\u2019s case-law in Plattform \u201c\u00c4rzte f\u00fcr das Leben\u201d (cited above, \u00a7 34). Considering the large number of counter-demonstrators and their aggressive attitude towards the demonstrators, immediate preventive measures by the police could have provoked an even greater outburst of violence. Nevertheless, the law-enforcement officers remained at the scene and instantly intervened when the verbal attacks degenerated into actual physical violence by evacuating the attacked applicants from the scene. The police officers also separated the opposing parties by standing between them, verbally warning both sides to behave in an appropriate manner. As regards the applicants\u2019 complaints of discriminatory intent under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government limited their response to noting that that provision was complementary and could not be invoked autonomously in the absence of a violation under Articles 10 and 11."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "79bd90e4-2f19-4ee7-ba20-77583a5d6bf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about discrimination against her on account of her foreign nationality. The Court reiterates that Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, \u00a7 36). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "faeb0209-867b-4de7-b397-3b48942b1c95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["269.  The applicants also complained that the above-described restrictions and limitations on lawful abortion in Ireland were discriminatory and in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 in that they placed an excessive burden on them as women and, in particular, on the first applicant as an impoverished woman. The Government argued that there was no basis for considering that the impugned legal framework discriminated against women on grounds of sex. Even if it did constitute a difference of treatment on that ground, it was justifiable and proportionate for the reasons referred to under Article 8 of the Convention. That the first applicant would have been adversely affected by virtue of her financial status was insufficient to ground a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "44b4b573-b958-4979-885e-6aa362214b60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by refusing to give her a female identity number which corresponded to her actual gender, the State was discriminating against her. The fact that she had been denied a female identity number revealed the confidential information that she was a transsexual because, unlike any other person, she had to explain this difference whenever the identity number was required."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f0c6a066-84ed-4ad9-81ed-44581a22b512", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant further complained that in denying her the right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections for the sole reason that she did not have a command of Latvian at the highest level defined by the domestic regulations the Latvian authorities had caused her to suffer discrimination prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in the exercise of her right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of Article 14 provide:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6f4561e3-0f0a-4090-b1d7-afb5764c3c5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant complained that the failure in Spain to recognise Roma marriage as having civil effects \u2013 it being the only form of marriage to produce effects erga omnes within her own community \u2013 even though the minority had been present in Spain for at least five hundred years, entailed a breach of her right to marry. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 12. Those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "05bd5a01-90d2-4133-9746-eed2e8368f7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant claimed that he was the victim of discriminatory treatment because he was prevented from doing his military service although he was willing to serve and, instead, he was obliged to pay the exemption tax because his disability was considered a minor one by the competent authorities. This complaint must accordingly be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "91288f38-ecb9-4d6d-b8a4-61da5a6f2e2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The applicant submitted that it was in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention that he was required to pay NICs from his earnings while a 60 year old woman who was working would not have to pay such contributions. These contributions now included an extra 1% added under the National Insurance Act 2002, the proceeds of which were included within the National Health Service allocation. He disputed that there was any direct or necessary link between the age of entitlement to the basic state pension (60 for women, 65 for men) and liability to pay NICs. Employers had to pay for female employees regardless of their ages and it was open to women to defer their state pension after the age of 60 and to continue to make contributions to enhance their contribution record."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0f8c1b21-2113-40ce-ad04-3053d436430a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant complained that his rights under Articles 6, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the Convention had been violated as a result of the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings. Under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol no. 12 to the Convention the applicant argued that he had been discriminated against on account of his political views. The applicant further contended that his appointment, which had compelled him to move to another city, had violated his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant claimed that his administrative punishment and his appointment to a new post had constituted punishment without law in breach of Article 7 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "7b71bde2-dae1-4a20-8bd9-cc5f63adf91e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained about difference in treatment between men and women convicted of the same crimes in relation to the respective applicable prison regimes, in particular, with regard to the right to prison leave, which had led to a refusal to attend his father\u2019s funeral. He argued that this was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 5, 8 and 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "db700c3e-4e3f-4837-8c2e-c48407c1b1ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been treated differently to the nine life prisoners who had been released in 1993 by way of commutation of their sentences by the President of the Republic under Article 53 \u00a7 4 of the Constitution. However, they submitted that this difference in treatment was not contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant had not been treated differently from the nine life prisoners because of any \u201cpersonal characteristic\u201d but because of the nature of the Assize Court\u2019s judgment in sentencing him. The Assize Court had expressly addressed the proper interpretation of a life sentence and the question of whether the Regulations had been unconstitutional. The other nine prisoners had all been sentenced prior to the judgment in the case of Yiouroukkis, in which these matters of interpretation of the life sentence and validity of the Regulations had first been raised. It was clear from the letters sent by the Attorney-General to the President that the nine prisoners had been released on the basis that it had been announced to them that their sentences would be twenty years\u2019 imprisonment. Contrary to the position in the applicant\u2019s case, this announcement had not previously been qualified by the remarks of the sentencing courts."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "99171240-9607-4e98-9751-5b8d6c7bb239", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on political grounds, in that in particular: (1) in another case with identical circumstances but involving a different candidate the domestic court had granted the relevant application; and (2) District Election Commission no. 12 had not annulled the registration of another candidate in constituency no. 12 despite the fact that this other candidate had submitted an allegedly false document. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "1a00242d-ecd7-4fa3-81d0-1e8fa4d68923", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["112.  The applicant submitted that her husband's death was caused by an agent of the State and the investigation which followed was plagued by severe deficiencies and discrepancies and, as a result, it failed to establish the cause of his death. She submitted that the fact that her husband was a Romani man, coupled with the legacy of widespread and systematic abuse of Roma in police custody, created an obligation on the State to investigate a possible racist motive behind his death. The State failed to do so in violation of their procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6369a094-52fc-4d6b-bd3c-e3d47b668b88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant company alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It argued that the domestic VAT legislation was discriminatory because it had deprived the applicant company of its possession with the sole aim of securing payment of the VAT due by another company. It also considered this to be discriminatory because it provided for different degrees of protection for State and private property. The applicant company further alleged that its supplier had been treated differently, since the tax authorities had recognised its right to deduct the VAT it had paid in respect of the supply, while denying that right to the applicant company."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ccd60ef4-cc26-4d37-b538-539c8a2ddc41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government maintained, at the outset, that in his complaints of alleged torture and punishment without conviction before the domestic courts, the applicant had invoked only relevant domestic-law provisions. However, he had not relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8, and had thus failed to complain of alleged discrimination and interference with respect for his family life."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0e31e7ab-477b-4add-ac4f-7a488960b67e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant also complained, under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the outcome of the proceedings in his case had been unfavourable and, therefore, the proceedings as a whole had been unfair, in particular, because the domestic courts had allegedly erred in the assessment of the facts and in the application of the law. He further complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that he had been prevented from enjoying his possessions (his recalculated pension). Lastly, the applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been discriminated against because his pension had been lower than that of some other pensioners retired from the armed forces."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f98fdb1b-73dc-428c-87a8-9a3d2cbd0d5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government rejected the view that other Fund members had been treated differently from the applicant when it came to the restriction of their benefit rights, thus resulting in a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. There were many Fund members in a similar or identical position to the applicant."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e9c1cc72-6a86-4f0e-ae6c-217dc5387c3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicant complained that the removal, in respect of tobacco, of the previous licence of the family business, in allegedly discriminatory circumstances and without compensation, amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read alone or in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, especially because he was not granted a similar licence under the new rules."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "444a06ea-c7fc-40ee-bb2d-d372fe9c8f6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The applicant argued that the circumstances of this case disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2, 3, 5, 13 and 18. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Kurds in south-east Turkey had been subjected to systematic unlawful treatment. His son had also suffered discrimination on the grounds of race. He finally submitted that there was sufficient evidence to disclose an administrative practice of violations of Article 14 taken together with the Articles referred to above."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "dd02f151-d867-4117-b526-528bdcee153c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["183.  The applicant complained before the Chamber that he had been treated differently from other office holders in analogous situations (other court executives, the president of the Constitutional Court), as a consequence of his having expressed politically controversial opinions. The measures directed against him therefore constituted unjustified differential treatment on the ground of \u201cother opinion\u201d. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 10. The applicant did not explicitly raise this complaint before the Grand Chamber. Article 14 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fadf7d0e-1191-4e7d-800b-6537b158c272", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against by the authorities, including the courts, which had given preference to V.K. in his child-care case because of his gender and disability. After the termination of the court proceedings he had allegedly continued to suffer discrimination in the exercise of his parental rights as regards A.M."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a9312035-979c-41ec-8d1d-bd2025011d21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully and arbitrarily arrested and placed in detention on remand. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant further complained that he had been arrested on account of his political activities. Finally, under Article <mask> of the Convention the applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against due to his Kurdish origin and political opinions."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "07b95096-b61b-4e92-9af7-073b621d0555", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The applicant further complained that the failure of the authorities to review the lawfulness of her detention and to carry out an effective investigation into the arbitrary deprivation of her liberty on account of her association with MISA had breached her rights guaranteed by Article 5 \u00a7 4, taken alone or in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. Those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e6eca83f-c39d-469d-b6c7-945f67e47a55", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The Government maintained that the applicant had offered no evidence to the effect that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The official investigation into the attacks against the applicant had been impartial and all allegations of religious motivation behind these incidents had been thoroughly checked by the competent domestic authorities. Further, no attacks against any other member of the Hare Krishna community in Jagodina had ever been reported, and any police interest in this community would have been perfectly reasonable given the alleged motivation of the applicant's assailants."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6ad419ef-4659-4701-b707-63b06ca22147", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service or alternative civilian service, while assuming a function within the Federation of Evangelical Communities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from such service, constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, as prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e9e27bc3-80f1-4345-a24b-8c15315da907", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government acknowledged that in Koua Poirrez v. France (no. 40892/98, ECHR 2003\u2011X) the Court had refused to make a distinction between contributory and non-contributory welfare benefits, finding that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was also applicable to the latter category and, subsequently, that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in the Government\u2019s submission, there were significant differences between the present case and Koua Poirrez. Firstly, the State pension claimed by the applicant in the instant case did not amount to \u201cemergency assistance\u201d in that it was not her sole source of income. Secondly, Mr Koua Poirrez had quite simply been refused the allowance he had sought, whereas Ms Andrejeva did receive a certain amount of retirement pension."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8d874186-f18f-46f6-a506-cb4f0c0b1c5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government further contended that the restrictions on the applicant\u2019s employment prospects could not be deemed discriminatory in nature just because the applicant belonged to a certain group of persons, namely that of \u201cformer secret collaborators\u201d, since the mere fact of belonging to such a group did not automatically entail negative effects if the person had confessed. Therefore the Law did not impose collective responsibility on all \u201cformer secret collaborators\u201d without exception. Given that only those \u201cformer secret collaborators\u201d who had not confessed were affected by restrictions on their employment prospects, there had been no discriminatory treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9fde3712-8c51-4f1d-92eb-8da81cd95879", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting national security and was necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, the Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State's national security. The Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the adoption of \u201cthe list\u201d of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under Article 2 of the Act. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in Article 3 of the Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the Act, Article <mask> of the Convention was not therefore applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "217765ad-654c-47f4-adc6-b544066b3241", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the length and the outcome of the civil proceedings, and under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he had been dismissed from his job because of his Serbian origin as well as on account of his political opinions and philosophical convictions."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6468c551-65e5-4488-83bb-90b04d1eed4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government argued that Article 14 was inapplicable as the facts of the case did not disclose any appreciable impact on either her relationship with her children, or her relationship with her partner. In order for Article 14 to apply, it must be shown that the specific factual context in which the allegation of discrimination arises was within the ambit of one of the substantive rights of the Convention. The intended limited scope of Article <mask> of the Convention stood in contrast to that of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, which the United Kingdom had not ratified. If the criteria for the applicability of Article 14 were to be loosened and widened, it would occupy more and more of the area intended to be covered by the other provision. Instead, Article 14 should be kept within boundaries of application closely associated with and bearing directly upon the operation of other Convention rights. The Government contended that the approach taken by Lords Walker, Bingham and Nicholls to the applicability of Article 14 was consistent with the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and was now accepted by the domestic courts as providing a practical framework for determining when a given situation came within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention. While the applicant had likened her situation to that at issue in the case of Petrovic v. Austria (27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011II), hers was quite different. In Petrovic, the Court had found that the parental leave allowance necessarily affected the way in which family life was organised, as it allowed one parent to stay at home to look after the children (\u00a7 27). In contrast, the application of the formula in the MASC regulations was not intended to deter the applicant from pursuing her relationship, nor did it have that effect. The mere fact that liability to contribute towards the cost of her children's upbringing might have some effect on the financial situation of her new household was insufficient. Otherwise any financial liability, or benefit, would be deemed as coming within the ambit of the family life aspect of Article 8. Since the Convention did not confer a right to full protection of private or family life against all interference, but a right to respect for private or family life, it followed that a significant threshold of intrusion had to be crossed before there could be an interference that called for justification under Article 8 \u00a7 2. The Government drew a comparison with a number of cases in which applicants who had lost their employment had complained of interferences with their right to respect for private life: Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999\u2011VI; Sidabras and D\u017eiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII; Rainys and Gasparavi\u010dius v. Lithuania, nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005. In each of these cases, the applicants had been able to point to additional restrictions or intrusions. This strongly suggested that the merely incidental effect of the MASC regulations on the finances of the applicant's household was not sufficient to bring the situation within the scope or ambit of Article 8. The facts of this case were very remote from any identifiable impact on the applicant's family life."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f3a16743-4eb2-4306-9c0c-ac1a18d29859", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that they had been discriminated against in comparison with other political parties. They also alleged that the lack of a refund of the electoral deposit constituted a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a86f1a21-67cf-47c8-9e56-ad4ad86ddc57", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government, referring to R\u00f6\u00f6sli v. Germany (no. 28318/95, Commission decision of 15 May 1996, Decisions and Reports 85-A, p. 149), submitted that the subject matter of the present case did not come within the ambit of Article 8 \u00a7 1 as regards the elements of \u201cprivate and family life\u201d. The issue whether it came within the ambit of the \u201chome\u201d element could be left open because, in any event, there had been no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. "], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a408d3c6-4a08-468a-b74c-7cce97fe4496", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that there had been a number of irregularities during the election process in his constituency and that the authorities had failed to duly examine his complaints concerning those irregularities. In conjunction with this complaint, he also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that independent candidates were at a disadvantage in comparison to candidates representing major political parties because, by law, the latter could conduct their campaign under more privileged terms, such as receiving free air time on State television and other forms of free campaigning."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "bc23687e-0d8a-4c02-b768-a4b3e55f5647", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicants alleged that the fact that the civil unions introduced by Law no. 3719/2008 were designed only for couples composed of different-sex adults infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and amounted to unjustified discrimination between different-sex and same-sex couples, to the detriment of the latter. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. Those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "511dff33-04ef-496a-8cfd-ae168670697b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants in applications nos. 25330/11, 25340/11, 25345/11 and 25645/11 also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, in conjunction with the above complaint, that their electoral rights had been breached as part of a series of deliberate and unlawful practical measures implemented by the Government, and which were aimed at restricting the participation of the political opposition in the elections and denying its candidates equal status to pro-Government candidates. Article 14 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "545932e4-845f-45cd-8487-36b3b6d4cd5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted the relevant domestic remedies for their complaints concerning their inability to proceed with their peaceful demonstration. Thus, if they considered that the police forces had not provided adequate protection from the counter-demonstrators, they should have sought civil redress from the Ministry of the Interior pursuant to Article 1005 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code. Since the applicants had not resorted to that civil remedy, their complaints under Articles 10 and 11 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention were inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "43adf093-1009-4c04-9bc7-75bf2c664b60", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The applicants complained that the fishing restrictions imposed by the State had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, which allegedly included a right to fish certain coastal waters of the Gulf of Bothnia. The applicants further alleged that they had been discriminated against in comparison with fishermen operating in the open sea of the gulf. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken both alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6df15386-7b42-465b-9740-6af603ebc468", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against on grounds of sex because he had been refused the possibility of obtaining a stay of execution of his prison sentence, as under Article 453 \u00a7 1 b) of the CCP only convicted mothers of children under the age of one could seek a stay of execution. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "08de7696-7b1d-45ed-b499-adfc9be58032", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 that they were being discriminated against in the enjoyment of their family life on account of the first and third applicants\u2019 sexual orientation. They submitted that there was no reasonable and objective justification for allowing the adoption of one partner\u2019s child by the other partner where heterosexual couples, whether married or unmarried, were concerned, while prohibiting the adoption of one partner\u2019s child by the other partner in the case of same-sex couples."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "d2f82852-c37b-4cdc-91b0-a3f9a146849d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicants complained that the premature termination of their religious meeting on account of the arrival of the police amounted to a violation of Articles 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that, where the nature of a meeting is primarily religious, as it was in the present case, where the applicants had gathered for a service of worship, a complaint about the disruption of the meeting is to be examined from the standpoint of Article 9 alone (see Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, \u00a7 53, 11 January 2007), which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "87a8ce14-a8ee-47d1-b92e-3b25b22b84e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government took the view that the reckoning of periods of employment was essentially a matter to be addressed through bilateral inter-State agreements on social security. The Court, for its part, is fully aware of the importance of such agreements in the effective solution of problems such as those arising in the instant case. However, it reiterates that by ratifying the Convention, the respondent State undertook to secure \u201cto everyone within [its] jurisdiction\u201d the rights and freedoms guaranteed therein. Accordingly, in the present case the Latvian State cannot be absolved of its responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that it is not or was not bound by inter-State agreements on social security with Ukraine and Russia (see Gaygusuz, cited above, \u00a7 51, and Koua Poirrez, cited above, \u00a7 46)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "334919f1-1a13-40c0-a680-ad2c870f469c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The Government further submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply in the case. This provision, as confirmed by the Court on many occasions, did not have an independent existence and could only be invoked in relation to a breach of other rights. The applicant relied on Article 14 read together with Article 8. However, the subject-matter of his case, which concerned the right to succeed to a tenancy, did not come within the ambit of Article 8 \u00a7 1 which referred to four elements: \u201cprivate life\u201d, \u201cfamily life\u201d, \u201chome\u201d and \u201ccorrespondence\u201d."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b8c384d2-8162-4013-b9fd-c617da6dfc8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant also alleged that she had been discriminated against as evidenced by the racist remarks made by the police officers, namely, \u201cget out of here you black whore\u201d. She submitted that other women in the same area carrying on the same activity but with a \u201cEuropean phenotype\u201d had not been stopped by the police. Article <mask> of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "4ffcbe74-283c-4a9b-b891-49172245cba1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicants pointed out, lastly, that the aim of their application was not to obtain a right to marry or access to a form of registered partnership. They explained that they were merely asking the Court to develop its decision in Karner v. Austria (no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003\u2011IX) and state that excluding same-sex couples from the right to a residence permit for family reasons was discriminatory. They submitted that, with regard to other rights recognised as belonging to married couples, the Court could decide on a case-by-case basis, distinguishing, for example, the right to obtain a residence permit from the right to adopt. Accordingly, in their view, concluding that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case was not incompatible with the conclusions reached by the Court in its judgment in Gas and Dubois (cited above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "27a9ccf9-57d4-41a5-a434-b64566300932", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicants complained of an infringement of the first applicant's inheritance rights and of their capacity to receive inter vivos or testamentary gifts from the first applicant's father. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken together with Article <mask> of the Convention, they submitted that they had been discriminated against because the first applicant had been born of an \u201cadulterous\u201d relationship. Those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "188e32f9-78b3-46fb-8def-e8c9eb9c2cf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained that the application in her case of paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, which made a distinction on the basis of nationality between those in receipt of retirement pensions, constituted discrimination prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in the exercise of her right of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "7525ac4e-9180-41ec-a793-9c9e5869181f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government maintained that the situations referred to by the applicant in his assertion that he had been in a worse position compared with convicted persons had not been relevantly similar. The aim of detention on remand during judicial proceedings and that of a prison sentence were different. The former was aimed at ensuring the availability of an accused person for the purpose of criminal proceedings and their smooth conduct. The latter represented the most severe form of punishment within the system of criminal law. Any difference in the two regimes, which in any event had not been substantial, resulted from the difference in the relevant law. The applicant had not been discriminated against contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "049f4bc5-2918-43d1-a00b-5d0f63536d2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 that he had been subjected to discrimination because of his ethnic origin. In particular, he alleged that that the police\u2019s decision to arrest and detain him and his ill-treatment in police custody had been due to his ethnicity. Article 14 reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "52067063-eeb2-48fb-8799-d9ee60e903f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicants also complained that, in breach of Article 13, they were denied an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 2 about Mr Mihaylov\u2019s killing. The investigation was deeply flawed and no civil remedy could have compensated for that. Finally, they complained of racial discrimination in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2, alleging that Chief Sergeant S had had less hesitation about using excessive force because of Mr Mihaylov\u2019s Roma ethnic origin and low social status and that these factors had also contributed to the authorities\u2019 failure to conduct an effective investigation into his death. In contrast with Nachova and Others, cited above, there was no complaint about any alleged failure on the part of the authorities to investigate possible racist motives in their killing."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8e6f53b6-36db-418d-9ec7-ff77c8d5ef82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicants disagreed that a constitutional appeal had been available for their complaints under Articles 9 and 11. The outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in which they had challenged the domestic authorities\u2019 refusal to register the applicant association as a religious community under the 2007 Act (paragraphs 31-33 above) clearly demonstrated that that remedy, although available, would not have been effective for their grievances under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "d226b82e-845e-4302-af5c-a3c57ec473cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he had been discriminated against as a father by the Bologna Youth Court, as his statements, arguments and evidence had not been given the same weight as his wife\u2019s. He submitted that his submissions and supporting evidence had been totally disregarded by the courts, as opposed to M.\u2019s unsubstantiated statements."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f556d14f-b3a3-4f4b-8966-faac800356a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she was discriminated. She also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the outcome of the compensation proceedings. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b50c3e58-8fbe-450a-bdb9-3bdce9e1d5f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "282455da-ffea-4420-acbb-db81392cc98a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicant complained of a violation of his right to private life, alleging that the Court of Cassation had ruled that his dismissal on the ground of his HIV status had been lawful. He also submitted that his dismissal had been discriminatory and that the Court of Cassation\u2019s reasoning, according to which his dismissal had been justified by the need to preserve a good working environment in the company, was not a valid basis for differential treatment compatible with Article 14. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. Those provisions are worded as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "286aec7d-b815-46b7-be0e-7784da1482a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "7721b752-5552-4085-8964-f23bd99b03c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention (the prohibition on discrimination) without any further reasoning. The Court finds no indication whatsoever in the case-file which might disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision. The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the application, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "130ffd47-61c3-4826-8e23-ebf24f18aa30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["76.  The applicant complained that the deprivation of his retirement benefits, on the ground that his wife and dependents would still benefit from it, had been discriminatory on the basis of his marital status, and therefore contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 as well as Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No.1. Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c45ce3b4-5f20-4202-b800-1e12ecacf6f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.   The applicants complained also under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the denial of access to court regarding their claims for compensation violated their right to property. Further relying on Article <mask> of the Convention they complained that other minority shareholders in similar situations had access to court. They referred to cases of wound up companies where no arbitration clause was concluded and of a squeeze-out without winding up the company under Article 183i of the Commercial Code."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "02886aba-d6de-4871-a335-509bea247722", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["106.  The Government agreed that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable here as the case fell within the scope of Article 8, but argued that there was no separate issue under Article 14. Were the Court to have a different opinion, the Government pointed out that cissexuals were not in a similar situation to the applicant because they were not applying for a change of their gender. In any event, there had been an objective and reasonable justification. The Finnish legal system prohibited discrimination based on transsexualism."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fa75d063-48d4-4337-838d-8ac8b4f30e2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicants also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the courts in the rei vindicatio proceedings had disregarded the binding force of the Balchik District Court\u2019s final judgment of 7 December 1995. Lastly, they complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been discriminated against in that the former king of Bulgaria and his sister had been able to obtain the restitution of their family\u2019s former property under more lenient procedures than the ones applicable to their case. The Court has examined these complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "33355b46-fbef-4463-becb-526b9a7b4406", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicant further complained that the act of denying him the right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections, for the sole reason that he had allegedly failed to provide accurate information about his place of residence for the previous five years, had caused him to suffer discrimination prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in the exercise of his right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He compared his situation to that of another candidate who had not resided in Ukraine for a continuous period of five years but had nevertheless been registered as a candidate in the elections. Article 14 of the Convention reads:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a4b99c78-b711-4a67-b6c9-95e530a8802a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant argued that the refusal to give him a retirement pension violated the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He considered that the domestic legislation discriminated against Evangelical ministers compared with Catholic priests, who had been admitted to the general Social Security scheme much earlier. Also, when Evangelical ministers were eventually admitted to the general Social Security scheme, unlike Catholic priests they were not given the possibility of using their previous years of service as ministers to make up the minimum period of contribution required to qualify for a retirement pension."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6d182992-a699-4f08-a83f-9ed504d35a65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants reiterated that they did not complain about a violation of the Estonian-Russian Agreement but about a violation by the Estonian authorities of their rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, their complaints did not relate to the size of the Russian pension but rather to the payment of the Estonian pension."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b0eaadb7-e123-4b9a-b43b-c89b0a58e230", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against in that, having been prosecuted for a serious offence relating to organised crime, he had not been afforded the safeguard provided for in Article 116-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely a video recording of interviews at the investigating judge\u2019s office of anyone placed under formal investigation, given that in accordance with the seventh paragraph of the Article in question, such a safeguard did not apply where the investigation concerned organised crime, serious offences undermining the fundamental interests of the nation or terrorist offences. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1. The Articles in question provide respectively:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "98853fa9-8eff-4211-9920-3bbf11f9853f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The applicants submitted that their inability to withdraw their \u201cold\u201d foreign-currency savings from their accounts at branches located in Bosnia and Herzegovina of a Slovenian bank, in the case of the first two applicants, and of a Serbian bank, in the case of the third applicant, amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention by all of the respondent States. They also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "999f7f1f-a81e-4a7e-a53a-a523036bfd21", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The Government stressed the importance of equal treatment and equality before the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution of Finland and Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant was not entitled to preferential or different treatment in comparison to other members of the crowd present at the demonstration. The police orders had been given without discrimination as to status or profession and had not been aimed at preventing the applicant\u2019s professional activity. The aim of the police had been to calm the situation and to restore public order. Moreover, the District Court had established that the applicant had not shown his press badge to the apprehending officer or the receiving police officer at the police station. He had only shown his badge on the bus taking him to the police station. The applicant himself had written in the article about the event that he had started to wear his badge visibly only after he had been detained. Therefore, the margin of appreciation afforded to the State in assessing the proportionality of measures allegedly infringing the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had not been affected as the applicant had failed to make clear efforts to identify himself as a journalist."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e96f46c0-854c-4205-be0e-1b6e2769833e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention that his detention had not been lawful and that the courts which reviewed his detention had not taken into consideration some of his arguments. He further invoked Article <mask> of the Convention without any substantiation. Lastly, he complained that the respondent Government failed to comply with the Court\u2019s decision of 30 October 2009 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see paragraph 55 above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e5cab544-d01b-4c41-a560-f5632fe85048", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting national security and was necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, the KGB Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State\u2019s national security. The KGB Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the list of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under section 2 of the KGB Act (see paragraph 27 above). The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the KGB Act, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fa2f843c-b29a-4f42-97b6-59c70954d437", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government contended that the difference in the treatment of the brothers\u2019 claims by the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention since the applicants and their older brothers were not in similar situations. The domestic court had arrived at its conclusion by assessing the evidence in the file, and it had based its decision on the statement of one witness, not on the assumption that only a certain emotional development of the children (depending on their age) would entail mental suffering (see paragraph 13 above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c4b256b4-510c-4b35-8889-b02c3905d325", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["226.  The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that its ability to conduct business had been greatly inhibited as it had often been subjected to excessive fines. The applicant further invoked Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It complained of discriminatory treatment vis-\u00e0-vis the CyBC which was not required to pay an annual licence fee or fines. In application no. 35122/05 the applicant also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 in respect of the last complaint."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ef8345ca-a9a7-4e56-b39b-07d870d60d36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["133.  The applicants further complained that they were arrested, detained and expelled not based on infringements of the relevant immigration provisions but owing to their Georgian nationality. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 \u00a7 1 and 6 of the Convention, Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ffe96a60-dbb8-44a8-b719-b4c15182b9cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The Government left it to the Court's discretion to decide whether the applicants had substantiated their claim adequately. At any rate, part of the lawyer's fees concerned the applicants' complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention which had been declared inadmissible. Moreover, assuming that a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were to result from the inheritance tax levied, the fees and expenses incurred in the expropriation proceedings (that is a total of FIM 29,800 without chargeable value-added tax) should not be reimbursed. The fees and costs incurred by the applicant Barbro Jokela should likewise be deducted from such an award. The number of hours claimed to have been spent by the lawyer on the case also appeared somewhat excessive. "], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0bcb671d-2bfd-4b84-988b-9942d2f5bd37", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["184.  The applicant argued that the circumstances of this case disclosed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence to establish that his brother\u2019s abduction and murder had been carried out as a direct result of his lawful political views and his activities on behalf of HADEP and, more widely, the Kurdish minority in Turkey. Article 14 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "70ab037e-786e-42b8-ac28-8342527f4750", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The applicants submitted that while their older siblings\u2019 claims for compensation in connection with their sister\u2019s death had been allowed, their similar claims had been dismissed by the court of last resort on the ground of their young age at the time of the accident (see paragraph 13 above). They claimed that the distinction made by the court of last resort between their claims and those of their older siblings had amounted to discrimination prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention and caused them substantial loss."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "47aad198-69bc-4408-93e0-2558d956b353", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the case. They contended that the difference in treatment complained of was justified by the provisional nature of a discontinuation decision given that, unlike an acquittal, a discontinuation decision based on the ground that there was no case to answer did not bar the reopening of the case if new evidence came to light."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "5d760940-fe9a-4fdf-8dfb-254789612ad1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The applicant also complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the widow's payment and widowed mother's allowance to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position constituted discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. He made an identical complaint as regards his future non-entitlement to a widow's pension."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9e887865-1dab-4000-9f30-f0ec95a25e42", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant complained under Articles 8, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention that the decision to refuse him authorisation to reside in Russia had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the protection of public health and had disrupted his right to live with his family. The Court notes that the focal point of the present application is the difference of treatment to which the applicant was subjected on account of his health status when applying for a residence permit. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, \u00a7 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I), the Court considers it appropriate to examine the applicant\u2019s grievances from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 (compare Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, \u00a7 70, Series A no. 94). Those provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "994997b3-d48b-46f1-beff-2227a7c771f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they were victims of a two\u2011fold discrimination: firstly, in relation to those pensioners whose pensions fell below the cap and who thus remained unaffected by it, and secondly, in relation to the high-ranking officials whose pensions were exempted from the cap by virtue of paragraph 6(3) of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Social Security Code 1999 (see paragraph 40 above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ee276c94-5ce6-43a1-bb79-43e6a62ecc6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The applicant further complained that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his origins because the Constitutional Court had dismissed his constitutional appeal without considering its merits with a simple reference to its Opinion no. Pl. \u00daS-st. 21/05. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ed124bd1-a204-4f5a-bc82-7c1ff2f00edf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Wpt, WMA, WBA and WP constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ac9cce2b-3d9c-4038-b9c3-a12104400318", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The applicant claimed to have been a victim of discrimination on the ground of his sexual orientation in that the Supreme Court, in its decision of 5 December 1996, had denied him the status of \u201clife companion\u201d of the late Mr W. within the meaning of section 14 of the Rent Act, thereby preventing him from succeeding to Mr W.'s tenancy. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, which provide as follows: "], "obj_label": "14", "id": "1a1b8412-8eba-4dcc-8e42-9a94dfb4489d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government submitted, inter alia, that the applicant could not claim compensation for the refusal to grant him French nationality, that he had ceased to be a victim since the 1998 Act was passed and that, in any event, a finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 would not give rise to a right to any compensation."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "208f720e-f394-4fa3-b035-244dcd8f3381", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 4."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "47e447e6-88a0-4324-b511-b80b0d3fe4bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government asserted that it is not for the Court to determine the domestic legislation that should be applied to a particular case. Thus, the legal issue in the present case is to assess whether the Madrid High Court of Justice\u2019s ruling, declaring that additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 was not applicable to the case at hand due to the express lack of retroactive recognition of the right to a survivor\u2019s pension in Law no. 13/2005, amounted to discrimination under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b305a2ae-de27-4db0-badd-31e82ee82075", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["161.  The applicant submitted that her husband was killed because he was a Kurd and, although not politically involved, he was sympathetic to the democratic demands of the Kurds. He was thus, contrary to the prohibition contained in Article <mask> of the Convention, a victim of discrimination on grounds of national origin in relation to the exercise of his right to life as protected by Article 2. The applicant also maintained that she too had been discriminated against in violation of Article 14, which reads:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "12fc7db9-a98b-4cb7-b4f5-3b9cfcf06288", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant complained that contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention read together with Article 1 of Protocol No.1 persons unable to report facts because they were unaware of them were treated differently under section 71 of the 1992 Act from those who were unable to report facts for some other reason. In the alternative, she complained that the law treated identically persons who were capable and persons who were incapable of understanding that there was something which they were required to report."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "10710e34-2d26-47ba-a1dd-66a95d5d4d0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant submitted that the Government did not deny that the pension rules in force at the relevant time discriminated against married women and considered that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised, namely to avoid the undesirable accumulation of pension rights. In the applicant's opinion other legislation could have been brought in. As to the point in time when social attitudes had changed, the applicant argued that even in 1957 the principle of equality and the resulting prohibition on discrimination were a general principle of both national and international law. In that connection, she referred to Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated that \u201cAll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights\u201d. She further referred, inter alia, to Article <mask> of the Convention (1950), the Netherlands Act of 14 June 1956 abolishing the legal incapacity of married women, and Article 12 \u00a7 4 of the European Social Charter (1961), by which the Contracting States undertook to ensure equal treatment of their own nationals with nationals of other Contracting Parties in respect of social-security rights. The applicant was of the opinion that there were no weighty reasons to confront a small group of women, who did not fall within the scope of Directive 79/7/EEC, for the rest of their lives with the consequences of a discriminatory provision from the past that had been abolished in the meantime."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9eab86d7-56cb-4ea8-915d-acf7d1161773", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["211.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10, as the CyBC had not been subjected to the same restrictions. In particular, in view of the legal provisions applicable at the material time, the CybC was not monitored by the CRTA and subjected to fines. Furthermore, the CyBC did not have to obtain an annual licence."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "2c0eebc1-2d2a-4e50-a1b0-8002334bbb92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "503c4726-e68c-4b15-b66a-88a78e8cd16f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read together with Article 8, that he had been treated differently, without justification, from both a foreign criminal sentenced to less than four years\u2019 imprisonment, who could benefit from the exceptions in paragraphs 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules, and a British national sentenced to more than four years\u2019 imprisonment, who could not be deported."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fa1bc781-62f2-4708-8bfb-09fdd4448102", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied access to court, as his contact rights had been determined by social work centres and not by the courts. Further, he alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the grounds that he and his former wife had lived separately, a fact which had resulted in the case being dealt with by social work centres and not by the courts."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "5d5bdf10-553d-4ed4-a2c9-321c34084b63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 6 that they had been subjected to discrimination on the ground that the domestic law exempted State authorities from the obligation to observe time-limits for bringing actions in the interest of the State, while at the same time imposing such an obligation on private individuals\u2019 actions against the State. They relied on Article 14 of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "98bf1af7-2453-43a6-8b71-0f4313addccd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant contested the Government\u2019s view, stating that it was sufficient to raise the alleged violations in substance, which she had done in the domestic proceedings. In contrast, it was not necessary to refer explicitly to the relevant Convention Articles before the domestic authorities. The applicant asserted that the principle of equality under Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Federal Constitution corresponded to Article <mask> of the Convention but was wider in scope as it was not accessory in nature."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "db5c94e8-7733-4ede-8e73-8c35abee3ce4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been discriminated against based on his profession, in so far as the only reason why the Romanian courts denied him the return of his child was the fact that he belonged to the military forces. Lastly, invoking Article 17 of the Convention, he complained that the Romanian courts had made an erroneous interpretation of the rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention and of the notion of \u201cthe child\u2019s best interest\u201d."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "78015ab0-0bd4-4a64-9561-eb8066aa9a03", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The Government argued that in the instant case no provisions, acts or omissions of the public authorities had exposed the applicants to treatment less favourable than that to which other persons in an analogous situation would have been subjected. There was no indication that their treatment had been based on any prohibited grounds. Consequently, the applicants had not suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their freedom of assembly contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "5e83aeb8-ad96-4ece-a229-94e3bf829dae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["78.  The applicant also complained: (a) under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that his right to peacefully enjoy his property had been violated in that he had been forced to change the place of residence to search for another job and thus had to leave his property in Montenegro; and (b) under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto, about having been discriminated against."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "5679c292-422b-4b79-93c0-1de1bed9eb28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and / or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b16e9249-fa50-461c-929e-08098e0364be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant complained that his continued imprisonment following the recommendation of the Parole Board on 25 March 2002 that he be released on licence violated his rights under Article 5 taken together with Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the requirement that prisoners serving determinate sentences of fifteen years or more secure the approval of the Secretary of State in addition to the recommendation of the Parole Board, when prisoners serving determinate sentences of less than fifteen years and prisoners serving indeterminate sentences were required only to obtain the positive recommendation of the Parole Board, amounted to an unjustified difference in treatment."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f0f6f3bd-01cb-47bc-b8d1-4cd7ff6a2034", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The applicants indicate that these acts are not in themselves discriminatory. Rather, the situation at issue is a continued one, since, according to the applicants, the authorities could have taken measures at any time, and particularly at the beginning of each school year, to provide them with adequate education in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "37365376-0cfb-4e35-af4c-ad86a0031ef2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The applicant complained that the State failed to protect her from sexual abuse by a teacher in her national school and that she did not have an effective remedy against the State in that regard. She relied on Article 3 (alone and in conjunction with Article 13), Article 8, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 as well as these latter Articles taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "76ada2f1-b228-43bd-a534-d6cd65cbcaa5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "af71f5cf-a54e-46f0-af46-d9e30607dec2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The Government submitted that, as there was no \u201cright\u201d within the meaning of Article 6, there was equally no possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Consequently, neither Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 nor Article <mask> of the Convention had any application to the case. Were the Court to hold otherwise, the Government submitted the following."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b92607d4-a644-48fb-8746-62ad524fe86f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants complained that the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 and its application to their cases constituted an unjustified interference with their possessions. Moreover, it was arbitrary since it created a disparity in treatment between people who had chosen to work in Switzerland and those who had remained in Italy. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "eb3c0292-1ffb-47af-a3ab-3973036d4460", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant complained under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention about the Bolu public prosecutor\u2019s assessment that there had existed a factual basis for the content of the article. In this connection, the applicant contended that the domestic authorities had refrained from providing judicial protection on account of his political opinions. He further alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his political opinions on account of the domestic authorities\u2019 decisions."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f98d1e19-0def-40be-8d4d-983856a281c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant further complained, for the first time in his written observations dated 19 May 2005, that his right of access to a court had been infringed because he had been unable to lodge an appeal on points of law (revizija) owing to the change in legislation governing civil procedure which had raised the statutory threshold for admissibility of such an appeal. He also submitted that limiting ratione valoris the right to lodge an appeal on points of law created inequality before the law and was therefore contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0d35570d-c8cb-4fec-9ea9-006847b1a481", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against by the Ukrainian authorities, who did not take into account his state of health because he was a Belarusian national and his extradition was conducted under the Minsk Convention. He considered that had he been a national of a country which is party to the European Convention on Extradition, the Ukrainian authorities would have been obliged to take his state of health into account. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. Article 14 provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a914a65b-078a-490c-abd7-6e8a34576cd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["109.  The applicant submitted that his son had worked as a plumber and, as the eldest of ten children, had contributed significantly to his family\u2019s upkeep. He claimed 12,300 euros (EUR) on behalf of the beneficiaries of the estate of Mehmet \u015eah \u015eeker, and on behalf of himself, for loss of earnings over five years and five months. He further claimed EUR 12,300 on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation. The applicant also requested that, in the case of a finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, these figures be increased by 50%."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f3c0783b-351c-43cc-9214-885d096711ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicants claimed that they had been discriminated against as a different-sex couple, as they had no possibility of entering into a registered partnership, an institution they preferred to marriage. The Court therefore has to examine first whether, for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicants were in a comparable situation to same-sex couples who have access to registered partnerships and, if so, whether any difference in treatment was justified."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a9cae765-41b7-449c-80c2-27d7e66ceda0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government argued that the situation of the applicants, whose rights stemmed from an expropriation enforced in the former GDR, could not be compared to that of the Government, which had succeeded to rights based on a policy of providing redress for injustice committed under the National Socialist regime. Accordingly, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. In the alternative, the difference in treatment was based on objective and reasonable justification having regard to the legislature\u2019s wish to clarify an unclear situation by means of the 1998 Act."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "039324a7-b278-4071-98d3-391f1c4722a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his ethnic origin. He further alleged under Article 18 of the Convention that the respondent State had applied restrictions on the exercise of his rights in violation of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "5a054ec0-4b7f-4559-be92-c889a984fcc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complain under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the exceptional situation which was favourable to the State as a result of the difference between the rate of interest payable on debts owed to the State (around 84% per annum) and the rate of interest on overdue State debts (30% per annum) at the material time."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "490af900-6cc6-402e-b1f2-432ffb620c78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant complained that the stopping of the payment of his YPA military pension for a period of thirteen months, after he had changed his place of residence to Serbia, had been arbitrary and discriminatory. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "b6b0fbc2-b98e-476c-829a-5421951af236", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant stressed that, in so far as it had been called upon to rule as the court of last instance, the Court of Cassation had been required to request a preliminary ruling where there was doubt as to the interpretation of Community law. The applicant submitted that he had cited the case-law in which the CJEU had recognised the direct applicability of the principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security, contained in the agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco (and in other agreements between the European Union and the Maghreb countries \u2013 Kziber, Case C-18/90, judgment of 31 January 1991). In the applicant\u2019s view, that line of case-law, initially developed in the context of the cooperation agreements, was \u201cfully transposable\u201d to the relevant provisions of the association agreements. The CJEU had also added that its interpretation was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, the interpretation of the concept of \u201csocial security\u201d by the CJEU was sufficiently broad to encompass social-assistance benefits. In these circumstances, the applicant argued, it had not been open to the Court of Cassation to ignore the request to refer the question for a preliminary ruling."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "2583d2fd-7fb5-4302-b897-fec473091515", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government submitted, relying on the Court\u2019s case-law in Raviv v. Austria, no. 26266/05, 13 March 2012, that the applicant had never paid any contributions to a pension fund in Croatia and therefore he was not in the same position as other pension beneficiaries who had been paying contributions in Croatia. Therefore, in the Government\u2019s view, there had been no issue under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that the domestic legislation concerning the payment of pensions abroad did not distinguish between pension beneficiaries on any ground, including their nationality, ethnicity or the nature of the pension entitlement. All of them, including YPA military pensioners, had had equal opportunities to obtain payment of their pension abroad if there was a bilateral treaty or reciprocal agreement between Croatia and their country of residence. The stopping of pension payments in a country with which there was no treaty or reciprocal agreement had been a consequence of an objective nature and not discrimination on any ground. In this respect, Croatia had made no distinction between YPA military pensioners and persons who had been paying contributions to pension funds in Croatia. Therefore, the fact that the applicant had not been receiving his pension in Serbia was a consequence of the fact that no reciprocal agreement or treaty on payment of YPA military pensions existed between Croatia and Serbia at the time."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "93e22629-7e06-42d7-a4c3-8e0cc82a85a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The applicants complained that the temporary suspension of and amendments to the Denationalisation Act and the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions, the State Bonds Act and the Constitutional Court's decisions of 16 July 1998 and 22 February 2001 violated their right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, since they constituted an unfair interference by the State in the pending proceedings to which the State was a party. They also invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that the challenged Acts discriminated against those claimants for the restitution of forfeited property, whose restitution proceedings were still pending before the courts when the challenged legislation entered into force and introduced a less favourable restitution regime. The applicants further complained that the challenged Acts and the unreasonably long restitution proceedings breached their right to property as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that from the moment the criminal judgments were quashed, they had a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d of obtaining the full restitution of property forfeited by the judgments, which, until the present day, had not occurred. In addition, they claimed that the challenged Acts violated their right to full compensation for wrongful conviction as guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. Finally, the applicants invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, alleging that the challenged Acts deprived them of their property on a discriminatory basis, since before the challenged legislation entered into force, the successful claimants were entitled to full restitution."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "66eade08-ac76-41f8-bb1d-0a712124b77c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges. He further argued under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the prohibition of his access to the army\u2019s social facilities, while other retired officers could benefit from this right, had amounted to discrimination. Lastly, he contended under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that there was no appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Military Administrative Court."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "85fda525-d6fa-4be9-b589-967b844376e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government asserted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had only claimed a violation of the principle of equality (Gleichheitsgrundsatz) under Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Federal Constitution, but had neither explicitly nor in substance relied on her right of property in her complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. Noting that the applicant had been represented by counsel throughout the domestic proceedings, the Government argued that she could have been expected to raise her complaint concerning her right of property with the domestic authorities, in addition to her allegation of discrimination. In conclusion, the Government claimed that the applicant had not duly exhausted domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "81f566db-0f81-4e88-b16d-3c6928c692a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Wpt and WMA constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "5242ec4e-8315-4ed9-96c0-e3d7c45dda5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant complained that, by imposing on him the maximum prison sentence applicable under domestic law and calculating his prison sentence on the basis of a new law (Law no. 5275), his rights under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention had been breached. The applicant further complained that Law no. 5816 was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention because it gives the judge too wide a discretion to choose a prison sentence of between one year and five years. As a result, different courts handed down different sentences for the same offence. Finally, relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the ban which was imposed on him by the domestic courts and which prevented him not only from voting and taking part in elections, but also from running associations, parties, trade unions and cooperatives."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "20658762-64d0-40f2-aa38-ad0d811e6ec1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant\u2019s primary complaint is that, in the exercise of a right granted by domestic law, he was discriminated against on the grounds, inter alia, of his illegitimate status. The latter is a concept covered by Article <mask> of the Convention (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, and Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, \u00a7 41, Series A no. 126)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "75da311c-25ce-4137-b026-e5e1f85718d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["122.  The applicant complained, citing Articles 5 \u00a7 4 and 13 of the Convention, that there had been no effective remedy available for his complaints. He also cited Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention, reiterating his arguments cited above, and Article <mask> of the Convention, arguing that he had been discriminated against, but without further relevant substantiation."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c2d97ca4-ff82-4943-87e7-dcaee1a8df63", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 that he had been discriminated against in that, for the purposes of an access arrangement, his biological tie with A. had not been accepted as constituting \u201cfamily life\u201d, whereas the existence of \u201cfamily life\u201d was automatically assumed by the Netherlands judicial authorities in the case of an unmarried biological father who had recognised the child."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "06188879-4a85-4933-b7bb-2723cbb30812", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicants claimed to be victims of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in that the Administrative Court in its decision of 4 October 2001 upheld that the insurance cover of the second applicant only extended to heterosexual partners within the meaning of section 56(6) CSSAIA. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "57d846b9-bffc-4cb4-87cb-c369379b87a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["168.  The applicants complained that they had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, because the violations of which they complained had taken place because of their being resident in Chechnya and their ethnic background as Chechens, which was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They also complained that the abduction of their relative had breached Article 8 of the Convention, the text of which has been cited above."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a57c44f9-8141-4874-bc08-cbb334abddc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not be considered to be in an analogous situation for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention to the persons with whom he sought comparison. In their view, the crucial factor was not the legal ground on which the declaration of his paternity was based, but rather the fact that his paternity had been declared by means of a final and binding judicial decision. The other situations relied on by the applicant were different in that the paternity of the husband of the mother, or that of the man who declared jointly with the mother that he was the father, was presumed and could be challenged in a court."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e6093106-b2da-4eae-956f-c9370b784dfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant complained that the decision of the District Court not to appoint, of its own motion, defence counsel for him for the first-instance proceedings before it, breached his right to a fair trial, in particular the principle of equality of arms and the right to free legal assistance. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention alone and taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Wetjen and Others v. Germany, nos. 68125/14 and 72204/14, \u00a7 44, 22 March 2018, with further references), finds it appropriate to examine this complaint solely under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fb8716d2-7845-4df0-b629-6da0d1e7f753", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant complained that the ill-treatment he suffered and the refusal of the military prosecutor to indict the police officers responsible for the ill-treatment was in substantial part due to his Roma ethnicity, and therefore inconsistent with the requirement of non-discrimination laid down by Article 14 taken together with Articles 3 and 13. Article <mask> of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "14793a94-1ab7-4ea2-879c-b3037706cc98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government contested that argument. Firstly, they pointed out that a difference in treatment did exist between persons in pre-trial detention and convicted prisoners with respect to their right to conjugal visits, but that such a difference was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d (see paragraphs 24-26 above). They further considered that distinguishing between the two above-mentioned categories of persons deprived of their liberty had a legitimate aim. The restriction in question was required as a security measure to prevent further crimes from being committed or to ensure that criminal proceedings were not impeded. The grounds for imposing pre-trial detention were also to ensure that the suspect would not obstruct the investigation by tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. The Government concluded that the difference of treatment was objectively and reasonably justified within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, the Government considered it worth noting that the applicant\u2019s requests for ordinary visits had never been refused by the prison administration, and as a result he had benefited from a large number of visits from his family during his detention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ec8068a9-ec8d-494f-af12-53b17ac4dbd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["218.  The Government submitted that no issues arose under Article <mask> of the Convention as there were no violations of the other Articles relied on by the applicants. In any event, the applicants had not been subjected to discriminatory treatment, because the military actions in Lachin had been aimed merely at opening a \u201chumanitarian corridor\u201d between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and had not been directed against the residents of the district, whatever their ethnic or religious affiliation. Moreover, Kurds had never been subjected to discrimination in the Republic of Armenia or the \u201cNKR\u201d and the population of approximately 1,500 Kurds living in Armenia at present actively participated in social and political life and enjoyed all rights."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "770f6a9f-128f-40cd-af0f-33a4306ac7b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant contended that the different treatment of different categories of prisoners depending on the sentences imposed was based on \u201cother status\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contested the Government's submission that only a status which met the requirement of being obviously analogous to one of the specific examples listed in Article 14 could constitute \u201cother status\u201d within the meaning of that Article. He argued that account should be taken of the purpose of the Convention, namely that it was designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society (citing Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, \u00a7 53). Accordingly, the words \u201cother status\u201d should not be so strictly construed as to undermine the purposes of the Convention, as set out in its preamble where it states its aim of \u201csecuring the universal and effective recognition of rights\u201d and reflected in Article 1 of the Convention. Relying on Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011IX and Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, \u00a7 72, Series A no. 22, the applicant argued that there was a need for a wide construction of Article 14, and that the categories expressly set out in that provision were illustrative and not exhaustive. He further referred to the French text, which does not mention \u201cstatus\u201d but \u201csituation\u201d (\u201ctoute autre situation\u201d) and argued that this supported his argument for a wider construction."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c68ab887-7820-4c18-be99-08fb03e7f3fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention of an unfair hearing and the outcome of the proceedings in her cases. The applicant further complained that the failure of the courts to consider her complaints within a reasonable time and to award her appropriate compensation violated her rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.  The applicant finally complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been discriminated on the ground of her social and property status."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6acd07d9-0c87-4b08-a53b-86dcfe6d76dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was unable to obtain a favourable judgment in his case and that other clean-up workers of the Chernobyl nuclear accident site were paid disability pensions. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "acf28e2e-8d59-4038-a03d-961aa46a241f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicant complained that the national authorities\u2019 refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage, despite the fact that she had submitted the Court\u2019s judgment on the same topic (\u00dcnal Tekeli, cited above) to the domestic courts in support of her request, had amounted to a breach of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. She further claimed that the fact that Turkish law allowed married men but not married women to bear their own surname after marriage constituted sex discrimination and was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a2924657-3988-4736-88b1-40c4f6dc5528", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "6d020d2c-3387-43ba-8bff-f58121750f28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant further complained that he had been a victim of discriminatory treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. He submitted in particular that the German courts, in requiring a common proposal of the parents to be granted the joint exercise of parental authority, discriminate against one of the divorced spouses.  Article 14 provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "4d4cc829-2b01-4186-abaf-0e4d5e7bd513", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant argued that the nationalisation and destruction of her late mother's property were flagrant and continuous breaches of her property rights. She also claimed that the decision of 25 September 1992 and the judgment of 3 April 1996 restored her property rights and entitled her to the return of the plot or proper compensation. However, the plot was not returned to her, and no compensation was afforded in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. According to the applicant, the violation of her property rights occurred only because her late mother's land was on a valuable location in the centre of the resort. Accordingly, the State allegedly discriminated against her in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "897e3d0f-1968-415e-b820-59470d346d49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The applicants submitted that the present case should also be considered from the point of view of the equal treatment, enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention, between married and unmarried couples. They pointed out, in support of that submission, that the draft revision of the European Convention on the Adoption of Children opened up adoption to registered partners (see \u201cRelevant domestic and international law\u201d, paragraphs 23-25 above). The survey produced by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law and adduced by the Government showed that a number of European States had already provided in their legislation for the principle of equal treatment in adoption matters between registered partners and married couples, and in some cases even same-sex partners."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "006247ba-564f-4f50-b386-2a7562ad0392", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The Government argued that having regard to the content of Ms M.\u2019s letter of 1 March 2006 addressed to the Court in which she had stated that she complained only on her son\u2019s behalf, she was no longer an applicant and therefore could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of her Convention rights guaranteed by Article 6 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "adb2774d-5c5c-476c-a011-53db8409de41", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submitted that the proceedings in issue did not concern a right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, consequently, fell outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying, inter alia, on Gaygusuz v. Austria (judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1129), the Government argued that benefits under social-insurance schemes characterised by the principle of social solidarity could not be regarded as \u201cpossessions\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that, unlike systems under which the level of benefit was linked to contributions paid, a system based on social solidarity distributed the available resources equally among all claimants. "], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c38ff19f-e9a1-49ae-9204-e81bf6ee8e43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complains that the national authorities\u2019 refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage amounted to a breach of Articles 6, 8 and 46 of the Convention. She also contends that the fact that Turkish law allows married men to bear their own surname after marriage and not married women constitutes discrimination on grounds of sex and is incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant further refers to the Court\u2019s \u00dcnal Tekeli v. Turkey judgment (cited above) and submits that the Turkish domestic authorities should have complied with this judgment."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "4a4eaaeb-a675-4ad5-b776-20dbc87751e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The applicants complained that the Law of 4 March 2002, by setting up a specific liability system, had created an unjustified inequality of treatment between the parents of children whose disabilities were not detected before birth on account of negligence and the parents of children disabled on account of some other form of negligence, to whom the principles of ordinary law would continue to apply. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9925ef30-c082-4892-9e49-72e6a83ee8f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["195.  The applicant alleged discrimination, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention combined with Article 2, due to her husband\u2019s origins, as only Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin regularly suffered unlawful killings. She averred that there was an administrative, discriminatory practice on grounds of race in the failure to investigate fully or prosecute the unlawful acts of the security forces, contrary to Article 14. "], "obj_label": "14", "id": "3109a4d8-6e0c-4a8e-937b-87b38e352ee2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The applicant complained that he had been denied an old-age pension between November 1998 and April 2003 on the grounds that he had not had Slovenian citizenship, one of the requirements under section 2(1)(4) of the 1998 Act. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ee7d1eee-42f6-470d-bee0-e44008b7e29e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant further argued that the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public, which undoubtedly targeted the burqa, generated discrimination in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention on grounds of sex, religion and ethnic origin, to the detriment of Muslim women who, like her, wore the full-face veil. In her view this was indirect discrimination between Muslim women whose beliefs required them to wear the full-face veil and other Muslim women, and also between them and Muslim men. The exception provided for by the Law of 11 October 2010, according to which the ban did not apply if the clothing was worn in the context of \u201cfestivities or artistic or traditional events\u201d was also, in her view, discriminatory, in that it created an advantage for the Christian majority: it allowed Christians to wear in public clothing that concealed their face in the context of Christian festivities or celebrations (Catholic religious processions, carnivals or rituals, such as dressing up as Santa Claus) whereas Muslim women who wished to wear the full-face veil in public remained bound by the ban even during the month of Ramadan."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "12cac19b-9b75-4557-b2ba-ae77d83bb684", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained that the refusal to grant her a survivor\u2019s pension, on the ground that her marriage solemnised according to the rites of the Roma minority to which she belonged had no civil effects, infringed the principle of non-discrimination recognised by Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The provisions in question read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "42104d4b-1543-4b82-8905-ec2f817a2261", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings giving rise to the final decision of 28 January 2003 were unfair, in particular in so far as the same Court of Appeal adopted conflicting decisions in identical cases brought against other buyers of apartments situated in the same building."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "58c59e48-e0f3-4d36-b6a9-e07a82846291", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function within a religious community which was comparable to that of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention, taken together with Article 4."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9605dae3-edce-459c-826b-fd3f9ff984c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant submitted that the Federal Hunting Act discriminated against him in two ways. Firstly, he was discriminated against vis-\u00e0-vis owners of real property which did not belong to a hunting district, such as enclaves, which were not subject to hunting rights. Secondly, the relevant provisions discriminated against the owners of smaller landholdings. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9b0eaaa8-feb6-4234-b825-7c524957dcb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government referred to paragraph 53 of the Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment ([GC], no. 65731/01, ECHR 2006\u2011VI) and did not dispute the fact that if a State decided to set up a benefits or pension scheme it must do so in a manner compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted, however, that the ministers of the various churches had been brought into the Social Security scheme at different moments in time for practical reasons and not through discrimination, and they pointed out, citing the Stec judgment (cited above, \u00a7 49), that the State enjoyed a broad margin of appreciation in such matters. The Government further noted that the inclusion of the ministers of the different faiths in the Social Security scheme was possible only if there existed a prior agreement with the State, under which the faith concerned took on certain obligations vis-\u00e0-vis the State; they referred to Royal Decree 369/1999 (see paragraph 23 above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "bb379141-c327-4f18-abf6-cb488c7b1cfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["96.  The applicants in application no. 29381/09 claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) jointly in respect of the non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained on account of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard. They also requested the Court to make specific recommendations to the Government with a view to amending Law no. 3719/2008 and extending the application of civil unions to same-sex couples."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9d6641ef-a24f-4685-80ca-9d5f1af6e28d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention, taken together with Article 4."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e83c2f8e-777e-4050-9470-b04a7ac7b431", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant complained about the refusal to grant him a retirement pension because, in spite of the integration of protestant ministers in the general Social Security scheme, he had been unable to use his years of service as a minister to make up the minimum period of contributions required in order to qualify for a pension, whereas Catholic priests did have that option. He considered that this amounted to discrimination on grounds of religion, which was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "13e4ca72-09ab-425d-9150-42462cf2f588", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant churches contested in particular the Government\u2019s contention that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable because the right to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries and the right to the official recognition of religious marriages were outside the scope of Article 9 of the Convention. They averred that in a situation in which certain religious communities had been granted such rights, there was clearly a positive obligation to grant the same rights to other religious communities in a comparable situation."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "fe775196-7aea-4c25-ab7b-3355adb014be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.   The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, claiming that they had been initially unlawfully deprived of their pension and that this deprivation had occurred for political reasons because they had left the USSR for a \u201ccapitalist country\u201d, whereas citizens who had left for a \u201csocialist country\u201d had retained their pensions."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "d8d44d9f-9338-483c-910b-c6e192b51414", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government submitted that since citizenship was not a right covered by the Convention differential treatment based on illegitimate status could not violate Article <mask> of the Convention. As to any distinction based on sex, according to the Government this protection only applied to persons claiming discrimination when compared with other persons of a different sex. In the present case, the applicant was not ineligible for Maltese nationality on the ground of his sex, and the legal distinction based on the sex of his parent was a condition applicable irrespective of his sex. They further submitted that there was no distinction between voluntary acknowledgment of a child and judicial acknowledgment, as even if a father was recognised on the birth certificate, the child would not be eligible for citizenship on the grounds that he or she was illegitimate."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a1f66ffc-3c1b-4b1d-be29-ffaed8a446f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that certain other litigants obtained higher awards in similar cases and under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that the conduct of the judicial authorities handling his requests for re-opening of the proceedings was unlawful. Finally, the applicant invoked Article 3 of the Convention to the facts of the present case."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ff15aeae-12bf-4dca-bf6d-24db3135eb39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["104.  The applicant claimed, firstly, 1,423 euros (EUR) in respect of the pecuniary damage caused by the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She submitted that that sum corresponded to 1,000 Latvian lati (LVL), the difference between the retirement pension she had actually received since her retirement in August 1997 up to October 2006 and the pension she should have received had the discrimination complained of not taken place. The applicant explained that in calculating that amount, she had taken into account the eighteen amendments of the basic pension rate that had occurred in the meantime and the increase of her pension following the entry into force of the agreement with Ukraine (see paragraphs 21-22 above)."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "3ea25b39-93d6-46f0-a39c-c5563e57fc5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant did not claim a right to adopt, which \u2013 irrespective of the sexual orientation of the prospective adoptive parent \u2013 did not exist. Nevertheless, she submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, was applicable to the present case. Firstly, the opportunity or chance of applying for authorisation to adopt fell within the scope of Article 8 both with regard to \u201cprivate life\u201d, since it concerned the creation of a new relationship with another individual, and \u201cfamily life\u201d, since it was an attempt to create a family life with the child being adopted. Secondly, a person's sexual orientation, which was an aspect of their private life, accordingly fell within the scope of Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "2d4ad6bd-4da2-425f-b099-516be2422127", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and complained that she had been discriminated against, as an individual farmer, in that the agricultural property to which she was entitled had not been returned to her, that it had been used by a cooperative, and that she had been obliged to seek the return of the property or compensation in the context of insolvency proceedings brought against the cooperative."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "2a87abac-3629-4cca-a5a9-60ad1808b87a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicants complained that the Law of 4 March 2002, by setting up a specific liability system, had created an unjustified inequality of treatment between the parents of children whose disabilities were not detected before birth on account of negligence and the parents of children disabled on account of some other form of negligence, to whom the principles of ordinary law would continue to apply. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "2ba11c9a-2458-432b-928c-24e2b0193889", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had not been duly reminded of his rights under Article 135 (3) of the former Code of Criminal Procedure to request a lawyer during police custody and that he had not been provided with the assistance of a lawyer during his questioning at the Istanbul police headquarters, by the public prosecutor or before the criminal court. He further alleged under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention that the public prosecutor and the first\u2011instance court had failed to conduct an additional investigation (tevsi-i tahkikat) in the case or to collect evidence or summon witnesses in his favour. Lastly, the applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that his conviction constituted discrimination on the ground of his Kurdish ethnic origin."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "bf81e263-37c1-419c-8e6c-dbba927ff76b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, of discrimination due to differing visiting rights set out in the Code until 2014 in respect of male and female life prisoners. The first applicant also referred to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. The Court considers that the above complaint should be examined solely under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "06319eb3-2bb9-4d13-9717-09244286b1b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicant also claimed to be the victim of discrimination in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention because, unlike many of his co\u2011workers, he had been unable to purchase the flat he was leasing and his case had not been examined on the merits. Article 14 provides:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8460d40a-01da-4207-bfff-c09bbadfecb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants complain of discrimination of the facts of the conditions of their schooling during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years: they had been schooled in a school situated in a prefabricated building, attended only by children of their community and offering an inferior level of study to that of other students. They enounce a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. These provisions are as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "1b173f0a-eb5f-4ecd-b30f-fb453b3287a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicants maintained that the Roma communities faced an institutional racist bias, manifested throughout police policies and procedures aimed at their communities. They argued that the police intervention plan of 15 December 2011 had clearly shown that the raid had been intended against the Roma community, which had been portrayed as a criminal community. The very essence of the police intervention had been, in their view, racist. Moreover, they averred that the statistical data provided in the intervention plan did not coincide with the figures available from the official census. In their view, this proved that the police had conducted their own census of the V\u00e2lcele population and collected data on criminality based on the ethnic appurtenance of the suspects. Therefore the police portrayed the whole Roma community as being a criminal community and made generalisations which were incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9914cc6d-b74a-4475-9a9e-f4898f0cff93", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention of the unfairness and outcome of the proceedings. In his initial submissions he also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the violation of his property rights since he had not been provided with the apartment. He also invoked Articles 8 and 17 of the Convention in that respect. Finally, he complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about discrimination."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "128d756d-f656-4ff6-ad7f-e3836c615dca", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant complained that the extensive restrictions imposed on her property were tantamount to unlawful de facto expropriation of her property and/or disproportionate control of its use without compensation, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She further complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since the restrictions imposed on her property were not imposed on neighbouring properties which, in contrast to her property, had a building density coefficient of 30 per cent and could be used for residential purposes. Finally, she claimed that there was no effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of her aforementioned complaints."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "19917615-1328-4292-b943-d1e30a7d471d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicants complained of their conditions of detention at the Aghios Savvas Hospital in Korydallos Prison, their \u201cghettoisation\u201d in a separate wing of that hospital, and the failure of the authorities to consider whether those conditions were compatible with their state of health. They alleged a violation of Article 3 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. Those provides read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "457b36bb-8fa9-46c2-9ac3-81ab37a26c02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The applicant complained that, by refusing her compensation for non-pecuniary damage in connection with the death of her partner, the domestic authorities showed lack of respect for her private and family life. The Court decided also to examine that complaint from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read alone or in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. The above provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ff77915c-bed3-4860-8898-b622557092cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant submitted that the domestic authorities had established his liability to pay the tax on the basis of an imprecise and unforeseeable provision and without a proper assessment of the particular circumstances of his case. Moreover, they had failed to make any assessment of proportionality of the interference with his property rights. The applicant therefore considered that the refusal to grant him the tax exemption imposed an excessive individual burden on him, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Whereas the applicant accepted that the domestic authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in matters of taxation, he pointed out that according to the Court\u2019s well-established case-law their discretion could not be exercised in a manner incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c546c333-8f37-42ac-8457-46a81bac6f94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicant lastly complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that during his detention the police officers had made disparaging statements about his Tatar ethnic origin and that the prosecutor had neglected to investigate this matter. The Court reiterates that discrimination on account of one's ethnic origin or religion is a form of racial discrimination, which is a particularly invidious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction (see Igor Artyomov v. Russia (dec.), no. 17582/05, 7 December 2006, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, \u00a7 56, ECHR 2005-XII). However, Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by those provisions (see Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, \u00a7 36). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "20d83836-4180-40f2-825f-648ccd4d2187", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "abb64baa-ec98-46ff-9089-1db3b0b97092", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of the exceptional situation which was favourable to the State as a result of the difference between the rate of interest payable on debts owed to the State and the rate of interest on overdue State debts at the material time and of the fact that State debts were not subjected to enforcement procedures like ordinary debts."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "7470ad3c-abb8-455f-bab3-c3747d24a25b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["285.  The Government first maintained that, as the applicants\u2019 claims were incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraphs 119-128 above), Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. This concerned, in particular, the right to purchase a dwelling, as the right to acquire property was not guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "38e413cd-7298-430c-a1fc-4d5c9e973215", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["105.  The applicant submitted that, because of her and her family's Kurdish origins, the various alleged violations of their Convention rights also gave rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She maintained that the case-law of the Commission and the Court clearly showed the inadequacy of investigations into allegations of security force wrongdoing in the predominantly Kurdish south-eastern region of Turkey. The matters complained of had a disproportionate impact on individuals of Kurdish origin."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "f1840295-faec-43f1-8242-e78740ba2d47", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government submitted that the reason why the Court, in Chassagnou and Others, cited above, had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention had been that the system instituted by the Loi Verdeille had not allowed small landowners who were opposed to hunting to avoid the transfer of their hunting rights to an ACCA. The Government referred to paragraphs 85 and 95 of the judgment, pointing in particular to the Court\u2019s finding that the difference in treatment between large and small landowners under the Loi Verdeille had been discriminatory and in breach of those combined provisions because the result had been \u201cto give only the former the right to use their land in accordance with their conscience\u201d. The legislature had drawn the necessary inferences from that judgment: since the entry into force of Law no. 2000-698 of 26 July 2000, landowners who did not hunt could object to the inclusion of their land if they were \u201copposed to hunting as a matter of personal conviction\u201d, irrespective of the surface area of the land."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "bb0b539d-adea-4f45-a0a0-d194cc97730c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and/or Article 8."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ee9aeeb2-3c57-422b-a8c0-72b74eb7f226", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government observed that, according to the judgment of 23 July 1968 in the Case \u201crelating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium\u201d (merits) (Series A no. 6), the equality of treatment enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention is violated only where a distinction has no objective and reasonable justification (loc. cit., pp. 34-35, \u00a7 10). In the light of their arguments concerning the alleged violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately, the Government submitted that the distinction criticised had been based on such a justification. They pointed out in particular that the applicant was not the only candidate on her list who was required to undergo a verification of her linguistic competence. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 14."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "7119615e-7d10-4eba-b870-7a3554cc538e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["111.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against in prison and before the domestic courts on grounds of language (as a Russian speaker), ethnic origin and his pecuniary and prisoner status. In his observations, he emphasised the alleged language discrimination. He contended that he had been unable to obtain translations of or explanations about the relevant texts concerning prisoners\u2019 rights and duties, although Russian was understood by everyone."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "ba6e5890-6b9d-47d0-9b17-a824c3db65ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["130.  The applicants also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 on account of the difference in the statutory treatment of members of families of Russian military officers who were required to leave Latvia, and that of other Russian-speaking residents of Latvia who as former Soviet citizens could obtain residence in the country."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "c33a0556-90f0-4949-929f-5f76084e9e71", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicants complained that the dissolution of HADEP had violated their rights guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with the above Articles, the applicants alleged that HADEP had been dissolved because it was regarded as a Kurdish party, as the great majority of its supporters were Kurds."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "8d8f93a9-58b7-428c-bef7-194a015317b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["126.  The applicants also complained that they had been discriminated against by the social authorities since the children had been prohibited from speaking their maternal language, Assyrian, between themselves or with the second applicant. They had also been refused contact with their relatives on their mother's side and priests from the Assyrian church. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "72931688-241d-4e3e-acbb-49e03c6a3fa7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government did not contest the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, they argued that the applicant\u2019s income as a prisoner was insufficient for him to pay contributions to the old-age pension system: following deduction of the maintenance contribution, his remuneration did not exceed the marginal earnings threshold below which any employee was exempted from compulsory insurance under the General Social Security Act. The Court considers that this argument, which is itself intrinsically linked to the applicant\u2019s position as a prisoner, cannot invalidate the conclusion reached above."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "bc697af7-0ca5-4fa9-bab6-122b4332cad1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his preventive detention was unlawful as he had been refused a social therapy or relaxations in the conditions of his detention in view of his future expulsion. However, at the same time his sentence was not suspended because the prosecution authorities argued that he was not impressed by the execution of his sentence and had not changed his attitude towards his offences. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, he further argued that he had suffered discrimination because of his Bulgarian origin as a result of the refusal of the said measures when the order for the execution of his preventive detention was made."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "9d8d2cbc-85e6-45ae-ba16-711868b7379c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicants complained that the custody decisions had been taken on the ground of their status as disabled persons, and that the State had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide them with adequate conditions in order to preserve their family. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. The relevant provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "0a011d85-cc26-4ff9-8553-0f3310004f36", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicant party complains under Article 13, in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, of having been denied an effective remedy against the violation of its Convention rights. The applicant party complains, in particular, that the Lower Saxony Parliament lacked impartiality and independence in proceedings regarding the validity of the electoral result. Furthermore, in the view of the applicant party, it did not receive a fair hearing in the proceedings before the Lower Saxony Constitutional Court, which had decided its case without an oral hearing and without a comprehensive examination of the facts of the case"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "a1b27b31-fd4b-4349-b46f-47133e4a4a05", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The applicant alleged that in relation to a civic obligation that had been imposed on him he had had to face criminal proceedings, had been ordered to pay a fine and had been threatened with imprisonment in default. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6. The relevant part of the latter provision reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "1df1ff4d-d82e-4789-82be-e91de3562165", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["100.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the courts which had examined the issue of his pre-trial detention had lacked impartiality and independence as, in particular, on several occasions the same judges had been involved in considering whether to extend the custodial measure. Additionally, he complained under the above provision that the courts had refused to consider his appeal against the ruling of 30 September 2010 on the institution of criminal proceedings against him under Article 364 \u00a7 3 of the CC (see paragraph 37 above). Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judicial authorities had referred to his prominent social status and wealth as an argument for holding him in custody."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "46ba8c61-dfbf-4846-a8d3-475adbfc2f0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["90.  The applicants complained that the domestic courts\u2019 rejection of their civil claims and the simultaneous acceptance of identical claims lodged by other claimants had resulted in a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol no. 12 to the Convention. The Court, however, considers that the applications fall to be examined solely under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in relevant part reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "14", "id": "4df3f9a8-7a05-46de-b6a0-064e147fff46", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["73.  The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings had been instituted against him only because of his political opinions and his participation in the anti-government demonstration. In addition, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with his other complaints he contended that he had been discriminated against on account of his political views."], "obj_label": "14", "id": "e4c7a6fd-6490-41e5-b6ad-ef43e4bbf50c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government made a number of objections to the admissibility of the present application. Firstly, they requested the Court to dismiss the application as an actio popularis because it was lodged by three persons. They construed the right of individual petition in Article <mask> of the Convention as requiring each applicant to file a separate application. Secondly, they contested the admissibility of the application on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They claimed that the applicants should have brought an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region, which was liable for outstanding debts of the welfare office. They also alleged that the applicants should have brought an action against the bailiff service which was in charge of the execution proceedings."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "87b5a252-2539-419c-afd9-dd41a90ab945", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government argued that the applicant company could not be considered a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The District Court had rejected the public prosecutor\u2019s request that the court declare the criminal proceeds forfeit to the State. This decision had been upheld by the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. Moreover, the applicant company had received compensation of 6,000 euros for its legal expenses. The domestic courts had never ordered the applicant company to withdraw the book from sale, nor had any attempts been made to prevent its sale. Accordingly, the applicant company had not been able to show that it had been a victim of the alleged violation. Therefore, this part of the application should be declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. In any event, the Government argued that the applicant had not suffered significant disadvantage and that the complaint should therefore be declared inadmissible."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "99fb10bb-9810-461c-8e94-5deddc5f3578", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court had provided the applicant with preventive and compensatory redress, which the Government considered to be adequate and sufficient."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "80cc6774-ea5c-4a09-9752-1026759e5c58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of her constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded her compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost her victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "5ae66a89-a892-45aa-9195-baa79fe3ed75", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["154.  The applicant submitted that there had been no reason for the prosecutor to come to his flat. Firstly, he had not concealed the information about his remarriage to his former wife and the birth of their fourth child from the authorities. On the contrary, he had informed the head of his military unit about these facts. If it had been necessary to obtain further information from him, he could have been summoned to the prosecutor\u2019s office, which was not the case. The Government\u2019s allegation that summonses had been sent to him were not supported by any evidence. Moreover, it was significant that night visits were unlawful under domestic law. In the applicant\u2019s opinion, it was clear from the above that the sole purpose of the night visit was to put pressure on him before the Grand Chamber hearing in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (he referred to Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, \u00a7 249, 13 July 2006; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, \u00a7 51, 13 April 2006; Knyazev v. Russia, no. 25948/05, \u00a7 115, 8 November 2007; and Ryabov v. Russia, no. 3896/04, \u00a7 59, 31 January 2008). Indeed, the applicant and his family had felt intimidated and frightened."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "61f05eb7-b2be-4e08-aab5-3ad2a10ecbe5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicants also submitted that the Government\u2019s former representative Mr Matyushkin was biased. According to the applicants, M.\u2019s father was Mr Matyushkin\u2019s personal aikido trainer and a close friend. They submitted a photograph featuring Mr Matyushkin and M.\u2019s father together and claimed that it had been taken at M.\u2019s father\u2019s birthday party in 2009. By omitting to disclose his personal connection to the case, Mr Matyushkin had misled the Court; the observations submitted by him should not be accepted therefore (Rule 44D of the Rules of Court). Those observations contained personal gratuitous attacks on the first applicant and many distortions of the facts of the case. Thus, Mr Matyushkin had concealed relevant information and documents, in particular those showing that M. had not complied with the contact orders and that the domestic authorities had acknowledged the bailiffs\u2019 failure to ensure her compliance. The applicants later stated that they no longer insisted on not accepting those observations as they had been endorsed by the Government\u2019s new representative Mr Galperin \u2013 who had submitted the Government\u2019s further observations where he had continued to conceal and distort the facts of the case. The applicants also argued that Mr Matyushkin\u2019s behaviour should be interpreted as amounting to a failure to participate effectively in the case (Rule 44C of the Rules of Court) and therefore a hindrance of the effective exercise of the right of petition (Article <mask> of the Convention)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d46d1424-c2ee-4323-b959-f363d43d96aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government submitted that the complaints of the applicants Ms Zamorozda and Ms Golovatenko should be found inadmissible since they were not participants in the civil proceedings concerning the invalidation of the OM's property transaction. For this reason, their complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention should be rejected as incompatible ratione personae in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention. As to their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they should be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention as these applicants failed exhaust the domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "dbc54328-55c1-45d6-a327-302d8c423506", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that the applicant had no standing to bring the case before the Court. The applicant had not inherited the claim in respect of the judgment debt since he had not registered succession as required by the Civil Code. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s representative had recovered the judgment debt on 30 August 2001 and the applicant had an opportunity to dispose thereof. Lastly, the applicant had not informed the domestic courts of his father\u2019s death and had not been a party to the domestic proceedings. His representative had always acted on his father\u2019s behalf before the domestic courts. Therefore, the Government stated that the applicant had abused the right of application and could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "040413ba-0f6b-48ca-acb9-49f3d9102200", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The applicant argued that the Government\u2019s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "bf3e1ec5-d132-45eb-8588-7a4d37b3f408", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government submitted that Mr Crepulja could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention following decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Kiseljak Municipal Court of 25 June and 29 November 2013, respectively, and the payment of the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 19, 20 and 20 above)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3265df85-cad4-437b-a3ef-a195e8ee0859", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The applicant alleged that, following communication of his complaints under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, his family had been subjected to persecution by the Russian authorities. In particular, on 7 February 2010 an official at the prosecutor\u2019s office in Grozny had made threats to his mother and on 8 February 2010 someone had set the house where his family resided on fire. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the right of individual petition guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d91b3526-2061-4e53-8af7-5bfcfe1bee5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the LIU-10 authorities had put illicit pressure on him in relation to his complaint to Strasbourg. In particular, he alleged that the LIU-10 authorities had demanded that he disclose the contents of his letters to the Court and that they had impeded his correspondence with the Court on a regular basis. He also insisted that the LIU-10 authorities had unfairly sanctioned him for his complaints to Strasbourg. Article 34 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "99aafc52-34c9-4229-997d-9689144326ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant disagreed. He referred to principles established by the Court in cases pertaining to Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. He further pointed out that the authorities had failed to comply with the Court\u2019s request under Rule 39 that he should be subjected to an examination by medical specialists independent of the penal system. The medical examination carried out in April 2014 had not been independent, and the commission had not included a neurologist or an epileptologist. The commission\u2019s interpretation of the applicable domestic law had been erroneous, and their findings had not been in accordance with the medical evidence. The Government\u2019s failure to immediately subject the applicant to an independent medical examination had stripped him of procedural guarantees under Article 34, since he had had no opportunity to rely on an independent expert report."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "167e204b-bce4-43ea-acc9-77d3ee5ac2dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["118.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was manifestly ill-founded and unsupported by any evidence. The Government further argued that the search of the office of the applicant\u2019s representative had been lawful, had not been intended to exert any pressure on the applicant or his representative, and had not influenced the proceedings before the Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b58a011f-8243-4917-abe9-9d3088985d4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention for the following reasons. First, following a friendly settlement, the applicant had been exempted from liability for the remainder of his debts subject to the debt recovery procedure. Second, the criminal case was still pending before the prosecutor and no court proceedings concerning the offences investigated in the pre-trial investigation had been instituted. Thirdly, the applicant had not been present at the Bailiff\u2019s office in order to give information about his assets but had only informed the Bailiff that he was unable to be present owing to his right to remain silent. No incriminating information had been given. There had thus not been any use of compulsion for the purpose of obtaining information which might incriminate the applicant in pending or anticipated criminal proceedings against him, and no use of incriminating information compulsorily obtained outside the context of criminal proceedings in a subsequent criminal prosecution (see Weh v. Austria, no. 38544/97, \u00a7\u00a7 42-43, 8 April 2004). The application should thus be declared inadmissible under Articles 34 and 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ed555bed-662c-435d-8fc9-bf6653f18091", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the applicant can no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the Government referred to the settlement reached between the State Attorney's Office and the applicant in another applicant's case (no. 21147/03) struck out by the Court on 1 April 2008, in which the applicant also complained about the excessive length of proceedings. According to the Government, the proceedings in the case no. 21147/03 and the proceedings in the present case relate to the same factual background and the two sets of proceedings were mostly conducted in parallel. As a result, the Government argued that the applicant could not have suffered double prejudice and had therefore already been awarded a sufficient amount in respect of both sets of proceedings. The Government thus invited the Court to reject the application as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "432cdfc9-47bd-483d-83db-8c29f3709199", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["142.  The applicants maintained his complaint. The first and fifth applicants insisted that they had never denied having applied to the Court. According to them, the investigator had put in the transcripts the statements they had never made and then had misled them into signing the transcripts. They also pointed out that while the first applicant\u2019s complaint to the Prosecutor\u2019s Office of the Chechen Republic concerned the transcript of his questioning on 25 October 2005, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office failed to address this issue and instead referred to the transcripts of 21 and 26 October 2005. The applicants contended that, in view of the above, the Government had failed to comply with their obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "6847df84-f21d-4726-89f1-bffc6f08e3eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant company disagreed, stating that according to Ukrainian law it was a private company, whose aim was to receive profit through business operations and to divide it among its shareholders. The applicant submitted that it acted according to its articles of association which were of an ordinary private-law nature, that the State's share did not allow it to control the applicant, and that it did not perform any public-law functions. The mere fact that originally there were two State entities among its founders could not deprive the applicant of its right to have recourse to the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "20690cfb-1019-438f-97f3-3dc1c750ac65", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government did not demonstrate any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, \u00a7 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c8643ea1-f88e-47b4-bd9c-42a97d8c815f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government asserted that the settlement of 20 November 2006 had deprived the applicant of victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention or, alternatively, resolved the matter within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention. According to the settlement of 20 November 2006, the applicant had been granted a lump sum of EUR 14,000. In exchange he had declared all his claims settled. The Government observed that the present application had already been introduced when the settlement was concluded. While the university organs were not aware of the Convention proceedings at that time, the applicant could have been expected to refer to them if he intended to exclude them from the settlement."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ac7b7f83-512b-4dc9-81eb-ebc4d406081c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicants granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, they could no longer be considered \u201cvictims\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint thoroughly and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded complied fully with the Constitutional Court\u2019s practice on the point. Moreover, the proceedings before it had been easily accessible to the applicants, they had been speedy and had been conducted in the applicants\u2019 language and the compensation had been paid to them without any delay."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "22af72c1-6beb-4d22-aa4e-455dd828f528", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that the applicant cannot claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because she obtained a favourable ruling of the domestic court. They maintained that \u201cthe alleged violation of Article 6 was rectified by (...) dismissing the plaintiff's claim\u201d. The Government concluded, that the application should be declared incompatible ratione personae with the Convention. "], "obj_label": "34", "id": "be0de640-c64f-49b4-8ce8-f02c10d8fa2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 28 June 2004, she was still a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. She argued that the Constitutional Court had not responded to her complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to her length complaint. Moreover, the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d034e3e2-5ae9-43c2-bca0-afe69e2fba82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer be considered \u201cvictims\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because domestic courts had acknowledged violations of their rights and had provided them with redress. The Government argued that the amounts awarded to the applicants had been adequate, taking into account the duration and extent of the violation, the negative consequences suffered by the applicants, and the economic conditions in the country, as well as other relevant criteria."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d2637d4b-8aea-40e5-a490-764e0e460e3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government submitted that the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants could not claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts of which they complained. In support of their objections, the Government claimed that these applicants had not taken part in the previous criminal proceedings that had been declared void by the Supreme Court in view of the presiding judge\u2019s lack of impartiality."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "06245d30-8087-4591-a327-ac1c8484770e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["173.  The applicant also submitted that his representative had been refused permission to meet with him in the prison. The impossibility of meeting his representative had amounted to an infringement of the effective exercise of his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also argued that his representative had submitted a valid authority form to the Court and to the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f7c78b6e-9fca-455f-9760-6e6208619e43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government opened their argument with an assertion that it could not be inferred from Article <mask> of the Convention or \u201cfrom any other source\u201d that the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was legally binding. They further stressed that the Rules of Court, and accordingly the interim measure applied, did not have binding force on the State Party and that, accordingly, their failure to submit answers to the questions raised by the Court in its letter of 17 October 2014 did not entail a violation of Article 34, or of any other provision of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "9a96dbcb-bcb4-4142-a4cc-5dfb12fb2f28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government pointed out that the domestic proceedings had ended with a settlement which had been accepted by all parties and had been confirmed by the District Court. According to the terms of the settlement, the applicants had agreed to pay to the plaintiff EUR 17,000 each and had agreed not to take any legal action in the European Court with respect to the excessive length of the proceedings. The Government claimed that the applicants were thus no longer victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "735e5ac8-d9b3-4980-b7bf-5c4700d254d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55.  The applicant complained that the Government\u2019s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d6fcba5e-4c00-4c14-a830-c74140fc9fa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The Government submitted that the applicant had originally lodged his application against the Federal Republic of Germany. They were of the opinion that the application should have been communicated to the German Government with a view to enabling the Court to examine it in a comprehensive manner. The present case concerned the second compensation scheme in which the Polish Foundation had acted in conformity with the GFA. The Government maintained that the communication of the present application to the Polish Government was contrary to the applicant\u2019s will and in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "dc613268-6b94-4686-9101-24b6cb579254", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right of access to a court, and awarded him compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "850418cb-6f49-4854-9423-5aeeaa8bb05b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government argued that the application was already inadmissible. The applicant\u2019s complaints relating to the prosecution\u2019s failure to apply Article 456a of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2002/2003, raised in his initial application to the Court, were declared inadmissible by the Court on 20 February 2007 (application no. 30182/03) and were not the subject-matter of the present application. Furthermore, the applicant failed sufficiently to set out his present complaints in relation to the proceedings under Article 67c of the Criminal Code here at issue, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, when lodging his application with the Court, the applicant had not yet exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the proceedings concerning relaxations in the conditions of his detention, his admission to a social therapy and the suspension of the execution of his preventive detention in view of his deportation."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "eb451eed-1d0f-4ad2-be63-c48973d3a266", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government contested that argument. As regards the first proceedings, they claimed that the applicant could not be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect they pointed out, that the domestic courts not only accepted that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time but they significantly reduced his sentence solely on this ground. As regards the second proceedings, the Government submitted that they ended with the service of the final decision more than six months prior to the introduction of the application. As to the third proceedings, they claimed that the applicant contributed to the protraction of the case to a great extent."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b62907b6-5f5e-4a14-891e-ebbafbdb853e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The applicant unions observed that their constitutions provided that they should defend the interests of their members, professional athletes who, by definition, were included or liable to be included in the testing pool. FNASS and the unions stressed their legitimate claim to assert the interests of all athletes, who, acting for the most part individually, had no practical opportunity to put forward their grievances and arguments. The applicant unions submitted that their standing before the domestic courts should enable them to apply to the Court on the basis that they were responsible for the conditions in which sports were practised at national and international level; to decide otherwise would deprive them of an effective remedy. They argued that they should therefore be considered at least as potential victims for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "4adad144-2d8a-42df-8500-579c9d8df5ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant further maintained that he had not lost his status of victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Even though the Federal Court of Justice had found that his detention on remand had lasted an unreasonably long time, national law did not provide for adequate redress in this respect. In particular, his sentence had merely been mitigated by the Oldenburg Regional Court after the remittal of the case because of the protracted length of the criminal proceedings, irrespective of his prolonged detention on remand. It was altogether not comprehensible in how far his sentence had been reduced because of the violation of his Convention rights."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3bc7ce18-6734-46b4-8af1-baf55d3fd447", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["153.  The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had interfered with their ability to communicate with the Court effectively. They also pointed to a lack of interpreting services, which had further hindered their effective participation in the proceedings before the Court. Article 34 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "dbff8cf9-a4a8-40e6-a248-c685b591b90d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["107.  The applicants complained of several violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 99-101 above). They also noted that the Government had failed to present a copy of the investigation file into Mr Bekirski's death. The applicants argued that, had the file been presented to the Court, the latter would have had the opportunity to fully acquaint itself with all the facts of the case, including the complete statements of the numerous witnesses attesting to the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Bekirski after 30 August 1996 and the photographs graphically illustrating the injuries he had sustained as a result. In addition, it would also have been easy to clearly establish that the authorities had failed to carry out a prompt, effective and impartial investigation. Thus, the applicants argued that, by withholding a copy of the investigation file, the Government had obstructed and violated their right of petition guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. They reiterated the Court's position in similar such situations and referred to paragraph 77 of the judgment in the case of Velikova v. Bulgaria (no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000\u2011VI) which states as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3f3bd95a-8b22-4cdc-9344-7b9415f466a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government made a preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to submit \u201cany documents demonstrating that he had ever complained to the competent national authorities of the alleged violations of his rights and what [had been] their reply\u201d. They considered that he had thereby failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention and had not properly lodged an application in the sense of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. In this regard, the Government referred to Lord Woolf who in the Review of the Working Methods of the European Court of Human Rights recommended the Court to deal only with properly completed application forms which contained all the information required for the Court to process them. The Government pointed out that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention had been communicated only in 2009 and that the relevant documents had been destroyed after the expiry of the statutory storage period for archival documents."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a76cf034-d92a-4cc6-92ab-05aa86c2112d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this regard, they referred to a document issued by the director of the medical department of Gr\u012bvas prison, which indicated that the applicant had been diagnosed with a \u201cparanoid personality disorder with a querulous tendency\u201d. Taking this information into account, the Government submitted that the present application to the Court was \u201cone of the numerous complaints submitted by the applicant, containing imaginary information and facts since the applicant has a tendency to see himself as a victim\u201d. In conclusion, the Government requested the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "bce95b4f-3676-4303-b274-42eb5b2398f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["197.  The applicant further stressed that the extraordinarily precipitated enforcement of the deportation order against him and the fact that the authorities hid him from his lawyer on that day strongly contradicted the Government\u2019s assertion that the domestic bodies had not intended to act in breach of the interim measure and Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he contested their argument that the scope of the interim measure had been limited to extradition. He averred that it had been aimed at preventing the irreparable damage which he risked suffering if he was removed, in any form, to his country of origin, at allowing him to pursue the proceedings before this Court, and at securing him effective Convention protection."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c118de63-499f-4950-b4e0-78242deee71f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government appear to consider that this refusal has not been detrimental to the applicant branch. The Court recalls in this connection that the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable position is not a matter for Article <mask> of the Convention and the issue of damage becomes relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see, among many other authorities, Marckx, loc. cit.; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, \u00a7 66, Series A no. 51; and Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, \u00a7 38, Series A no. 185\u2011A)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "58a0cd74-e148-4eff-bb23-3e2c4343a545", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Supreme Court, when dealing with his cassation appeal, had acknowledged that there had been a violation of his right to marry within the meaning of Article 12. In its judgment of 27 May 2003 the Supreme Court expressly stated that the Krak\u00f3w District Court\u2019s refusal to grant the applicant leave to marry in the remand centre had amounted to a flagrant breach of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view, such an assessment made by the highest domestic judicial authority should be considered an acknowledgement of the Convention violation and a form of moral redress for the applicant."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ce677ce3-6bea-4a62-91c4-42e546fe9e04", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right of access to a court, and awarded him compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "78e748b6-5e04-4d2d-b58d-ab1c5f2987fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s lawyers had not lodged any request with the Psychiatric Hospital for information concerning the applicant\u2019s state of health and about the medical assistance provided to him. As regards an examination by a private doctor, the Government reiterated that the applicant received all necessary medical care from the Psychiatric Hospital doctors. The Government did not submit any observations in respect of the merits of the complaint, which was made by the applicant for the first time in his observations dated 31 March 2006. They made only a general submission in their observations on just satisfaction to the effect that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e6d453b5-7fd9-4071-adee-f51bd07e3270", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because on 4 January 2000 she obtained a favourable ruling of the domestic court. They further maintained that \u201cafter 4 January 2000 there was no longer a causal link between the duration of the proceedings and the frustration suffered\u201d. The Government concluded, that the application should be declared incompatible ratione personae with the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "03a0a35e-6308-470b-81e0-838d6ca4c971", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["75.  The Government asked the Court not to grant any pecuniary damage to the applicant, since no plausible pecuniary damage could have been caused from the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, should the Court find a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 34 in the present case, such a finding should constitute sufficient just satisfaction. With respect to the non-pecuniary damage claimed for the alleged violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 3 of the Convention, the Government submitted that it was speculative, excessive and unsubstantiated."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b4fa23a4-a94a-40e1-9d4e-e4dbfdd0ada2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government stated that the applicant had not complained that the search of her house had been unlawful or disproportionate, and thus arbitrary (contrast Ratushna v. Ukraine, no. 17318/06, \u00a7\u00a7 70-72, 2 December 2010). In the Government\u2019s submission, she had complained about the use of force against her, about her property being damaged and seized and about various procedural shortcomings during the search, such as the presence of unauthorised persons in her house and the failure to give her a copy of the search warrant. Therefore, in the Government\u2019s view, the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of her rights under Article 8."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "04dea908-cab0-4716-88b4-d9101da01034", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["152.  The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The Government further maintained that there was no breach of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since his application had been accepted for examination by the Court. As for the relevant domestic proceedings, he could have access to those materials of the investigation that could be produced to him at the present stage and, upon the completion of the investigation, to all the materials contained in the case file."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b86a7792-ecdf-425f-9604-2d60302a4a95", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government\u2019s argument may be interpreted as a claim that the applicant is no longer a \u201cvictim\u201d of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, or that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b). In both cases, the Court must ascertain that, in addition to an acknowledgement of the alleged violation of the Convention which is a required element for the determination of the applicant\u2019s victim status, the circumstances complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist and that the effects of the alleged violation have been redressed (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, \u00a7 44, ECHR 1999\u2011VI, and Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2007-I)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d4f121e6-6907-4530-acd2-5d10d587c31e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government argued that the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 was inadmissible on several grounds. Firstly, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as he had not claimed compensation for his detention under the State Liability Act 2003. Secondly, the application was manifestly ill-founded, as the guarantees of Article 5 \u00a7 1 had been complied with. Thirdly, and in any event, given the redress which the applicant obtained in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, he could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "dd6ac344-037e-4f93-8984-dcf6f76553f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case the above issue should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "66a9ee47-1cea-4be5-b46e-ca0c3cf9bcd1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the monitoring of his correspondence had amounted to a hindrance in the effective exercise of his right of application. He also complained, relying on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention, that he had not been allowed to contact his lawyer by phone. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 34 of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "bbf4c91a-652d-41a4-8076-25b6c6e98b6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government argued that an effective investigation had taken place and that, subsequently, the applicants were awarded compensation. Thus, they considered that the applicants were no longer victims under Article 2, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further maintained that Kamuran Alican and Ahmet Alican had failed to observe the six\u2011month rule prescribed by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8e39b0a5-843e-424d-ba3c-e298d972fe92", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government did not show that there was any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, \u00a7 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39, in breach of its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2269a956-58d3-4bc8-81c2-b46603168a30", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 25 November 2004, she was still a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. She argued that the Constitutional Court had not responded to her complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to her length complaint. Moreover, the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c55a81ea-5307-4b1b-ada4-4eb35b04309d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government argued that the first applicant\u2019s complaints should be declared inadmissible, since the Constitutional Court had awarded her a certain amount of money as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. They also implicitly indorsed the Constitutional Court\u2019s arguments in respect of the rejection of the first applicant\u2019s claim for pecuniary damages. The first applicant had thus, according to the Government, been provided with adequate redress and had lost her victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3d6250c4-bf7b-43a0-b59c-a6d753972d16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government did not demonstrate any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, \u00a7 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "90c4f6f6-bbe9-469a-911f-935a88600dce", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments of 27 October 2003, argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of any delays in the proceedings covered by those judgments. They argued that the just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court was not disproportionately low in the particular circumstances. In addition, the Constitutional Court had ordered the District Court to proceed with the cases without any further delay."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "474d3cab-b20c-4b81-8a95-0a788fd26e4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government raised an objection that the applicant cannot be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Court notes that this issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court's case-law (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, \u00a7\u00a7 69\u2011107, ECHR 2006\u2011... and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, \u00a7\u00a7 178\u2011213, ECHR 2006 - ...)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "387b5685-5645-4681-80f5-a03d6f97d6cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the prosecuting authorities had never instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. On the contrary, they had issued a non-prosecution decision in regard to a criminal complaint lodged against the applicant holding that the applicant\u2019s views were protected by his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "39d79732-4df6-47a2-a82b-046e4b1e255b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government maintained that the applicant lost his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d of an alleged violation of his right under Article 6 \u00a7 1 within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in its decision of 20 July 2000, the Federal Constitutional Court had found that the proceedings before the Saarland Court of Appeal, which had been pending since 1989, had lasted unreasonably long and had breached the applicant's Basic Law rights. Thereby, the Constitutional Court also implicitly established a violation of Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "90f1bf3a-32dd-4753-8340-ccd492b92e72", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government opened their argument with an assertion that it could not be inferred from Article <mask> of the Convention or \u201cfrom any other source\u201d that the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 was legally binding and that, accordingly, their failure to submit answers to the questions raised by the Court had not entailed a violation of Article 34, or any other provision of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "22908b6d-953b-49ec-ae5a-942e0fab1fa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 24 March 2004, he was still a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "cbd2349f-c1e2-4955-859b-96e3ac4afdeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["102.  The applicant submitted that she was subjected to threats in relation to her complaint to the Court, as a result of which she was forced to seek asylum abroad. She also argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case the above issues should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b1fbcc3d-3de0-40b9-b999-9df0a8310417", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right of access to a court, and awarded him compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d7f2e596-20fc-4e29-bbca-0fa601c4a34d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicants complained in reply that the fact that the Representative of the Russian Federation had concealed his close acquaintance with M.\u2019s father and had distorted relevant facts had amounted to a lack of cooperation and a hindrance to the exercise of his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant Convention provisions read as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "dac3a072-3d9b-4664-9da9-c55aaafcc755", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government raised several preliminary objections in their observations. First of all, they noted that the applicant had lived for one year in Northern Finland but had been back in his home town for more than eight and a half years. He had not raised the idea of moving away from his home town for a long time. There was no guarantee that a change of mentor would have led to a different outcome as far as the applicant\u2019s place of residence was concerned since another mentor would also have been obliged to safeguard his best interests. The applicant\u2019s allegation was thus purely hypothetical. Therefore the applicant could not, at least any longer, be considered as a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaint was thus incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1a71bd86-908d-4d1d-bc07-e28a1d78be16", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["146.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the administration of the Simferopol SIZO had refused to dispatch his letter of 30 August 2006 to the Court containing his complaints about the conditions of detention in that SIZO. He also complained under the same provision that the authorities had not provided him with copies of documents, which he intended to attach to his application form. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 34 of the Convention that the administration of the Simferopol SIZO had been turning off the light too early in the cells and that that practice had impeded the exercise of his right of application to the Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "7d83acd5-4923-4de3-aaad-1a55dddda0ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The applicant complained that the authorities had not reacted to his request for copies of documents which the Court had asked him to provide. He further complained that the prison administration had reviewed his letters to and from the Court in his presence, had failed to send or delayed in sending some of his letters to the Court and had withheld documents contained therein, which had put him at real risk of being subjected to psychological pressure and ill-treatment by prison staff and which had hindered his communication with the Court. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f7997be4-5842-42f6-bc86-2a89fc5444b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government contended that Ukraine had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant could have obtained copies of the necessary documents with the help of his relatives, with whom he had maintained contact, and that the situation in the present case was analogous to that of Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 2295/06, \u00a7\u00a7 96\u201197, 15 October 2009). They further argued that the Supreme Court had acted in accordance with the law; that the applicant should have submitted his requests to the Kyiv Region Court of Appeal, which had been the court of first instance in the applicant\u2019s case and thus could have provided the applicant with the requested documents; and that the applicant had not sought copies of documents pertinent to his allegations of police torture."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e2a9897f-353c-48da-b2aa-6c688b180f10", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government maintained \u2013 and the applicants disagreed \u2013 that Mr Marini\u0107 and Mr Had\u017ei\u0107 could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violations of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention following the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u201cConstitutional Court\u201d) of 21 December 2006. In respect of Mr Toki\u0107 and Mr Aliba\u0161i\u0107, the Government submitted that their applications should be dismissed because of their failure to complain to the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f9e10021-8ee6-4641-be01-c7d8b9864e82", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["242.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that on a number of occasions State officials had threatened him in connection with his complaints concerning the conditions of detention and medical assistance in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. In particular, he alleged that he had been approached by officials of the Department for the Execution of sentences and by prison officials on 25 and 27 January 2005, as well as on 14 and 17 February 2005. He claimed that the officials had questioned him with regard to his application before the Court and tried to force him to withdraw first his complaints related to the conditions of detention and then the allegations of having been threatened. The applicant also complained that prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence with his representative in connection with his application before the Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e40bee06-5526-47fe-91a7-d69263201ea3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that since the charges against the applicant were dismissed on appeal and the applicant received no criminal record, neither his professional life nor his freedom of expression was impaired by the criminal proceedings in issue."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0bb01a0e-776b-46d8-9e44-7d7fe7699e19", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government submitted that the individual applicants' property rights were limited by the contractual agreement they had concluded with the applicant company. The individual applicants' complaint about a breach of their property rights should have been directed towards the applicant company within the framework of the agreement they had concluded with it. Consequently, in the Government's view, the seven individual applicants could not be considered victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the individual applicants had not instituted any legal proceedings concerning the alleged violation of their property rights."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "cd24cdf1-0db1-4065-bf0e-6199653cb7ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government challenged the applicant\u2019s victim status. They pointed out that, by a decision of 3 October 2011, the Court of Impeachment had upheld the applicant\u2019s claim for dismissal in respect of counts 1.1 and 1.2 of the indictment and that, by its judgment of 23 April 2012, the court had acquitted him of counts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. Referring to the case of Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria ((dec.), nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003), the Government stated that an acquitted person or a person against whom criminal charges had been dismissed could not claim to be a victim of violations of the Convention. Therefore, the applicant could only claim to be a victim as regards complaints concerning count 2 of the indictment. Nevertheless, the Government invited the Court to consider whether he could claim to be a victim at all under Article <mask> of the Convention since he had not been sentenced to any punishment or payment of legal costs."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8e52c282-5022-4fd4-8c8f-4209fdbfa5fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The Government submitted that the applicant had ceased to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, by virtue of the fact that he had collected his entire claim for supplementary and indexed-linked pension, together with statutory interest and damages (see paragraph 23 above). Alternatively, the Government argued that the applicant had abused his right of petition given that he had failed to inform the Court of this fact, which was critical for the outcome of the proceedings before it."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1292eac1-088d-4232-b36d-0570ceb4c788", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["158.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that on a number of occasions State officials had exerted pressure on him in connection with his application lodged with the Court. In particular, he claimed that the officials had tried to force him to settle the case in return for a promise that he would be allowed to stay in the detention facility in the Udmurtiya Republic. He further complained that the prison administration had impeded the dispatch of his letters to his representative."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "693ee3e8-570e-4c65-8345-a48301cb0372", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicants submitted that, following the Court's admissibility decision in the present case, the Austrian Constitutional Court declared Article 209 of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional and that subsequently Parliament decided to repeal this provision. However, the Constitutional Court's judgment, which is based on other grounds than those relied on in the present application, has not acknowledged, let alone afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention. Moreover, their convictions still stood. The applicants therefore argued that they were still victims, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the violation alleged. Nor can it be said that merely repealing the contested legislation has resolved the matter within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "5780abe3-e3fb-45f7-b1eb-7c74778185c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because he himself had decided not to go to the funeral and had therefore not been affected by the conditions of transport in the prison van. The mere potential for a violation and the applicant\u2019s fear that his life would be endangered in the prison van were not sufficient."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "584142f0-ac06-470b-a4f1-6868616b6cb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The applicant further complained that he was hindered in the effective exercise of his right to make an application to the Convention organs. In this respect he noted that his letters of 8 October 1998 and 2 June 2000 had not been sent to Strasbourg. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the same article, he alleged that he lacked the means to buy envelopes and stamps to send correspondence to the Court. Finally, he alleged that he could not obtain copies of certain documents necessary to support his application. Article 34 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "634b0ab7-e9d4-4f56-bd60-b5af982c61cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government maintained that the applicant had lost the status of victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in its judgment of 11 September 2003, the Federal Court of Justice had expressly established and recognised a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings and the undue length of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand. In addition to that, the Oldenburg Regional Court, in its judgment delivered on 2 September 2004, had also expressly acknowledged that Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention had been violated. Furthermore, the said court had explicitly and measurably reduced the applicant\u2019s prison sentence from nine years to six years and six months, not only because of the excessive length of his proceedings, but also because of his prolonged detention on remand. In its decision delivered on 17 March 2005 the Federal Court of Justice had affirmed the Regional Court\u2019s fixing of the sentence. There had not been any further delays imputable to the judicial authorities which would have warranted a further reduction of the applicant\u2019s sentence."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "93a7a4cb-f8e2-48e3-bc3a-b18fc76dca89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant\u2019s inability during his treatment in hospital for several months to communicate in any way with his representative before the Court was found to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05, \u00a7 140, 27 March 2008). The Court concluded that the restrictions had made it almost impossible for the applicant to pursue his case before the Court; as a result, the application form had been completed by the applicant only after his discharge from the hospital."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "20e99fa7-72ae-49e4-a639-2b9f93adb5e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government referred to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 22 January 1997 in which it had refused to grant a further extension of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand on the ground that the previous period of his detention had been excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. They further referred to the fact that, following the applicant\u2019s conviction, the domestic authorities had included the period of his detention on remand in the prison term which the applicant had to serve. The Government concluded that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his rights under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d385cd3d-bf40-409c-b7a4-0cc546c29ea4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government submitted that there has been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had not been pressured, directly or indirectly, by the State in order to be dissuaded from pursuing his application before the Court. The delay referred to by the applicant was of a purely technical nature, a fact well-known to the Court which has encountered the same problem in many other cases against Serbia currently pending before it."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8dac15a7-f1fd-4850-a413-62958459b740", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government opened their line of argument with the assertion that the legally binding force of the interim measure issued under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may not be drawn from Article <mask> of the Convention or \u201cfrom any other source\u201d. They further stressed that the Rules of Court and accordingly the interim measure applied did not have a binding force on the State Party and that, accordingly, their failure to submit answers to the questions raised by the Court in its letter of 3 October 2013 did not entail a violation of Article 34 or any other provision of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2a2c5fc5-e992-4670-95fc-765a3105b494", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicant pointed out that his wife had been prevented from ending her life within the privacy of their family home, as originally planned by the couple, and instead he had been forced to travel to Switzerland to enable his wife to commit suicide. The Court had previously considered closest family members to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because of their close relationship to the person mainly concerned, if the interference had implications for the family member lodging the application. In the case at hand, the applicant and his wife had found themselves in a terrible situation, which also concerned the applicant as a compassionate husband and devoted carer. As the relationship between husband and wife was extremely close, any infringement directed against the rights and liberties of one partner was directed against the rights that were shared by both partners. It followed that each partner in the marriage was entitled to defend the joint rights and liberties of both partners and that the applicant was himself a victim of a violation of his Convention rights."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "84315288-1b70-4c3c-9d3c-84298997f6ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government emphasised that in the domestic proceedings before the County Court, the applicant\u2019s explicit position was that she intended in any event to leave the site when her parents left. In their view, it therefore followed that she was neither directly affected nor at risk of being directly affected by the order of 28 July 2006, which suspended possession for the period sought, or the statutory scheme under which it was made. According to the Government the applicant was now seeking to challenge the statutory scheme in abstracto. They therefore invited the Court to find that the applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0d7eed2f-9614-454b-8f14-7dac92f8a72d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government accepted that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour had taken place and submitted that at the relevant time there had been systematic delays in payments of similar payments due to the nation-wide changes in the system of distribution of budgetary allocations. They also argued that since the judgment has been enforced the applicant cannot be regarded as a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ec45ca4e-28cb-491b-81b0-b76d34d7e0fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government submitted that these complaints had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit established in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 9 September 2008 (see paragraph 36 above), on which the applicant had put much emphasis, had been the final domestic decision in respect of the complaints under Article 3. Therefore, the present application (lodged on 10 June 2009) was out of time."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "49b11178-c5ab-4ee8-8919-cb539ed60094", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government relied on the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 21 June 2011, and considered that by virtue of that judgment the applicant had lost his \u201cvictim\u201d status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of his rights under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. It was true that the Constitutional Court had granted the applicant no compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage. However, in the Government\u2019s submission, this was compatible with the Court\u2019s own approach in cases where it had found that the finding of a violation of applicants\u2019 Article 5 rights constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non\u2011pecuniary damage they had sustained."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1b68732e-1da9-4068-949c-f1c9c3409483", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["97.  The Government maintained in their submissions to the Grand Chamber that the applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because the case was lodged with the Court before Law no. 273 had been promulgated. Relying on O\u010di\u010d v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 46306/99, ECHR 1999-VIII), they further contended that the applicant\u2019s claim was an actio popularis seeking review of legislation in the abstract as at the time of his application to the Court, the Law in question had never been applied to him to his detriment. The cases to which the Chamber referred to support its conclusion that the applicant was a victim were distinguished by the Government because, in those cases, unlike in the present case, the Law being challenged had entered into force. Although the Court had considered an applicant a potential victim of an enacted Law which had never been applied to him, it had never before found an applicant to be a victim or a potential victim of a draft law. The Government relied on The Christian Federation of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in France v. France ((dec.), no. 53430/99, ECHR 2001-XI), where the Court observed that it had accepted the notion of a potential victim in cases where the applicant was not in a position to demonstrate that the legislation about which he complained had actually been applied to him because of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28); where a Law punishing homosexual acts was likely to be applied to a certain category of the population, to which the applicant belonged (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45); and, lastly, where the forced removal of aliens had already been decided on but not yet carried out and enforcement of the measure would have exposed the persons concerned to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the country of destination (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) or would have infringed the right to respect for family life (see Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234\u2011A). The Government argued that States Parties had not agreed when ratifying the Convention that draft laws could be challenged before the Court. If such challenges were possible, where there was no possibility at domestic level to challenge a draft law applicants would be encouraged to come directly to the Court, breaching the principle of subsidiarity and leading to a large increase in the number of cases before the Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8798a382-81e5-482e-be54-2872ff394b5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["69.  The applicant noted that he had received correspondence from the Court with significant delay and, further, that the envelope itself had already been opened by others. In this connection he suggested that this could either have been an \u201cinnocent mistake\u201d on the part of the Serbian postal services or a deliberate hindrance in the effective exercise of his right of petition to the Court within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of the latter proposition, the applicant recalled that the Serbian postal services were State-run, and emphasised that his application before the Court involved sensitive police-related issues."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "adb2bca4-d914-42d0-bcfe-37f77d012b22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant had obtained a decision of the Constitutional Court, which had found a violation of Article 5 of the Convention and ordered his release. Hence, he could not still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "82361280-30c9-4789-b34d-b7fd2869288b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government pointed out that in the judgment of 7 May 2003 the Constitutional Court had acknowledged that the District Court had violated the applicant\u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court had ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant\u2019s costs. In view of the applicant\u2019s conduct that decision provided appropriate redress to the applicant in the circumstances. The Government concluded that the applicant had lost the status of a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c60dae9f-37ea-447e-bdfa-b13c9cbd8581", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The applicants emphasised the clear consequences of the contested proceedings on their civil rights. Firstly, they pointed out that they all lived in Itoiz, where their immovable property was situated. Construction of the dam would result in flooding of this area and, consequently, of their homes and other assets. In addition, they submitted that, as members of the Coordinadora de Itoiz association since its formation in 1988, they had taken part in the proceedings with that association as their intermediary. They stressed the indisputable direct link between them and the damage that would be sustained from the dam's construction, and submitted that the remedy used was the only one which, if successful, would have allowed for the definitive protection of their civil rights and interests. In this connection, they stressed that they would have been acting unreasonably had each of them brought a separate individual appeal against the proposed dam and thus entered long and costly proceedings with the same final outcome as that achieved by the association. Moreover, it was clear that, from the outset, they had entrusted the association with the defence of their civil rights and interests. Indeed, this was the logical result of one of the association's stated aims, namely the \u201cdefence of an alternative way of life on the site\u201d. In conclusion, they contended that they could claim to be victims of a violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "6f152305-c314-4528-a316-5d735809ab89", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government submitted that the Regional Court had already expressly acknowledged that the period of inactivity between 30 January 2013 and 11 February 2015 had been in contravention of the principle of the rule of law. The applicant, however, had already been compensated for that delay by having had three months of the prison sentence declared as served. The court had thereby reduced the applicant\u2019s sentence in an express and measurable manner. The fact that the applicant had been given a prison sentence suspended on probation had not changed the fact that sufficient redress had been granted. In the event that the suspension of the sentence had been revoked, the applicant would have had to serve only five months instead of eight. Therefore, the mental strain of the sentence had been less severe. In addition, a condition of a suspended sentence was that compensation by means of a reduced sentence would only take effect if the suspension was revoked. In that regard, the consequences of the \u201cnew\u201d execution approach had been the same as those of the previous mitigation approach. As pointed out by the Federal Court of Justice in its judgment (see paragraph 33 above), under both approaches compensation would only be actually awarded if the suspension was revoked and the prison sentence then had to be executed. Furthermore, in determining the sentence the Regional Court had not only expressly reduced the sentence but had also taken into account, in the applicant\u2019s favour, the lengthy overall duration of the proceedings and the time that had elapsed since the criminal act. According to the Government, this had resulted in a quite lenient prison sentence of only eight months. Having regard to the above, the Government concluded that the applicant had already been compensated for the excessive length of the proceedings and could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b93e3861-86b1-458b-90a6-34cdbaf4acb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained that on many occasions the authorities had interfered with his correspondence with the Court. In particular, he alleged that his copies of documents concerning the criminal proceedings against him had been unlawfully confiscated by the prison administration, that the authorities had refused to send some of his letters, that the Court\u2019s letter of 28 June 2007 had been opened by an officer of the correctional institution and that he had not received many of the Court\u2019s letters. The Court decided to examine his complaint from the standpoint of the right of individual petition guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d1849d84-54a7-4382-bda2-9c4172be96bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 21 July 2004 the applicant had lost his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the violation of the applicant's right, that it had ordered acceleration of the proceedings and that this order had been effectively implemented. Furthermore, they considered that the reasons relied on by the Constitutional Court in its ruling dismissing the applicant's claim for just satisfaction and compensation in respect of costs and expenses were sufficient."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "410d4395-c0e5-44d9-836a-c058656faeee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the applicant company could not claim to be the \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts complained of. They observed that the Constitutional Court had indeed acknowledged a violation of the \u201creasonable-time\u201d principle and awarded the applicant company MTL 100 for non-pecuniary damage, thus providing adequate redress for the breach of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b099411c-8ca3-4d20-81fe-dfd2caa4acee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government contested the admissibility of this complaint on several grounds. First of all, they submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court because he had failed to provide relevant documents, to fill in an application form, and to inform the Court of the change of his address resulting from his transfer to a prison in Russia. Secondly, they contended that the applicant had not wished to pursue his application and invited the Court to strike it out of the Court\u2019s list of cases. Thirdly, they considered that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention. They did not, however, provide more detail with respect to this argument."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "212e282f-2f71-42b7-adb2-55079dc86bff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government contended that there had been no hindrance of the applicant\u2019s right of individual petition. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government stated that in order to find that the State failed to comply with requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant\u2019s allegations should be supported by facts and, in particular, the State\u2019s intention to hinder the applicant\u2019s right to lodge an individual petition should be demonstrated (see, among other authorities, Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts))."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "758ca2df-a66d-429c-8a08-3cb26c894069", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["150.  The applicant\u2019s representatives complained that by repatriating the applicant or by aiding his repatriation to Tajikistan despite the interim measure issued by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Russia had failed to comply with its undertaking under Article <mask> of the Convention not to hinder the applicant in the exercise of his right of individual application."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "9863a4b4-90d4-4053-b0b2-d12f4607e468", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant agreed that the complaint was to be examined under Article 8. He nevertheless considered that the incident was also incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention in that the reading by prison staff of letters from the Court which might concern allegations against prison authorities or prison officials could create the risk of reprisals by prison staff against the prisoner concerned. In this regard the applicant referred to the case of Klyakhin v. Russia (no. 46082/99, \u00a7 118, 30 November 2004)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "97507087-272f-4428-a399-eedd9303b80b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government stressed that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/01, 17 September 2002). Accordingly, as the decision of 16 June 1998 had been executed, the applicant can no longer be considered a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1. They therefore proposed that the application be declared inadmissible or struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8a6fa4ca-5f89-4c16-83ec-f4397e59e03d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government submitted that Mrs Sardaryan could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. In particular, they pleaded that no \u201ccivil rights and obligations\u201d of Mrs Sardaryan had been determined in the divorce and in rem proceedings between her parents."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "5de840ef-faab-48a1-88bc-8160d7e1a966", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["55. The Government submitted that, in light of the agreement on post-adoption contact of 30 March 2007, the applicants were no longer victims for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. They had received contact on the terms recommended by Professor Triseliotis and had not been prejudiced by the approach taken by the Trust, which found suitable adopters who agreed to post-adoption contact. The agreement had worked as intended so the applicants had been afforded all that they could reasonably have wanted or expected."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "859f76bb-3455-437a-8680-a040eca32661", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The Government also noted that the Constitutional Court had concluded that the Convention had been violated, although in respect of a different provision of the Convention from Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The applicant had received certain satisfaction and therefore was not a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government added that more than seven and a half years had passed since the applicant\u2019s release from custody."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "123aab1e-2c79-4ef7-9a7c-72d456f69107", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["136.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been prevented from exercising his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, he was able to do so only through his mother \u2013 his official guardian. Since his mother had never asked Mr Bartenev (the lawyer) to represent her son, he was not his legal representative in the eyes of the domestic authorities. Consequently, the authorities acted lawfully in not allowing him to meet the applicant in hospital."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a22a2637-337c-4043-958d-ebefdef4272b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 28 April 2004, they were still \u201cvictims\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002-II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a35eb6e8-b4fb-40af-a6f8-41704ff6efb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government argued that in so far as the Regional Court had already found a delay in the proceedings, the excessively long duration of the proceedings had already been acknowledged and redressed. In addition, the Regional Court had also taken into account the long duration of the proceedings when determining the applicant\u2019s criminal sentence. Therefore, the applicant had lost the status of victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "99a0f084-fb47-4fb0-ab3d-a9d29cc13508", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["197.  The applicant complained that he had been hindered in the exercise of his right of individual application in that his lawyers in Amsterdam had not been permitted to contact him after his arrest and that the Government had delayed in replying to the Court's request for information. He alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f6cd6cab-3d9d-4b61-a9e2-6f508fca7c49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government maintained that the application in the present case had not been lodged by the alleged victim of the Convention violation, namely the applicant\u2019s husband, who had died on 15 April 2002 before the final decision of 24 April 2002 of the Supreme Court. The Government argued that the widow did not have the requisite standing under Article <mask> of the Convention and therefore the application must be rejected as being incompatible ratione personae pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "bb6a8c99-342e-47d5-b0b3-b5e60f9e52af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government submitted that, in line with the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/01, 17 September 2002). Accordingly, as the sum of the award has been deposited with the Bailiffs\u2019 Service and will be transferred to the applicant, provided he informs the Bailiffs about his banking details, the judgment of the Bagaliyskyy Court of 18 December 2000 has been enforced and the applicant can no longer be considered a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1bf861a6-b17f-46cd-be28-34985cefca70", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government submitted that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violation of the Convention because he had not requested that the national authorities recognise him as a victim during the domestic criminal proceedings even though he was not precluded from doing so and such recognition would have significantly expanded his procedural rights. Although the Government accepted that victim status in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention was not necessarily the same as the national criteria relating to locus standi in legal proceedings, its purpose was to provide practical safeguards for persons who were not able to seek redress under domestic law for violations of their Convention rights. This was not the applicant\u2019s case, as he had had an available domestic remedy for the complaints raised before this Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3f9d2103-678a-4549-a8ad-97304d9c32ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints should not be examined by the Court, as he had not observed the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. They contended that although the applicant had sent a letter to the Registry on 30 August 2006, he had never submitted a duly completed application form."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "558ff621-af23-4817-949b-27673180419b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["110.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the events of which they complained. They disputed the existence of a genuine risk that the applicants would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of their return to Libya. That danger had to be assessed on the basis of substantial grounds relating to the circumstances of each applicant. The information provided by the parties concerned was vague and insufficient."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1177eb35-1896-4add-bc04-39e7dd432212", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant lastly complained that on 20 January 2006, when delivering him a letter from the Registry of the Court, a prison guard had started opening the envelope, and when the applicant objected had made the applicant open the envelope himself in the presence of the guard, who had threatened him with having his cell searched if he refused. In its partial inadmissibility decision of 9 February 2010 the Court had erroneously indicated that the events described had taken place in Jelgava Prison. The applicant was transferred to Jelgava Prison only on 6 April 2006. Thus the applicant\u2019s complaint pertains to events in the Central Prison. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court decided to communicate the complaint under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant, read as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "be94dff0-2919-438c-a9ce-a70935247efe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["141.  The Government contested the applicants\u2019 submissions. They stated that in the course of the investigation the first and fifth applicants had been questioned with regard to their application before the Court. During the questioning on 25 October 2005 the first applicant had stated that neither he nor other members of his family had applied directly to the Court, but that he had applied to human rights organisations. The fifth applicant, questioned on 26 October 2005, had stated that she had not applied to any organisations in connection with her brother\u2019s abduction. The search for her brother had been conducted by her father. The Government clarified that in the reply of 12 April 2006 the Prosecutor\u2019s Office of the Chechen Republic referred to two transcripts of the first applicant\u2019s questioning on 21 and 26 October 2005, when no questions concerning the application before the Court had been put to him. They averred that all transcripts had been authentic and accurate and reflected the applicants\u2019 statements made during the questioning. The Government argued that there was no interference with the applicants\u2019 right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "28c8ece7-fcb1-4cc9-8249-cef0c89bd6aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["87.  The Government submitted that on 17 June 2015 the Constitutional Court had found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 as regards the period of the applicant\u2019s detention between 21 March 2013 and 14 March 2014 (see paragraph 43 above). The applicant could therefore no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to that period."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1f4e8a71-de2d-4e67-9598-655b7a426405", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The applicant argued that the Government\u2019s failure to ensure he have a medical examination to answer the questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "898b1c12-32b6-4787-b47c-7c516bc57bbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because the domestic courts had acknowledged the violation of Article 8 and had granted her adequate redress. The Government also contended that the complaint had the nature of an actio popularis by which the applicant was seeking a review in abstracto of the contested legislation in the light of the Convention. Finally the Government claimed that the application was manifestly ill-founded because the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies for the breach of her right to privacy."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "fc04e101-b73d-4add-abb4-e35ba2e0621a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that the applicants had entered Turkish territory illegally and had been deported to Iraq, where they had come from, pursuant to the national legislation prior to their arrest on 21 June 2008. They maintained that, despite this, the applicants did not have victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention as no deportation order was issued in their respect."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0a01387f-a6e7-4fa6-9bd7-1f6724367e85", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants' constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded them compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicants had lost their victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "34039d83-3b81-401f-a49f-8bd7c1bc588a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government argued in the first place that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant had failed to lodge an appeal against the Buca District Governor\u2019s decision, dated 28 December 2001, not to prosecute the gendarme officers. They also maintained that the application must be dismissed for failure to comply with the six-month rule. Furthermore, they contended that the applicant could not be considered as a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention as no medical examination had been performed on her since she had not given her consent."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b1227232-7706-45b0-8611-4dbb61fdb893", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["20.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had provided the applicant with preventive and compensatory redress. The Government considered this redress adequate and sufficient."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1fca74cd-ace8-4901-82b6-2ee7065fd1dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["140.  The applicant complained that his extradition to the United States had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court in accordance with Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, and that the extradition had therefore amounted to a violation of his right of individual petition. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "4053f415-b44a-434b-a6c2-ca143d2d181b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government submitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the applicant had requested leave from the Hague Regional Court to join a pending civil action in tort brought by another former EBI detainee claiming, inter alia, compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of having been subjected to allegedly humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches in the EBI. Furthermore, if the applicant were to be awarded any compensation in those proceedings, he could no longer be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were therefore of the opinion that the application should be declared inadmissible."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "99e5bfd4-058f-42e6-9969-79694e146351", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government relied on the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 24 September 2014, and considered that by virtue of that judgment the applicants had lost their \u201cvictim\u201d status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as the applicants claimed to have been awarded insufficient compensation by the Constitutional Court, the Government further submitted that they had failed to comply with the requirement of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies, since they had failed to claim damages under the State Liability for Damage Act (Law no. 514/2003 Coll., as amended - \u201cthe SLD Act\u201d)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "820e0bc4-8cca-4a12-97d5-c85b6117bbfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The applicant argued that, as in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien], cited above, he could still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to him, the alleged violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8 had already occurred by the time the Administrative Court gave judgment. At the hearing he explained that at the time of his arrest and removal he had just turned 18, and as a result, under French law he should have had until June 2007 to regularise his situation (see paragraphs 26 and 27 above). He had nevertheless been expelled and obliged to run the risk of paying a smuggler to return him to French Guiana illegally."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "393b6c65-a30f-4f3a-83d4-b52a761986c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 7 July 2004, he was still a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c90fe673-8823-4c8e-8be4-5dd210f71464", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment (n\u00e1lez) of 29 April 2004 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the infringement of the applicant\u2019s right of which he complained before the Court. The Constitutional Court further provided the applicant compensatory redress. The Government considered this redress adequate and sufficient and maintained that it was compatible with the relevant principles and practice of both the Constitutional Court and the Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f3786297-afab-4598-8379-1ce67476efb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The applicant argued that it was unjust for the Government now to seek to rely on a point that they had agreed not to advance during the domestic proceedings, during which they had conceded it was irrelevant to the issues of principle at stake. She objected strenuously to the attempt to re-introduce the issue before the Court. The applicant further argued that the notion of victim under Article <mask> of the Convention was without reference to detriment, prejudice or damage. This was a matter for consideration under Article 41, in the event of the Court holding that there had been a violation of Convention rights. Even supposing that the material disadvantage in her case had ultimately been reduced \u2013 which she did not concede \u2013 she argued that the basis for her complaint was that the child support system offended her dignity by ignoring a most important and intimate aspect of her private life and personality. This was not excused or justified by the operation of a mechanism that was entirely unconnected to the alleged discrimination."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "00ea2616-8761-4281-86f6-22c9290e8118", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["94.  The applicant also complained under Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1(a) and (c), 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2, 3(b) and (d), 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he had been detained arbitrarily and unlawfully, that the proceedings had been unfair, and that he had been discriminated against due to his status. He also submitted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his property rights, including a right to an old age pension and security of his assets, had been breached and under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been provided with copies of properly certified and signed copies of the domestic courts\u2019 decisions. He further referred to Article 13 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 in so far as his appeals had not been examined in due time. Relying on the provisions of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and without referring to any provision of the Convention, the applicant also complained about the refusal to grant him a pension."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3b233fd3-8f94-4647-b960-986ce464165e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of the alleged violation of Article 6, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as it was the Voskhod company, and not the applicant in his personal capacity, who had been a claimant in the proceedings before the commercial courts. In this respect they referred to the cases of F. Santos Lda. and Fachadas v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 49020/99, 19 September 2000), and Pires da Silva and Pereira v. Portugal (no. 19157/91, Commission decision of 5 July 1993), stating that a person cannot complain of a violation of his or her rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party, despite the fact that she or he was a shareholder and/or executive director of a company which was a party to the proceedings."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "4de9216d-9330-46c9-b1cb-cb8b4c276cc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government opened their argument with an assertion that it could not be inferred from Article <mask> of the Convention or \u201cfrom any other source\u201d that the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 was legally binding. They further stressed that the Rules of Court, and accordingly the interim measure applied, did not have binding force on the State Party and that, accordingly, their failure to submit answers to the questions raised by the Court did not entail a violation of Article 34, or of any other provision of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "4d2752b3-c1ea-424c-b451-0e1fe1ad78c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["131.  The applicants argued that the Government\u2019s failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case the above issue should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "776fc16c-b0ee-4072-a83e-7996f3441dee", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["101.  The applicant claimed 65,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage in relation to the suffering and mental distress caused to her by her husband\u2019s disappearance and the violation of her right to respect for her home. In addition, in the event that the Court found a breach of the State\u2019s obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention the applicant sought an award of EUR 10,000 for herself and an equal amount for each of her two sons and for her nephew."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "08915bbd-49bf-4947-8ac4-7e336429ee2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The Government contested that argument. They firstly submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Government noted that the applicant ought to have lodged complaints with a prosecutor\u2019s office or with the Prison Administration. In this regard, the Court observes that a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention is of a procedural nature and therefore does not give rise to any issue of admissibility under the Convention (see Ponushkov v. Russia, no. 30209/04, \u00a7 78, 6 November 2008). The Government\u2019s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is therefore misconceived."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "eae95da3-cb00-45dc-adb2-f0f94e2f7fad", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant argued that the situation was analogous to the case of Amirov (cited above) in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention following the Government\u2019s failure to comply with an interim measure imposed under Rule 39. As in the Amirov case (ibid.), the Russian authorities had again failed to comply with an order by the Court to provide an expert opinion by independent medical specialists assessing the applicant\u2019s state of health."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "062e53e5-91b6-41a3-b9c9-a2769e65e11b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right of access to a court, and awarded them compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2da32626-77f4-4bb0-8012-89f7315f939b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["54.  The applicant further maintained that the case-law of the Court was clear on the point that the concept of \u201cvictim\u201d under Article <mask> of the Convention should be interpreted broadly. The Government\u2019s argument that he had not been sentenced to punishment was unfounded, as his conviction of a criminal offence had entailed various other legal consequences. Also, given the political nature of the proceedings, the severity of the sentence was not the key issue. Rather, the important elements were that the case had been brought against him and that he had been convicted for a punishable offence. In this respect, the applicant referred to the case of L\u00fcdi v Switzerland (no. 12433/86, 15 June 1992)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "7c5e3953-368c-4abb-9749-b950efa70e15", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["86.  The Government contended that there was no breach of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since his application had been accepted for examination by the Court. They further argued that they had complied with their obligations under Article 38 \u00a7 1 (a), as they had furnished the Court with copies of the main procedural documents and provided information on investigative measures taken in the case. The Government reiterated that the submission of the entire case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d069ad03-9bd1-456b-b047-356dbb2a6d83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out, in view of the fact that the civil proceedings had been stayed pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings, that the domestic courts had acknowledged a violation of his right to a trial within reasonable time, adopted their decisions within the relevant time-limit ordered by the higher court and awarded the applicant sufficient compensation."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c06c36f7-a503-42d4-b376-3755b51d96ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The applicant disagreed and insisted that her application, together with the enclosed documents, had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. She had submitted the relevant available documents which, according to her, were the search warrant and the final decision dismissing her complaints. The latter document as well as the Ombudsman\u2019s opinion contained a sufficient summary of her complaints at the national level."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f1cdb419-2bc6-4959-9460-3e83233fb2e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because, despite his allegations to the contrary, he had seen his lawyer on 13 March 2003 prior to his questioning by the police, albeit briefly. In the alternative, the Government asked the Court to reject this complaint for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on the ground that the applicant had failed to raise it before the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "78c5ac56-9689-4487-8f00-e47a85d3442d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["142.  The Government submitted that Mr Voskoboynikov had applied to the Court on behalf of the applicant on 9 February 1998. According to the Government, the applicant had said that he had not met Mr Voskoboynikov a single time in his statement of 27 October 1998 to the Prosecutor General. Moreover, in his of 25 February, 29 April and 27 October 1998 to the Prosecutor General, he had not made any complaints concerning his detention conditions or medical care. The Government therefore contended that the applicant did not have the status of a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "23e5b0fe-2c63-4eb3-b3ef-0e4d2ae535ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["64.  The applicant complained that the authorities had refused to provide him with the copies of the documents which he needed to substantiate his complaint before the Court. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, \u00a7\u00a7 114 and 126, 20 March 2008), the Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "dd781305-dc44-4fe0-8c12-303a53ce0602", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["178.  The applicant\u2019s representatives reiterated their submission that the applicant\u2019s forcible removal to Uzbekistan would not have been possible without the authorisation, or at least acquiescence, of the Russian authorities; thus, that removal had been performed in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. By failing to comply with the interim measure, the respondent State had violated its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ac69565b-2683-4c1f-aece-0173dae94a77", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The applicant complained that in February 2006 domestic authorities had questioned him in connection with his application to the Court and urged him to testify that his submissions to the Court had been untrue. He further complained that the authorities had put pressure on Mrs Gasanova, his mother, Mrs Lisina, his acquaintance and Mr Ya., his former counsel. The Court will examine this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "72ba7403-8b27-418c-9d9e-6b32f14af5ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government argued that the time to be taken into in consideration in the present case should be only as regards the part of the proceedings conducted against the applicant and not the company. In the Government\u2019s view the continuation of the proceedings against an owner of a company constitutes \u201csingular legal succession\u201d. Taking into account the part of the proceedings against the company for the examination of the complaint brought by the applicant would therefore be in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the Government the duration of the part of the proceedings conducted against the applicant and not the company was not excessive (five years at two levels, see paragraph 15 et seq. above). The Government proposed that the Court should reject the application as manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e9070570-1472-47a0-95ec-66a6c3a794c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, he could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant's constitutional complaint thoroughly and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded complied fully with the Constitutional Court's practice on the point. Moreover, the proceedings before it had been easily accessible to the applicant, they had been speedy and had been conducted in the applicant's language and the compensation had been paid to him without any delay."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "baa42177-b258-40da-af6c-1ae8f3f1714a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government argued that Ms Ljiljana Simovi\u0107, Mr Kazimir Juri\u0107, Mr Abdulah Burek, Mr Amer Sunulahpa\u0161i\u0107, Ms Nasira Kurtovi\u0107, Mr Nidaz Ugarak, Mr Jasmin Hod\u017ei\u0107 and Ms Jasmina Mezild\u017ei\u0107 had submitted their applications outside the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The final decision concerning their complaints was taken by the Constitutional Court on 17 September 2014. The Government further submitted that Mr Hod\u017ei\u0107 and Ms Mezild\u017ei\u0107 could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the fact that they had settled their claims with the cantonal government."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "35fdb157-3b67-42e1-84a8-ac79624b7eaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["63.  The applicant complained that the Government had not complied with its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention in the context of the interim measures indicated to it under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to provide the applicant with adequate medical care. However, in the light of the Court\u2019s findings concerning the adequacy of the medical care administered to the applicant (see paragraphs 44-48 above), the respondent State cannot be considered to have failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b82f167f-19d8-4d49-9343-3c8415c6a1d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["103.  The Government further objected that the first and second applicants had lost their victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in view of the redress which (i) the second applicant had obtained in the context of the civil proceedings, and (ii) both the first and second applicants had obtained from the Constitutional Court in respect of the alleged breach of their procedural rights under Article 3 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a99d2709-9e9e-4e9e-a55c-bd5d1f1c6195", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded him compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "48164728-c1fc-4839-863f-8e41a7eb0a1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["162.  The Government reiterated their submission (see paragraph 121 above) that the essence of the applicant\u2019s complaints had been his relationship with his wife and not \u201chis continued incapacitation\u201d. He could not therefore claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, he had failed to lodge an appeal against the 17 May 2000 judgment or to ask for a restoration of the time-limit for the appeal. The Government considered that these remedies were still available to the applicant."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ee062ea1-73ae-4000-b2b6-d04c9d34cb98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The applicant submitted that he was a victim under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the revocation of his Maltese citizenship threatened the very basis of his ability to reside in Malta. He was directly affected by the impugned measure, in line with the Court\u2019s case-law. In this connection, he referred to Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland (28 March 1990, \u00a7 47, Series A no. 173). The applicant submitted that even though a deportation or removal order was not in force, the threat of such an order was imminent. Indeed, the Government had not stated that a deportation or removal order would not be issued and had expressed the view that following the annulment of his first marriage, \u201cthe applicant\u2019s stay in Malta was precarious\u201d. It was probable that no such action had been taken by the authorities only because they had been informed that the case was pending before the Court and that therefore no further steps were to be taken. The applicant submitted that once the Maltese Government had accepted that he could establish his second family in Malta, as he had in fact done, any subsequent curtailment of his status in Malta would directly affect that family life."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2bebc9f0-53d9-4449-be1b-5e4ec0c47bcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government argued that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 16 April 2003, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the infringement of the applicant's right and had provided him with preventive and compensatory redress. This redress was adequate and sufficient and it was compatible with the principles and practice of both the Constitutional Court and the Court. The Government emphasised the accessibility of the procedure before the Constitutional Court to the applicant and the promptness with which the Constitutional Court had dealt with his complaint and with which the just satisfaction had been paid to him."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f274b5bc-d78a-496d-976a-e7e787daa5a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["108.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of its rights under the Convention to the extent that its complaints were directed against the CRTA\u2019s decisions in cases nos. 18/2000(3) and 113/2000(3), which had been annulled by the Supreme Court and the amount paid as a fine by the applicant refunded. This applied to both the judicial review proceedings and the civil proceedings"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a34e4cdd-f700-42c1-8e40-f685711e65cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government argued that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's judgments of 8 December 2004 and 14 January 2005, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the infringement of the applicant's right and had provided him with preventive and compensatory redress. This redress was adequate and sufficient and it was compatible with the principles and practice of both the Constitutional Court and the Court. The Government emphasised the promptness with which the Constitutional Court had dealt with the applicant's complaints, submitted that further to the Constitutional Court's injunctions for acceleration of the proceedings there had no longer been any delays and concluded that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d0704633-8a7c-4c06-a5e0-9a3071375287", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 24 March 2004, he was still a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2935a42c-8489-4359-9381-c441fcc56f14", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["80.  The applicant asked the Grand Chamber to uphold the Chamber's judgment, which had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He considered that by transferring him to the prison hospital, the respondent Government had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. The Government Agent and the trial court had \u201cdeliberately disregarded the interim measure\u201d, as had the medical authorities. There was sufficient evidence of the untruth of the Agent's assertion that he had taken action aimed at complying with the interim measure as early as Friday 11 November 2005."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "807d32fd-d80d-4327-9b72-3b09d9cc43c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The Government contended that Ukraine had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that while a copy of the judgment convicting the applicant had been issued to the applicant\u2019s wife upon her request (see paragraph 32 above), neither the applicant nor his relatives had lodged a written request with the courts for a copy of his appeal in cassation. The Government further stated that during the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant had been assisted by several lawyers who had been given the opportunity to make copies of all documents included in the case file. The Government also noted that a copy of the applicant\u2019s appeal in cassation had been joined to their observations on the case."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1298a454-d310-4cef-a06c-78df6eb39936", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their opinion, the domestic courts had acknowledged that there had been a breach of the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by the Convention and he had been awarded proper compensation for the damage he had sustained. Additionally, the Government noted that the applicant had not appealed against the first\u2011instance judgment, which had deprived him of victim status. The Government requested that the application be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention and rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c28cbec3-03b3-4624-810f-b0c57e5fdbf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["277.  The applicant\u2019s representatives contested the Government\u2019s arguments, pointing out that the facts of the present application were different in crucial respects from the aforementioned case of Cruz Varas and Others, since in Cruz Varas the applicant had remained at liberty and had been able to contact his representatives before the Court. In the present case, on the contrary, the applicant had been transferred to Uzbekistan against his will, there had existed a serious risk of him being subjected to arrest and torture in the detention of the destination country, his whereabouts had remained unknown, and he had been deprived of any opportunity to contact his representatives or otherwise to participate in the Court proceedings. To that extent, the facts of the present case were similar to Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], (nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, \u00a7\u00a7 128-29, ECHR 2005\u2011I), where a violation of Article 34 was found in similar circumstances. Referring further to the recent cases of Abdulkhakov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 222-31), and Zokhidov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 201-11), they maintained that the respondent State had failed to comply with the interim measure, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0d267615-ac21-4208-9897-92a07484a1d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government further disputed the applicant\u2019s victim status as regards his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued with reference to the certificates of 20 March and 13 June 1996 (see paragraph 27 above) that the mill complex and petrol station had been registered in the company\u2019s name rather than in that of the applicant, whereas under the Court\u2019s case-law only the person directly affected by the act or omission at issue may claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this latter respect they relied on the case of Nosov v. Russia (no. 30877/02, decision of 20 October 2005)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e440ac89-dcd3-4116-9e27-1dadc0913d01", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because the domestic courts had acknowledged a violation of his rights and had provided him with monetary compensation. The Government argued that the amount awarded to the applicant had been adequate, taking into account the duration and extent of the violation, the negative consequences suffered by the applicant, and the economic conditions in the country, as well as other relevant criteria."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0e9c4694-14b1-4577-8601-a5411a0d3743", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant also complained under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that the courts had incorrectly determined the merits of her counterclaim, that the lay judges had been appointed in violation of Russian law, and that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Lastly, she alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that by bringing his claim against the applicant, the prosecutor had unlawfully interfered with her possessions. Lastly, she alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that the resumption of the criminal proceedings against her was aimed at intimidating her."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "7157d88f-6075-4d2b-8112-e2988cee69ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["151.  The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The Government further maintained that there was no breach of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since her application had been accepted for examination by the Court. As for the relevant domestic proceedings, she could have access to those materials of the investigation that could be produced to her at the present stage and, upon the completion of the investigation, to all the materials contained in the case file."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f8d2771d-793e-4df3-9bb1-c63a4799c056", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants' constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right of access to a court, and awarded them compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicants had lost their victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "94e8795c-d47c-4e66-82fe-c11d1b79affc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["51.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d in terms of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that an applicant could be considered a victim only if the State had already decided to take steps against him, and interference would come about only upon the execution or implementation of that decision. In the present case, despite the lack of any interim measure by the Court, no removal order was awaiting execution or implementation, as no such order had been issued, and no practical steps had been taken by the authorities in order to remove the applicant from Malta. The Government referred to Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France (27 August 1992, \u00a7 46, Series A no. 241\u2011B), in which the Court had distinguished the applicants\u2019 case from that of the applicant in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 161), since in the former case no expulsion order had been made in respect of the applicants. They explained that deprivation of Maltese citizenship did not mean that the person so deprived would be removed from Malta. In order for the person to be removed from Malta, a removal order would have to be issued. Such an order had not been issued in the case of the applicant in the present case."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8bd5f98c-2cc8-4aec-997b-81ca38fcd865", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant argued that pursuing civil proceedings would not be effective in her case. To date, there had been no final judgment of a Polish court in a case in which compensation had been awarded for damage to a woman\u2019s health caused by a refusal of a therapeutic abortion allowed under the 1993 Act. She emphasised that the two cases referred to by the Government post-dated her petition to the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention. Importantly, they were immaterial to her case because they concerned situations fundamentally different from the applicant\u2019s, both as to the facts and law: one related to a claim for damages arising from the unlawful refusal of an abortion where the pregnancy had been caused by rape; the second concerned a claim for damages arising from the refusal of a prenatal examination."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "05b81597-407d-4d2b-907f-56d02907d22f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant argued that the Government\u2019s failure to provide her with immediate access to the entire range of drugs available for cancer patients or to transfer her to a civilian medical institution was a breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated her right to individual application. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "21a97f83-b7b5-4552-ad39-061925e377cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicants replied that the constitutional complaint was not an effective remedy for alleged violations of the right of access to a court. In particular, the Constitutional Court had not responded to the first applicant's complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to his length complaint. Furthermore, the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II). For these reasons, the first applicant was still a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention of the alleged violation, and the second applicant had not had to lodge a constitutional complaint in order to exhaust domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "9432f826-5280-44a9-acfb-d71f263d6e18", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be the victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the alleged violation of her property rights on account of the investigating authorities\u2019 negligence. They pointed out that the domestic commercial courts had examined the applicant\u2019s relevant claim and had explicitly acknowledged, at two higher levels of jurisdiction, that the negligent actions of Mr S., the investigator in charge of the criminal case concerning misappropriation of property belonging to the applicant\u2019s company, had resulted in the loss by the company of that property, and had awarded it compensation for pecuniary damage as well as reimbursement of costs and expenses. As regards the awarded amount, the Government argued that the Federal Commercial Court of the North-Caucasus Circuit was justified in reducing the initial amount awarded to the applicant\u2019s company; the new amount had been calculated on the basis of the price at which the applicant\u2019s company had intended to sell the sugar before it had been lost, and had taken into account the intended profit. The Government also pointed out that the applicant\u2019s company had not alleged before the commercial courts that it had sustained any non-pecuniary damage in connection with the investigator\u2019s negligence and had not lodged a claim to that end; it had only sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage in respect of damage to its business reputation, which claim had been rejected in the absence of any causal link with the established negligence. The Government further stressed that the awarded amounts had been paid to the applicant\u2019s company in full. Lastly, they argued that Akvilon had received back the equivalent of the amount of sugar lost, as on 6 August 2002 it had been transferred to the company for safe storage. Along with the amount awarded later by the commercial courts, that had constituted, in the Government\u2019s view, double compensation."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "181b9ce1-665c-43b6-80c6-30ee6063fdfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["132.  The applicant\u2019s representative complained that, by expelling the applicant before the examination of his appeal against the removal order, and despite the measure indicated by the Court on 24 October 2006 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under the Convention. The Court considers that that complaint gives rise to an issue of whether the respondent State is in breach of its undertaking under Article <mask> of the Convention not to hinder the applicant in the exercise of his right of individual application."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "fd45580a-5197-4067-99ef-a25d61fcedd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The applicant further complained that on 17 October 2007 the administration of correctional colony no. IK-7, where he was serving a prison sentence, had failed to dispatch his application form to the Court. He relied on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "6f1fff26-4ee1-4efe-8989-972ad52c5767", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["56.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts of which they complained. The applicants had asserted, without providing official identity papers in support of their claims, that they had taken part in the assault on the Melilla border crossing at dawn on 13 August 2014 and had recognised themselves on the video footage which they supplied (see paragraph 14 above). Basing their assertions on expert assessments, the Government criticised the poor quality of the video recordings in question, which in their view made it impossible to compare the footage with the photos in the official identity archives that had been checked when the applicants had entered Spanish territory subsequently. Furthermore, even assuming that the persons visible in the video footage were indeed the applicants, the latter had ceased to have victim status in so far as, a few months later, they had succeeded in entering Spanish territory unlawfully via the same border crossing and had been the subject of expulsion orders issued in the context of proceedings which, in the Government\u2019s submission, had been attended by all the necessary safeguards. Moreover, neither of the applicants had applied to the Spanish authorities for international protection before applying to the Court. Only N.D. had done so subsequently, despite the fact that, when they had entered Spain unlawfully after the events in the present applications, both applicants had been assisted by lawyers and interpreters. The Government therefore concluded that the applicants were not victims of the alleged violations."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3bc81f80-3955-45f4-9daf-0453c17abfd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["139.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to provide him with copies of the documents from his case file which he had wished to submit to the Court in substantiation of his application. The applicant also complained that the authorities had blocked his correspondence with the Court. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e73aae55-1814-4735-813d-a436c1ea8241", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government observed that the applicant complained that she had been obliged to pay both the employer\u2019s and employee\u2019s social security contributions. However, in so far as her obligation to pay the employee\u2019s contributions was concerned, she could not be regarded as a victim of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. For the relevant period, namely September 1988 to June 1995, the contributions had been included in the amount paid by the United States in compliance with the Vienna Labour and Social Court\u2019s judgment of 14 July 1995 (see paragraph 10 above)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d89cf1d0-219a-4744-abdc-7eaa864606f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted that the applicant had ceased to be a victim of a violation, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as on 24 September 2003 he had received the entire amount which had been due to him under the judgment of the Pleven Regional Court. Unlike the situation obtaining in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002\u2011III), this payment had taken place before notice of the application had been given to the Government. Moreover, the applicant had signed a declaration to the effect that he had no further claims in respect of the amount due to him."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0ed04205-d348-483b-b8ef-bf994f967930", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government argued that the applicants were not victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants by the University had been annulled by the domestic courts and that following the first-instance courts\u2019 decisions to stay the execution of the impugned sanctions the applicants had been able to effectively attend their courses and sit their exams. In this connection, they considered that the applicants had abused the right of petition because they had failed to mention the latter fact in their application forms."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "5dd26599-527f-416e-a438-ad61752c9926", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government mentioned that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/01, 17 September 2002). Accordingly, as the judgment of the 13 May 1998 has been executed in full, the applicants can no longer be considered victims of a violation of their rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They therefore proposed that the application be declared inadmissible or struck out of the Court's list of cases."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "07ad12e7-6929-4020-81d6-2d31492f42f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government noted that the applicant had been \u201cfully compensated\u201d by S.B. and that the Municipal Court had sent her an official apology for the excessive length of the impugned proceedings. She was therefore no longer a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Faulkner v. United Kingdom, no. 37471/97, decision of 18 September 2001)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "75a80bef-4433-4578-9b4b-1b83ba964dc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The applicant argued that the situation was similar to the case of Amirov, cited above, in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention following the Government\u2019s failure to comply with an interim measure imposed under Rule 39. As in the Amirov case (ibid.), the Russian authorities had again failed to comply with an order of the Court to provide an expert opinion by independent medical specialists assessing the applicant\u2019s state of health."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "4a855322-0f5f-45b3-bd59-df3c5d761b8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["77.  The Government took the view that the applicant had suffered no actual adverse consequences as a result of the facts complained of. There was, after all, no doubt that the applicant was aware of the sanction taken against him and the reasons for it: the Court of Appeal had explained the reasons for the order in question orally to the applicant in person. It followed that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "efa55d26-cdff-4e7d-a449-3f55221e2263", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government argued that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention given that the Regional Court had found in respect of the Expert Panel that the applicants\u2019 right to equal treatment and education had been violated by the Expert Panel\u2019s failure to individualise their diagnoses or to specify the cause and nature of their special educational needs. Each of the applicants had been awarded HUF 1,000,000 as non-pecuniary damages. Moreover, the Supreme Court had found that the County Council was liable for its failure to supervise the legality of the functioning of the Expert Panel which had conducted a gravely unlawful practice by failing to observe the legal guarantees concerning the parents\u2019 rights to be present, be informed, consent or seek a remedy. The prejudice suffered on account of the applicants\u2019 deprivation of the right to a remedy provided for by law and thereby of the theoretical chance of obtaining a more favourable assessment of their learning abilities had been compensated by non-pecuniary damages."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "54b895b3-bf6a-40bd-ab4a-72974c1830b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government further maintained that the first applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because the amount of compensation he had claimed before the domestic courts (MDL 0.1) had been so low as to suggest that the true purpose of his libel action had not been to obtain redress for being defamed, but rather to make a political example of the President and the governing party. In the alternative, the Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s application was inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention because he had suffered no significant disadvantage."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "4e819ae8-fdad-4990-86a9-26f9c4afefda", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["114.  The applicant also submitted that his representative had been refused permission to meet with him in the prison. The impossibility of meeting his representative had amounted to an infringement of the effective exercise of his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also argued that his representative had submitted a valid authority form to the Court and to the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1f3d7ca1-3718-40c0-a01d-7086429e5fd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The applicant claimed 182,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage in relation to the breaches of his rights under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, that is EUR 200 for each day of unlawful detention in inhuman conditions, which had caused him a lot of suffering. He also claimed EUR 10,000 for the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He asked for the money to be transferred to his lawyer\u2019s account, in order to avoid problems with the authorities in the \u201cMRT\u201d, where he lives."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a3056f4c-e5cb-4b54-97e6-d225d9f554d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government argued that the applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because the criminal proceedings initiated against him had subsequently been discontinued on the ground that they had become time-barred. Accordingly, they requested that the Court declare the application incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and reject the application."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2bf0b914-859e-4c4b-8b8d-87f694248a4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant\u2019s representative argued that his allegations of a risk of ill-treatment had not been examined by the Russian authorities. She relied on several reports by United Nations agencies and international and regional organisations and argued that the applicant had run and continued to run a risk of torture in Uzbekistan on account of his religious beliefs. She gave examples of cases when Muslim detainees had been ill-treated, and in certain cases killed, because of their religious beliefs, or unjustifiably subjected to disciplinary penalties such as placement in punishment cells without food or water, in particular because of their attempts to pray. She also referred to recent reports on the allegedly appalling conditions of detention and the lack of monitoring of detention facilities in Uzbekistan. The applicant\u2019s representative also relied on the third-party interveners\u2019 submissions before the Court in the cases of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005\u2011I) and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008). According to the applicant\u2019s representative, the applicant\u2019s expulsion had been in fact \u201can extradition in disguise\u201d, as a result of which the applicant had been convicted of the offences in respect of which the Russian authorities had refused extradition. The applicant had been expelled in flagrant violation of Russian law before his appeals against the expulsion order and the dismissal of his refugee application could be examined. Besides, no diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the Uzbek authorities in the present case and, even if they had been obtained, they could not have been effective in the context of an administrative expulsion formally unrelated to any pending criminal proceedings against an applicant. With reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005\u2011III), it was argued that the respondent Government\u2019s failure to comply with an indication under Rule 39 should not necessarily prevent the Court from examining on the merits a complaint under Article 3. Otherwise, it would be less burdensome for a respondent State to remove an applicant from its territory in cases in which Rule 39 was applied and to be held in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention than to comply with Rule 39 and to be found to have breached Article 3 and/or Article 6."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "fa9a248d-f652-43e6-98a8-1f901bed0e74", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government submitted that the applicant company did not have the capacity to apply to the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the State held 28.56% of its share capital through the Ukrresursy State Enterprise and the State Property Fund. The Government also stated that the applicant company had been established pursuant to an agreement between the Ukrainian and Russian high governmental officials in order to create an infrastructure for the cooperation between the Ukrainian and Tyumen companies and to implement the intergovernmental decisions aiming at improving effectiveness of the cooperation between the businesses of two countries. Thus, the applicant had to be classified, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, as a governmental organisation. The Government further argued that in the case Kosarevskaya and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 29459/03, 4935/04 and 26996/04, 6 December 2005) the Court had found the State responsible for the debts of the company, in which it had held 32.67% of the share capital. The Government suggested that the same approach should be taken in the present case, as moreover the dispute at hand had concerned a building which belonged to the State."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "31a3a45a-d2d5-46a5-aa48-57c84415b2a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["206.  The applicant submitted that the conduct of the Government during the course of the proceedings, and in particular during the course of the fact\u2011finding hearings, had been such as to breach their obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged in this connection that the Government had failed to provide documents or had not provided them on time, and attempted to impose inappropriate conditions on the hearing of certain witnesses and had also failed to provide necessary and relevant witnesses."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2ca40d3d-ea95-49bb-8c13-f726848ced78", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government submitted that the case should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases on the ground that the applicant\u2019s widow and children were not affected by the alleged violation, and thus they could not claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, they claimed that the application should be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, since the Court of Cassation had upheld the decision of the first instance court on 18 April 2000, while the application was lodged with the Court on 9 January 2002."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ee2fbc99-e295-4e56-819a-0a95f44f21d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["99.  The Government, referring to the Court's judgment in Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden (20 March 1991, Series A no. 201), considered that the applicant's removal had not interfered with his right under Article <mask> of the Convention to lodge an individual application with the Court without the effective exercise of that right being hindered in any way by the State."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c5e78356-197c-4911-ae43-1550adf1fe98", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government lastly asked the Court to declare the complaint inadmissible because the applicant had lost his status as a victim as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In its judgment of 20 May 2014 the Supreme Court had reduced the additional disciplinary penalty by half, explicitly mentioning that the length of the disciplinary proceedings and the length of the maintenance of the interim measure constituted a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 6 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "433c13ce-854a-4fda-8cbd-f4750415fee5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The applicant noted that the District Court judgment had been very severe as in such circumstances a suspended sentence was normally imposed. He had thus not been afforded any redress to make good the violation based on the entire length of the proceedings. The remedy used by the District Court had not been such a remedy as meant in the Convention. After the District Court judgment the proceedings had still continued for more than fourteen months. The applicant could therefore still claim to be a victim under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ebced19b-d3c2-44f6-a4ef-43eacb3f98af", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court had accepted their constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a hearing within reasonable time and awarded them compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicants had lost their victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f3002e01-8866-4672-b60b-5ed0b947a7e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The Government did not demonstrate any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, \u00a7 92).  Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "794acd09-0ffd-450a-90c0-943170f07cbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the infringement of the applicant\u2019s right of which he complained before the Court and had provided the applicant with preventive and compensatory redress. The Government considered this redress adequate and sufficient and maintained that it was compatible with the relevant principles and practice of both the Constitutional Court and the Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a49fbd08-bdc9-447a-bccc-8b24f59d36ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government do not dispute that the prison administration refused on two occasions to post the applicant\u2019s letter to the Court. Consequently, the lodging of this application has been delayed by more than eight months. The Court concludes that this constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right of individual petition, which amounted to a failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with its obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. Accordingly there has been a breach of this provision."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "6ace7d4b-7126-4406-96ff-763227880fc0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["91.  The Government submitted that the applicant unions could not claim to be victims, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of measures which allegedly infringed their members\u2019 rights under the Convention. They stressed that the recognition that these organisations had standing before the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat was not to be confused with the requirement for the legal entities per se to be directly affected by the measure at issue."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e44dbabe-bb21-40ab-8c7c-7bd2baee4373", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["39.  The Government submitted a preliminary objection to the effect that the applicant had not provided the Court with the relevant evidence, namely, copies of the relevant reports pertaining to his administrative detention and the administrative offence, as well as copies of any interlocutory applications or other documents in support of his allegations. They considered that he had thereby failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention in that he had not properly lodged an application within the meaning of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as in force at the material time."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a07d3ebb-d6b7-4a27-a64b-cf5955d90ef4", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["81.  The applicant argued that his transfer from the RNC, in manifest disregard of the interim measure indicated by the Court, had caused him particular feelings of distress and contributed to a worsening of his health, as proved by subsequent medical evidence. As a result, he had experienced \u201canxiety and inferiority, a state of desperation and of fear that not even the interim measure indicated by the Court could help him obtain the medical assistance required to treat his illnesses\u201d. This had hindered the exercise of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2ec4a05e-e356-4164-9385-5ffed39a39ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["85.  The Government submitted that the complaints of the first applicant under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention should also be found inadmissible since she joined the above mentioned proceedings only in December 2001, and that that part of the proceedings complained about was not unreasonably long. As to her complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they should be rejected under Article <mask> of the Convention as the applicant was a minor shareholder of the OM."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0a41e893-5328-4560-8ce7-5f0eab68323f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicants submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 17 September 2004, they were still \u201cvictims\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the Constitutional Court had not responded to their complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to their length complaint. Moreover, the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "201ae94b-9bf2-487d-80bc-8eeb5b6d1578", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["134.  The applicant\u2019s representative submitted that Russia had disregarded the Court\u2019s indication under Rule 39. The applicant had been put on board a plane leaving for Tashkent at 11.50 p.m. on 24 October 2006. Thus, the Russian authorities had been afforded sufficient time to comply with the Court\u2019s indication under Rule 39. She contended that urgent notification could be made \u201cby any appropriate means\u201d such as publication of the relevant information on the secure website. With reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 5-12 and 475), the applicant\u2019s representative argued that even a short delay in transmission and execution of the Court\u2019s indication under Rule 39 would violate Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, she deplored the Russian authorities\u2019 failure to assist her in re-establishing contact with the applicant in Uzbekistan."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a6db3b26-366b-49a6-b4c3-2613c391eb26", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government objected that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 July 2003, the applicant could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant's constitutional complaint thoroughly and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded complied fully with the Constitutional Court's practice and was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been easily accessible to the applicant, had been speedy and had been conducted in the applicant's language and the compensation had been paid to her without any delay."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "fc90cbeb-1a6c-4d8e-845d-f77c647a2e40", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, she could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further submitted that the applicant could have raised the issue of recurring delays in the proceedings on the increase of maintenance contributions in the period after the Constitutional Court's judgment (n\u00e1lez) of 7 April 2004 by way of a fresh complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution. As she had not done so, she had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1c866e3e-c05c-4ba8-b3c8-4bef2c36e3fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government also claimed that the post-sentencing judge\u2019s decisions of 26 January 2011 and 1 April 2011 could not be considered a form of pressure or intimidation directed against the applicant to prevent him from lodging his application with the Court. The post-sentencing judge\u2019s decision of 26 January 2011 had been as a result of the fact that she had been unaware that the Constitutional Court had already delivered a decision in the case. Her subsequent decision of 1 April 2011 had been a result of the analogical application of domestic rules governing individual constitutional appeals to the Constitutional Court to proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. That analogical interpretation could be considered \u201cerroneous or formalistic\u201d in view of the Court\u2019s practice, but it could not be deemed obstructionist or intimidating for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "897eceb7-e8ec-4665-a95a-4a06d14113ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The Government denied that there had been any breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, calling the applicant\u2019s allegations \u201cerroneous and untrue\u201d. They stated that the applicant had been sanctioned for improper performance of his duties and that the sanctions had been imposed prior to the communication of the case by the Court. They submitted that the Court should thus declare this complaint inadmissible for abuse, calling it \u201coffensive\u201d or \u201cdefamatory\u201d."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ce238502-8fbb-4a28-bfe2-8d4980405c2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, he could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint thoroughly and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded complied fully with the Constitutional Court\u2019s practice and was not manifestly inadequate or insufficient in view of all the circumstances. In support of this contention, the Government relied on the Court\u2019s findings in the cases of \u0160ed\u00fd v. Slovakia (no. 72237/01, \u00a7\u00a7 74-75, 19 December 2006) and Gergouil v. France (no. 40111/98, 21 March 2000). They argued further that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been easily accessible to the applicant, speedy and conducted in the applicant\u2019s language."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0d4f2a02-1d07-4dff-bf45-6b8b17458664", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["61.  The applicant complained that the Government\u2019s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "22dda395-a7d8-4400-b9d1-2301b237b3d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["46.  The applicants further alleged that their deportation to Iran, despite the interim measure indicated by the President of the Section under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They alleged that their representative had been informed of the interim measure at around 1.00 p.m. Turkish local time and that they had been deported at 4.00 p.m. Turkish local time."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "43582ddd-d2fb-4cdc-9164-0e029b5f3036", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The applicant argued that the Government\u2019s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "eb2f3f6a-9ee1-45d3-9a35-b25c9204a638", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government thus appear to argue that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention as, in the specific circumstances of the case, they were not directly affected by the law complained of. However, the Court notes that the Government have not raised an explicit objection as to admissibility on that ground. The Court considers it appropriate to deal with the issues raised by the Government in the context of the examination of the merits of the case."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "7a30d292-243e-4a16-a5e3-40c6fb997de8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["128.  The Government argued that an applicant ceased to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention if the authorities acknowledged, at least in substance, a violation of a protected right and provided appropriate and sufficient redress. As regards acknowledgment of a violation, the Government pointed to the findings of the Court of Appeal in 2007 and the High Court in 2009. The Government submitted that a finding of a violation was itself appropriate and sufficient redress. They relied on Benham, Perks and Others, and Lloyd and Others, all cited above."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "af29519f-a8fb-4ba4-b588-8dad310d0280", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["156.  The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case the above issue should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d0d6b0dc-0fc0-4177-89a2-fd4dc824a35d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to provide him with copies of the documents from his case file which he had wished to submit to the Court in substantiation of his application. The applicant further complained that the authorities had blocked his correspondence with the Court. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "3f0cc6ed-3b56-4c91-9ab7-6a163a63399f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["33.  The Government disputed that the applicant was a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They observed that at the time of her marriage the applicant, who was a trainee lawyer, was not qualified to practise as a lawyer. When she began practising she had already taken her husband\u2019s name. The Government therefore maintained that the applicant\u2019s change of name following her marriage could not have created problems in her professional life."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "fd8b2003-f8f4-4fb1-a744-af264787c4a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["72.  The Government submitted that the representative of B.Z. and H.D. had complained to the FMS and a prosecutor about obstacles he had faced in meeting with B.Z. and H.D., but he had lodged the application with the Court before his complaints had been examined by the domestic authorities. Therefore, the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. With regard to S.W., the Government submitted that he had not asked to meet with his representative."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "eaf59c74-49f9-4bf8-bd97-22e1f3e06cdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government submitted that the applicant could not be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention because he had not suffered discrimination on the ground of his sexual orientation. In particular, he had not demonstrated that he had indeed been treated less favourably than other persons in an analogous situation. The domestic courts had based their decisions on the objective prerequisite, namely the fact that the applicant had not met the basic condition laid down in section 8(1) of the 1994 Act since he had not resided permanently with the statutory tenant until his death. The same condition \u2013 which, as such, could not be regarded as unreasonable or unjustified \u2013 would have been applied to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "290781ae-73c5-463d-8c77-16dfb9adc9c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["123.  The applicant complained that the authorities had obstructed his access to the criminal case file and had refused to provide him with copies of the documents he had requested to substantiate his application to the Court. He also complained that the SIZO administration had blocked his correspondence with the Court. In raising the above complaints, the applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c00507d2-4fcb-4089-afa8-cc7a715b9f5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["68.  The applicants' representative complained that by expelling the first applicant on 5 December 2007 despite the measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Russia had failed to comply with its undertaking under Article <mask> of the Convention not to hinder the applicant in the exercise of his right of individual application. Article 34 of the Convention provides:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "aabe9b13-258e-4521-9557-05841f486305", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government objected that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, as on 1 September 2004 he withdrew his writ of execution and, consequently, from that time onwards the State was not responsible for the enforcement of the award. The Government also indicated that the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour had been enforced."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b47a2de2-c481-4863-8f6b-b68aaaef666a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["38.  The Government contested Mr Miettinen\u2019s status as a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention for the purposes of the complaint under Article 8. They submitted that he did not at any point in the proceedings admit that the material belonged to him. At any rate, as he did not request in the domestic proceedings that the material be returned to him, he had not exhausted domestic remedies in this respect."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "41e7796c-2974-400f-be50-88c2951830a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts complained of. They observed that the Constitutional Court had indeed acknowledged a violation of the \u201creasonable time\u201d principle and granted the applicant Lm 100 in compensation for moral damage, thus providing adequate redress for the breach of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "84a3c724-afc3-4ac1-97a7-469072c3bcc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, by referring to Abdullah \u00d6calan as a \u201cleading figure\u201d and an interlocutor for the State of Turkey, the applicants had conveyed to the public the idea that their client was still active. Moreover, their statements contained expressions referring to the strategy of a terrorist organisation. Noting that the applicants had not been imprisoned or subjected to any other restrictions, the Government contended that the interference in question had therefore not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "cce6e2d2-5c25-48c4-aab9-604b74edeebb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was subjected to pressure from the State authorities in order to oblige him to withdraw the present application from the Court. However, he did not substantiate this complaint and did not provide any evidence in support of it. In such circumstances and in the light of the material in the case file, the Court considers that there has been no failure of the State to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b59645cc-dce1-4df9-a435-e2de523403a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["212.  The applicant\u2019s representatives alleged that his disappearance and possible unlawful removal from Russia, the failure of the Russian authorities to put in place the necessary protective measures, and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39. These claims, substantively focusing on a violation of the right to individual application, fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c50eb22f-fdbf-4d62-bfaa-c0313434d44a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["58.  The applicant further submitted that he was still a victim of unlawful detention in breach of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The German authorities had neither acknowledged a breach of his Convention rights nor had they afforded him compensation. The fact that following his possible release from preventive detention, he might be detained under the Therapy Detention Act, which served to circumvent the Court\u2019s findings of violations of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention, could obviously not be considered as such compensation."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "174a632c-a845-4610-b237-2f3ae090a62c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["135.  The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The Government further maintained that there was no breach of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since her application had been accepted for examination by the Court. As for the relevant domestic proceedings, she could have access to those materials of the investigation that could be produced to her at the present stage and, upon the completion of the investigation, to all the materials contained in the case file."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a23bd844-6e22-4831-9dc9-a6095ba77b7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants' constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded them compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicants had lost their victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "19fda673-9854-47d5-bccb-32e8a7c99c49", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued that the second applicant Mr Ahmet Demir could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had only been elected as HADEP's general secretary a short time before HADEP's dissolution. Furthermore, unlike some other executive members of HADEP, no ban had been imposed on him by the Constitutional Court."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c2bbcb8b-6b10-459f-a078-c778edcad98e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government argued that the second applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because the revision proceedings examined by the Supreme Court of Justice on 27 November 2006 did not concern the issue of transfer of shares between the first and the second applicant. Moreover, the second applicant received the shares from the first applicant free of charge and therefore she could not have suffered any loss even if the shares had been taken away from her. In any event, the Government expressed the opinion that the transfer of shares between the first and the second applicant by way of donation was not genuine but was only intended to avoid restitution of shares to I.A and S.A."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "506ab681-e627-440b-9a89-fd7d6f85992e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The Government submitted that the applicant had lost her victim status under Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the positive outcome of the domestic civil proceedings against the hospital. As regards the Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to award non-pecuniary damages, they further argued, without referring to the relevant domestic case-law, that the domestic law had entitled the applicant to claim non-pecuniary damages if a criminal element had been established by the investigation (see paragraph 52 above). Noting the applicant\u2019s objections to the implementation of the exhumation orders and the subsequent inability of the investigation to establish that a crime had been committed, the Government argued that that fault could only be attributable to the applicant."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "9d538afd-71c7-4fef-b2ba-64e6705c16bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments of 9 June 2004 and 22 June 2005, argued that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court was not disproportionately low in the particular circumstances. In addition, the Constitutional Court had ordered the District Court to proceed with the cases without any further delay and the District Court had complied with that order."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "6e1381c8-98f9-4f51-8150-09b8a0d9aad9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["32.  The applicant argued that the situation was similar to the case of Amirov v. Russia (no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014), in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention following the Government\u2019s failure to comply with an interim measure imposed under Rule 39. As in Amirov (ibid.), the Russian authorities had again failed to comply with an order by the Court to provide an expert opinion from independent medical specialists on the applicant\u2019s state of health."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ab664711-bf49-4272-bb6f-568860772a2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["48.  The Government submitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the applicant had requested leave from the Regional Court of The Hague to join a pending civil action in tort brought by another former EBI detainee claiming, inter alia, compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of having been subjected to allegedly humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches in the EBI. Furthermore, if the applicant were to be awarded any compensation in those proceedings, he could no longer be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were therefore of the opinion that the application should be declared inadmissible."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "de41d899-5072-47f6-9a7e-356a7688c47f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant asserted that between 22 March and 12 April 2004, while in detention, he was not allowed to meet one of his lawyers, Ms Liptser, who represented him before the Court. He alleged that this had constituted an interference with his right of individual petition, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 34 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "5516cdbb-0c3b-4474-86a7-a980e141dc0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["71.  The applicant complained that the administration of correctional colony no. IK-1 in Tambov, where he had been serving his prison sentence from 12 April 2004 to 29 December 2009, had refused to dispatch his correspondence to the Court in view of his inability to cover the postal costs. The Court decided to examine his complaint from the standpoint of the right of individual petition guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c43f2b37-7776-4797-8240-6ab955c4b420", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicant did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. They further claimed that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, given that the proceedings against him had ended with the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. The Government submitted that should the Court conclude that there had been an interference, that interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security, territorial integrity and public safety, as well as preventing disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, as a politician, the applicant had showed his support for a terrorist organisation\u2019s activities by chanting the slogans noted in the first-instance judgment. Taking into account the necessity to fight against terrorism, the Government contended that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c50d1376-0440-4540-9519-1b5cccf20970", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The applicant contested that view and submitted that declaring three months as having been served had not constituted sufficient redress for the acknowledged delay in the proceedings. Moreover, there had been further delays in the proceedings, which so far had not been acknowledged by the domestic authorities. Consequently, he had not lost his victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1509f5ab-81a4-438b-8417-e319da9c9c87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government claimed that the second applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had not been convicted at the end of the proceedings. They also claimed that the second applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, because he had not objected to the decision of 22 October 2009 suspending the pronouncement of the judgment against him. They submitted that the second applicant could have raised his Convention grievances by using the remedy in question. In support of their submissions, the Government provided a copy of the Plenary Court of Cassation\u2019s decision dated 22 January 2013 (decision no. 2013/15). In that decision, the Court of Cassation had held that in a case where the accused had been convicted of illicit substance use and where the first-instance court had ordered the accused\u2019s treatment and the application of judicial control measures after his treatment, an objection by the public prosecutor regarding the qualification of the accused\u2019s acts and challenging the court\u2019s above-mentioned orders had to be examined on its merits and in adversarial proceedings."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "ca2ba524-990a-457f-82ff-c60c2c5f0710", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government maintained that the applicants did not have requisite victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicants Arzu Do\u011fan and Sami Evren had been acquitted of the charges by the Ankara Criminal Court and that no proceedings had been brought against the other five applicants for participating in the demonstrations."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2df247aa-95df-478f-a08d-18a697a2b9b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, she could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint thoroughly and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded complied fully with the Constitutional Court\u2019s practice."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "c7425c11-daaf-4ae2-9ce4-f5ab89d02590", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["84.  The applicant complained that the State had interfered with the effective exercise of his right of application. In particular, the domestic authorities had unreasonably refused his lawyer permission to meet with him. Furthermore, obstacles were placed in the way of the applicant's complaining to the European Court of Human Rights about the fairness of the proceedings in his case and the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d3074c01-cc11-4329-967b-ce6855da2ce3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["142.  The Government first of all pointed out that according to the Court\u2019s case-law, particularly the Mamatkulov and Askarov judgment (cited above, \u00a7 108), the purpose of an interim measure was to facilitate the exercise of the right of individual petition secured under Article <mask> of the Convention, and therefore to preserve the subject of the application when the Court considered that there was a risk of the applicant suffering irreparable damage. In the instant case, however, the Court should have deduced from the inadmissible nature of the request (see paragraph 39 above) that the interim measure lacked any real justification."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a9ff1fd7-b2de-467e-aeac-c90bacf525e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The applicant also complained that he had not been properly informed about the nature and cause of the charges against him, as required by Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. The Court observes, nevertheless, that the applicant was eventually acquitted of all the charges against him. The Court holds that under such circumstances the applicant may not be considered to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Consequently, this complaint must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "fabb0423-a3f0-4ab8-b66e-a5c86af03da1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["50.  The Government submitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the applicant had brought a civil action in tort against the Netherlands State claiming, inter alia, compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of having been subjected to allegedly humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches in the EBI. Furthermore, if the applicant were to be awarded any compensation in those proceedings, he could no longer be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were therefore of the opinion that the application should be declared inadmissible."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d0242c18-0ac4-4707-a3b3-279e5e51ee39", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government maintained that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/01, 17 September 2002). Accordingly, as the judgment of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal of 29 November 2001 had been executed, the applicant can no longer be considered a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They therefore proposed that the application be declared inadmissible or struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "42a6c0e3-515e-46cc-9df9-bcac65313288", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["143.  The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place in the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The Government further maintained that there had been no breach of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since their applications had been accepted for examination by the Court. As for the relevant domestic proceedings, they could have access to those materials of the investigation that could be produced to them at the present stage and, upon the completion of the investigation, to all the materials contained in the case file."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "16816071-377c-4069-aa7a-af1fe393adf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["43.  The Government contended that the applicant organisation had acted merely as an intermediary between the users of artistic works and the authors, who had transferred only the implementation of part of their pecuniary rights to the applicant organisation. The Government argued that the applicant organisation had not been directly affected by any measures and it had not by virtue of its administrative and representative function acquired any \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The recognition of the applicant organisation\u2019s locus standi in the domestic proceedings according to the Government did not automatically envisage compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government maintained that the applicant organisation could not claim to be a victim of a measure that infringed the rights guaranteed by the Convention to its members."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "bf940509-95e7-43b8-a1f1-fff9b2d2a3e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had granted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of her constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded her compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost her victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "e901d299-7acf-4c57-832f-77a634c0f8c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["89.  The applicant\u2019s representatives alleged that his disappearance and possible unlawful removal from Russia, the failure of the Russian authorities to put in place the necessary protective measures, and a lack of an effective investigation into the matter had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39. These claims, substantively focusing on a violation of the right to individual application, fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "obj_label": "34", "id": "6318f067-2069-4ebf-9d49-e34d1cdaefcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government further submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 11 March 2004 she had concluded an in-court settlement whereby the State had obliged itself not only to return the vehicle but also to compensate her for the loss of its value. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied at the domestic level and the applicant had lost her victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "98805c30-d75f-4d3f-a654-8af854032242", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["116.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the delays in handing over the Court's letters to him, preventing him from complying with the time-limits set by the Court; the prison staff's refusals to dispatch his letters to the Court; the non-delivery of one letter in 2009 and pressure allegedly put on him. He also complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had not been informed of any charges against him after the arrest; that he had not been brought before a judge for a review of his detention. He alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long and unfair, in particular because the courts had not summoned his witnesses. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the search of his home had been unlawful. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention of the absence of effective remedies and of discrimination against him."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "d5aa81e9-b77d-4132-ae47-b485daf3fc6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government contested his argument. They claimed at the outset that he did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. The Government further submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the State as a whole and had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that the article in question glorified the PKK and promoted hatred, hostility and the use of arms, militancy and revenge. They lastly contended that the circumstances of the case were similar to the case of S\u00fcrek v. Turkey ((no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999\u2011IV) in which the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "93c0a8ae-a89b-4dd0-a397-e4caa4c3880a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["113.  The Government pointed out that, under the Court\u2019s case-law, where the national authorities had found a violation and their decision constituted appropriate and sufficient redress for it, the party concerned could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (they referred to Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, \u00a7\u00a7 178 et seq., ECHR 2006-V). Where these two conditions were satisfied, the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention would preclude examination by the Court (they referred, inter alia, to Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, \u00a7\u00a7 64-70, Series A no. 51; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X). Loss of victim status depended, among other things, on the nature of the right that was alleged to have been infringed, the reasons given for the decision (Jensen, decision cited above) and the persistence of the adverse consequences for the applicant after that decision (they referred to Freimanis and L\u012bdums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, \u00a7 68, 9 February 2006). The appropriateness and sufficiency of the redress offered to the applicant was dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at stake (they referred to G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, \u00a7 116, ECHR 2010)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0d86cc4a-0e91-4b2c-ae38-a914edf955b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["62.  The Government opened their line of argument with the assertion that the legally binding force of the interim measure issued under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may not be drawn from Article <mask> of the Convention or \u201cfrom any other source\u201d. They further stressed that the Rules of Court and accordingly the interim measure applied did not have a binding force on the State Party and that, accordingly, their failure to submit answers to the questions raised by the Court in its letter of 16 August 2013 did not entail a violation of Article 34 or any other provision of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8cf152ff-f319-47db-8891-8dab3a96ca34", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded him compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2bdc29d2-6dab-4588-997d-3751960b82cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government noted that the Constitutional Court had awarded the applicant a certain amount of money as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. They also implicitly indorsed the Constitutional Court\u2019s arguments in respect of the rejection of the applicant\u2019s claim for pecuniary damages. The applicant had thus been provided with adequate redress and had lost her victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b4dfe4c7-1c77-4238-94bb-51111b229c06", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["23.  The Government submitted that the seventh applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because she had never participated in the restitution process and the decisions to annul the restoration of property rights had not directly affected her. They submitted that the seventh applicant had not been deprived of her property because the money which she had paid to the other applicants pursuant to the preliminary sale agreements had been returned to her (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0ea10bcb-fe40-423f-a21d-ae14d4775b27", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The Government pointed out that the Sofia District Court, whose judgment had been upheld by the Sofia City Court, had set the applicant's dismissal aside. As a result of these judgments the applicant had had to be reinstated in his post. However, as in 2003 the Criminological Studies Council at the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office had been abolished and a new Criminological Studies Council had been established at the Ministry of Justice, the applicant had been offered employment there. Therefore, the applicant had lost his victim status under Article <mask> of the Convention. Even if it could be admitted that his dismissal had been the result of the publication of his letter, his reinstatement and the damages which he had been awarded had adequately remedied it."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "0c27648b-9888-40d2-ab74-4385c273aca3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["24.  The Government acknowledged that the nine 1982 State premium bonds may be considered as a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. At the same time they contended that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful since the necessary domestic legal framework had been put in place. They further stressed that, as the Court had acknowledged in the case Malysh and Others v. Russia (no. 30280/03, \u00a7 80, 11 February 2010), the harsh economic situation in Russia in the 1990s necessitated some restrictions on private property, and thus the interference had pursued a legitimate aim. Lastly, the Government argued that a fair balance between public and private interests had been ensured in the applicant\u2019s case, because he had been afforded the opportunity \u2013 and indeed had chosen \u2013 to convert the majority of his 1982 State premium bonds into 1992 Russian bonds. In respect of the remaining bonds, he had not used that option and thus could not be considered to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "875bfca3-9c99-46b0-8379-4a30b751aacc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["88.  The applicant also alleged that the authorities' failure to assist him in gathering evidence in support of his complaint before the Court concerning the conditions of detention amounted to a violation of the respondent State's obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he alleged that a letter dated 23 January 2003 had not been dispatched by the prison administration (see paragraph 43 above)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "f4e8bc25-4198-4519-b1ab-a1a621df0f83", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["3. The applicant was transferred from the neurological centre to a prison hospital on Friday 11 November 2005. On Monday 14 November 2005, the next working day, he was transferred back to the neurological centre. It follows that compliance with the interim measure was merely delayed for three days. On the particular facts of the present case, I am unable to find that the delay in implementing the interim measure can be said to have hindered the effective exercise of the applicant's right of individual petition within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect the case is very different from those where the removal of an applicant from a country in disregard of the terms of a Rule 39 indication has the inevitable consequence of rendering nugatory the exercise of the right by preventing the Court from conducting an effective examination of the Convention complaint and, ultimately, from protecting the applicant against potential violations of the Convention rights invoked."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "8da097da-4e2b-40c1-98e2-c9091af60b02", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government added that they had had no intention of disregarding the interim measure, and had indeed taken all the necessary steps to ensure compliance as a matter of urgency. Moreover, the short delay in complying with the interim measure had not in any way impeded the applicant in pursuing his application before the Court or communicating with the latter. Neither had there been a risk of irreparable damage to his health capable of depriving the proceedings before the Court of their object. The existence of such a risk was, however, a mandatory condition for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied on an order of the International Court of Justice (Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Order of 13 July 2006 on a request for the indication of provisional measures), submitting that that court had also taken the existence of a risk of irremediable damage to the interests of the parties as the basis for its decisions concerning compliance with interim measures."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "63d68a8b-aa84-406f-a810-06b088d709e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["243.  The Government submitted that the six applicants (Mr Kuri\u0107, Ms Mezga, Mr Ristanovi\u0107, Mr Berisha, Mr Ademi and Mr Mini\u0107) who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits after the 2010 Chamber judgment (see paragraphs 95, 123, 133, 158, 173 and 194 above) could no longer claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d of the facts complained of within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "2451e34d-9eb5-4e73-8110-3446b47d319a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The applicants submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 7 July 2004, they were still \u201cvictims\u201d within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see Kuti\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, \u00a7 39, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "a386af57-d106-43a1-a33d-8c675a3b553b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["52.  The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence. In their view there was no indication that the correspondence had been censored or that the contents of the letter had been checked. The applicant's letter to the Court bore a stamp \u201ccensored\u201d, however without any signature, date or the name of the authority which might have stamped it. Thus, the Government had serious doubts whether the applicant's letter had indeed been censored by the authorities. The Government further submitted that the applicant had been in no way hindered in the exercise of his right of petition to the Court, therefore, the facts of the case disclosed no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "b200d54d-42fc-486f-bfeb-71ee3598f85f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government further appeared to link the issue of victim status of the first applicant to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Furthermore, they explicitly claimed non-exhaustion in respect of the third applicant. In this connection the Court recalls that the exhaustion requirement in respect of the length remedy provided for in the Courts Act of 2008 concerns applications that post-date the Adzi-Spirkoska and Others case. There is no such requirement in respect of cases already pending before it unless the impugned proceedings have not ended yet and the applicants can use the length remedy before the Supreme Court. The Court reaffirms that as regards length cases pending before it where applicants have used the length remedy, such as the first and third applicants, any redress provided by the Supreme Court shall be assessed through the prism of whether the applicants can still be considered to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Ad\u017ei-Spirkoska and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), nos. 38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011). Consequently, that the first applicant did not challenge the decision of the first-instance panel of the Supreme Court and that the third applicant\u2019s length remedy was rejected on procedural grounds do not have any bearing on their victim status in respect of the alleged violation complained of before the Court. The applicants can accordingly still claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d of a breach of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Government\u2019s objections must be dismissed."], "obj_label": "34", "id": "1630d9bf-d04a-4611-b85a-dfac8cde8b94", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["29.  The Government requested the Court to declare the application inadmissible in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention as the applicant had not lodged a request for retrial under Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to redress the alleged breach. Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings would provide for a retrial in criminal proceedings if the European Court of Human Rights had found a violation of the Convention. The Supreme Court had extended this remedy by analogy, stating that a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights was not a necessary prerequisite for a retrial in criminal proceedings (Supreme Court, judgment of 1 August 2007, no. 13Os135/06m). It was thus possible to challenge a violation of the rights under the Convention in the context of criminal proceedings at the domestic level by applying for a retrial on the basis of Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings directly to the Supreme Court."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "813aa8a7-1ca0-41dc-889c-9f3ca237ed42", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants\u2019 complaints in respect of the independence and impartiality of the \u0130zmir State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this regard, they maintained that the applicants have not invoked this complaint before the domestic courts. They further argued that the applicants should have lodged their application with the Court within six months of the date on which the State Security Court rendered its judgment."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "3603e71d-6807-4221-8fbd-8c1f272819f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["17.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation if he had established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "381840e1-fb50-486b-a2c1-81cef95a5804", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the initial order for his retrospective preventive detention on 13 March 2008 here at issue prior to lodging his application with the Court. Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court\u2019s leading judgment of 4 May 2011 did not cover preventive detention under paragraph 3 of Article 66b of the Criminal Code. In any event, in the subsequent statutory proceedings for judicial review, the continuation of his preventive detention had been ordered."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "9c1c9708-efa6-4f4e-ba8c-ba8afa9b73e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant's complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. They maintained that since the applicant complained of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court, he should have lodged his application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely on 3 June 1999."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "e5c1ca9b-7e16-468b-939d-ab7283bc4fcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The applicants disputed the respondent Government\u2019s submissions and claimed that there had been no failure on their part to comply with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the \u201cTRNC\u201d courts were not properly established under the law applicable in northern Cyprus, but by the \u201cTRNC\u201d in the part of Cyprus which was under illegal Turkish occupation."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "8f21cbc6-8e78-4cb6-bad4-06c549746e22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government contended that the application was inadmissible, having been lodged out of time. As the Constitutional Court had declared the applicant\u2019s appeal inadmissible on 26 April 2002, the final decision for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention was in fact the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 20 June 2001, whereas the applicant had filed his application on 20 September 2002."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "292118c4-c9e3-40be-99a1-217145e903d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The applicants filed their complaint about the length of the other sets of proceedings set out in paragraphs 23-25 above on 28 November 2002. At that time the proceedings at issue were pending before the courts of first instance. Having regard to the practice of the Constitutional Court and its decision in the case of Andr\u00e1\u0161ik and Others referred to above, the applicants were required, for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention, to use the constitutional remedy prior to submitting this complaint to the Court."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "b69a6ed8-adcc-49f0-8889-87c977b4700c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article <mask> of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 20 April 1999. However, the applicant had not lodged his application with Court until 7 January 2000, that is eight months and seventeen days after the payment of the additional compensation awarded by the Dinar Civil Court of First Instance."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "8be3ebd2-6a4e-4f9a-8831-ba61834c57ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["11.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation if they had established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "b7588c59-f18e-4541-87a6-ff729c1c76be", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation if he had established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "541b9e59-2a11-49f6-9ede-ec1151f0d303", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["41.  The Government contended that the Constitutional Court decision of 3 July 2002 declaring the applicants\u2019 appeal inadmissible as being \u201coutside its jurisdiction\u201d could not be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted. Therefore, the final effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention was the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 24 July 2000. The Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible as out of time, having been lodged on 21 December 2002."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "163b6bd4-e049-401c-81fb-7df5ed464283", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article <mask> of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 20 December 2001. However, the applicant had not lodged his application with Court until 30 April 2003, that is one year and four months after the final domestic decision."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "6baf4960-e97e-4fd6-b2e5-2bb5cecb4fb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["45.  The Government argued, as they had done before the Chamber, that the second and fourth applicants, the husbands of the first and third applicants respectively, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention because they had failed to lodge an application themselves with the Constitutional Court for review of the constitutionality of section 3 of the Artificial Procreation Act."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "52f52988-c71f-4ae1-a843-627907a57906", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government alleged that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that in the present case the final domestic decision was taken on 29 November 2001 by the Court of Cassation; however the application was introduced on 26 September 2002 that is more than six months after that date."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "3948907a-909f-465c-9dcb-43c6915a7f3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["83.  The Government submitted that the application was abusive as the applicant was attempting to have the merits of his case decided by this Court. They noted that the applicant had given false information to the press in so far as in various interviews and press releases his legal representative had alleged that the application had already been declared admissible by the Court, which was clearly untrue. They considered that the applicant was using the Court to apply pressure and influence and lengthen the domestic proceedings against him \u2013 in the latter respect he had also requested that the domestic courts suspend the proceedings pending a judgment by the Court, a request which had been rejected by the domestic courts. Relying on the Court\u2019s case-law the Government noted that completely irresponsible behaviour by applicants or their lawyers was clearly contrary to the true mission of the Court and may lead to the dismissal of the application as being abusive. They thus requested that the Court declare the application inadmissible as being abusive under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "25722f1f-dad6-491b-b4a1-867326c4078e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["47.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. First of all, her claim lodged with the domestic courts was directed against the Government but not the Savings Bank of Armenia. However, it was the latter and not the former which was the legal successor of the Armenian branch of the USSR Savings Bank and bore all the ensuing obligations. Secondly, the applicant contested the decision of the Kentron and Nork\u2011Marash District Court only on the ground of a procedural but not a substantive violation of the law, thereby failing to raise in substance any of her complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, the claim lodged by the applicant with the District Court was different in substance from the complaints which she raised before the Court."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "7b454287-20d7-4581-bbb1-8087abe736da", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the conditions of detention during his initial detention in Prison no. 13 (between 17 October and 27 November 2007) should be rejected as lodged outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on the Court\u2019s case-law such as Koval v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 65550/01, 30 March 2004) and I.D. v. Moldova (no. 47203/06, \u00a7 31, 30 November 2010) and considered that the two periods of the applicant\u2019s detention in Prison no. 13 were distinct instances and did not constitute a \u201ccontinuous situation\u201d."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "7ff71e5c-02bf-4a97-9275-ba76548e6977", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.   The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation if they had established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "5bd44ad5-e9ac-47c5-b773-c3d0cfa04082", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["34.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention as she had failed to lodge an action with the administrative or civil courts requesting compensation for the alleged damage caused to her by the conduct of the administrative authorities or civil servants. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had failed to lodge her application with the Court within the six-month time-limit."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "1cebf06f-201d-4f1e-a412-72c67a2d31d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["60.  The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention prior to lodging his application with the Court. The new proceedings for judicial review of his preventive detention following the Federal Constitutional Court\u2019s leading judgment could not be considered as a remedy he had to avail himself of to complain about the initial order of his retrospective preventive detention under Article 66b \u00a7 3 of the Criminal Code. That order had not been addressed in the said judgment."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "b824b937-6595-45f5-9336-ceb5d0e6f386", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court, he should have lodged his application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 18 April 1996."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "115a3e8c-e648-4bc5-abb6-219492e4efd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["40.  The Government argued that the application had not been submitted within the six-month period provided for by Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been submitted by the applicant's parents, acting on his behalf, on 20 August 2001. They submitted a form of authority, signed by the applicant, on 7 May 2002. The Government were of the view that the latter date was decisive for the assessment of compliance with the six-month requirement. The Government submitted, in addition, that the original application had been lodged by the applicant's parents, who could not claim to be victims of a violation of the right to a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning the determination of the criminal charge against their son."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "0cf40e81-cf62-476e-b1da-f9f57b5ba4aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["3.  The applicant did not lodge an appeal against the district court\u2019s decision of 27 April 2011 (see paragraph 40 of the judgment). Lodging an appeal against a decision of a district court is an ordinary remedy that must be exhausted under Article <mask> of the Convention. The question therefore arises if there are special circumstances which absolve the applicant, who was represented by a State-appointed lawyer, from the obligation to make use of an available and effective remedy (see, inter alia, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, \u00a7 45, ECHR 2006\u2011II)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "9fee8567-43cd-4778-b044-8be06223fa43", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["49.  The applicant disputed that the remedies to which the Government referred were \u201ceffective\u201d and that he was therefore required to exhaust them under Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards Article 146 of the Constitution, the applicant highlighted that this would only provide a remedy to an existing problem or a decision confirming that there had been a violation by the relevant authority. There would be no investigation and no further proceedings against the party guilty of the violation. The applicant further averred that in order to file a recourse with the Supreme Court, supporting evidence would have been required to prove that he had been isolated in conditions in breach of Articles 3 and 8 and that his correspondence had been monitored. He contended that his isolation precluded him from obtaining such proof and that, in the circumstances, an Ombudsman\u2019s investigation was necessary to collate the necessary proof. However, because of the monitoring of his correspondence, the Ombudsman only received his complaint on 5 November 2003 and her report dated 21 November 2003 was only brought to his attention some days later. He concluded that his failure to take proceedings before the Supreme Court was due to: the prison director, who deliberately made it difficult for him to collect the necessary papers for his application; the 75-day time limit for filing a recourse; his isolation which prevented him from submitting his application; and the refusal of lawyers to represent him."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "1e5defae-7821-4cdb-8802-2a80f687cfd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The applicants disagreed, pointing out that there was no evidence that the State authorities, having twice rejected the applicants\u2019 claims, would reach a different conclusion if faced with another complaint. The applicants noted that Article <mask> of the Convention must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, \u00a7 109, 6 September 2007). They indicated that they had done everything possible in the circumstances, had provided evidence to the police, and had lodged complaints and appeals, although, according to the applicants, all they had to do was bring the case to the attention of the competent authorities. The applicant noted that in the case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria (28 October 1998, \u00a7 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII) the Court had found that \u201cthe applicants made numerous appeals to the prosecuting authorities at all levels, requesting that a full criminal investigation of Mr Assenov\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment by the police be carried out\u201d and considered that, \u201chaving exhausted all the possibilities available to him... the applicant was not required... to embark on another attempt to obtain redress\u201d. Thus, the applicants concluded that they had exhausted all available domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "016a4340-3a85-455f-85f0-763df61c45a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. While, in accordance with Article 155 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the first\u2011instance court\u2019s decision concerning an alleged violation of election rights was final, Article 40 of the Electoral Code provided an exception to this rule as far as disputes related to, inter alia, the annulment of the registration of parliamentary candidates were concerned. The applicant had been informed at the court hearing, in the presence of his lawyer, of the rights guaranteed to him under Article 28 of the CCP, which included the right to appeal, but he had not availed himself of this right."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "5dd1d68c-1894-451a-acc7-1203962ade28", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["53.  The Government raised an objection of non-compliance with the six-month rule. While conceding that Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code provided that a complaint could be lodged against the decision of a prosecutor with the superior prosecutor and thereafter with the Prosecutor General, they submitted that the applicant's complaint lodged with the Prosecutor General's Office on 23 September 1998 was not an effective remedy. As a consequence, the six-month time-limit laid down by Article <mask> of the Convention had started to run on 4 May 1998, when the Constan\u0163a Chief Military Prosecutor confirmed the decision not to press charges, and not, as suggested by the applicant, on 18 November 1998, when the military section of the Prosecutor General's Office informed him that they had dismissed his appeal."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "690192de-8d65-4f95-9f1c-c2dad0c88677", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["22.  The Government also claimed that the applicant should have lodged a separate appeal against the ruling of 30 November 2001. The Court reiterates in this respect that domestic remedies must be \u201ceffective\u201d in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, \u00a7 158, ECHR-XI). The impugned ruling concerned only the applicant\u2019s detention pending trial. Therefore, an appeal directed against that ruling would have been limited to matters of detention. By contrast, the thrust of the applicant\u2019s complaint before the court of appeal in Russia and before the Court was quite different: he attacked the judgment as a whole, claiming that the outcome of the trial had been predetermined. The ruling of 30 November 2001, therefore, was not a separate object of appeal but a proof of the bias of the trial court. The Court concludes that the avenue indicated by the Government was not capable of \u201cproviding adequate redress\u201d for the applicant\u2019s grievance under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government did not claim that the issue of the alleged partiality should have been raised by the applicant earlier, at the trial stage. Thus, the Court concludes that by lodging a general appeal the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "500cae1b-ab50-4e4e-9a85-b3ac9e04d383", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["13.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants' complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicants were complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court, they should have lodged their application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 6 February 1996."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "54218d86-877e-4b2e-96ce-ad1685310e58", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["25.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant's complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Adana State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant had not invoked his complaint before the domestic courts. In this respect, they refer to the case-law of the Court (in particular Ahmet Sad\u0131k v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "119c9940-94f7-42d2-8c7d-116fd9401dae", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["67.  The Government noted that although the applicant had reported a criminal offence and contested the termination of the criminal proceedings, this could not be considered sufficient within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The criminal investigation had not established elements of a criminal offence, so the criminal proceedings had been terminated without bringing charges against anyone. In instances where elements of criminal offence were not established, the criminal-law remedy could not be seen as effective. The applicant could therefore not choose to pursue it in place of a civil remedy in order to meet the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "d2c4c6a0-fade-4fc3-a6cc-b0d1c12cea2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The applicant submitted that she had lodged a complaint about the administrative's authority failure to deal with her case within a reasonable time (see paragraph 11 above) and was successful in that the governor acknowledged that the proceedings had been protracted and ordered the Mayor to give a decision on the merits of the case within one month. Hence, she had recourse to the relevant remedy. As to the compensatory remedy relied on by the applicant, she submitted that this was not a remedy necessary for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. She relied on the Court's judgments in cases of Cichla v. Poland, no. 18036/03, 10 October 2006 and Jagie\u0142\u0142o v. Poland, no. 59738/00, 23 January 2007)"], "obj_label": "35", "id": "ef57f446-c622-41d4-b49a-7b622124475a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants\u2019 complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicants had not invoked their complaint before the domestic courts. In this respect, they refer to the case-law of the Court (in particular Ahmet Sad\u0131k v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "ab76e10f-e263-4c10-a7c6-e7ad1f81c928", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant called into question the effectiveness of the investigation, stating that in her case it was not a remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. She also asserted that an administrative practice consisting of the authorities\u2019 continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences committed by representatives of the federal forces in the Chechen Republic rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in her case. In this connection she relied on applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "898ae663-8833-4214-b1a2-9e76ea2d4439", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["59.  The Government raised a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, both in respect of the decision of the M\u00fcnster District Court of 18 December 2001 concerning the denial of access to the children and the decision on the merits of the same court of 6 March 2003 against which appeal proceedings were still pending. They referred to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 21 June 2002 by which the applicants' constitutional complaint, in so far as it was directed against the decision of 18 December 2001, was declared inadmissible, since the applicants had failed to appeal against it, in accordance with Section 19 of the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings (see paragraph 28 above)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "f26a66ae-736a-47c5-b687-37ad664a018a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["66.  The applicant insisted that his description of the conditions in remand prison IZ-39/1 had been accurate. The applicant also argued that although he had raised the issue of conditions of detention with various administrative bodies his complaints had been unsuccessful. He concluded that he had no effective remedies to complain about that situation. As to the civil proceedings against the remand prison administration, the applicant maintained that they had been brought within the statutory time-limits established for such types of claim under Russian law. He concluded that the date of the final judgment in those proceedings (30 July 2003) must be the date taken for calculation of the six-month time-limit set in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "1b9bfd90-894f-4dfd-b793-bb2a7e1140eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, since she had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to her under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, she would have been eligible for compensation for the loss allegedly sustained as a result of the delay in payment of the additional compensation had she established that the loss exceeded the amount of default interest. The Government further claimed that the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant had been caused by the legal interest rates. They argued that in the course of the proceedings before the domestic courts the applicant had already agreed to the application of the legal interest rates to her case and that therefore she could not be said to have raised her Convention grievances before the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "2564bfc5-d055-4d30-b77b-690b6cb04688", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government also maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation if he had established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "1f0098db-2d77-45b7-9acf-43da0207066e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["27.  The Government requested the Court to dismiss the complaint as being inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant did not file a complaint against the trial judge with the domestic authorities, such as the Ministry of Justice or a public prosecutor\u2019s office."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "40a86de0-8bfc-4f56-934a-136470bb4bbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["12.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for the loss allegedly sustained as a result of the delay in payment of the additional compensation if he had established that the loss exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "97e5d853-4336-45d3-a81d-9e2fc6694c8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The Government further submitted that the applicant bank had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention as it had failed to institute proceedings under Article 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to lodge an administrative appeal against the CNB's original decision by which the compulsory administration had been imposed on it. Mr Moravec had not used that remedy either."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "71dc3f79-e2c5-4f0e-b66d-ed2bbcd35643", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["70.  The Government submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 July 2001 had been served on the applicant\u2019s lawyer on 9 August 2001. That judgment had ultimately conferred on the authorities the right to take possession of the applicant\u2019s plot. The subsequent decisions given in the case had only been the consequence of the fact that that right had been conferred on the authorities. The application had been lodged with the Court seven months later, on 1 March 2002. The applicant had therefore failed to submit her application to the Court within the time-limit of six months provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "aac6942d-f49a-4462-93d3-10158272136b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["44.  The applicant called into question the effectiveness of the investigation, stating that it was not an effective remedy for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also stated that an administrative practice consisting in the authorities\u2019 continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences committed by representatives of the federal forces in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in her case. In this connection she relied on the Court\u2019s judgements in cases brought by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "da03ca5e-4215-458a-a642-c7587b3bc7a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["98.  The Government submitted that the applicant had never complained about his ill-treatment to the competent domestic authorities, either personally or through counsel representing his interests in the criminal proceedings against him. All complaints had been lodged by his mother. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the mother\u2019s complaints did not count for exhaustion purposes. In any event, although the mother had appealed against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings to a higher prosecutor, such appeal did not constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, \u00a7 60, 1 March 2007). The only effective remedy was a judicial appeal. The mother had not applied to a court until long after the events complained of, while the applicant himself had not had recourse to that remedy at all. Therefore, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "ba4c6898-3bb0-4d53-883c-08534bb93bfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant had not invoked this complaint before the domestic courts. In this respect, they referred to the case-law of the Court (in particular Ahmet Sad\u0131k v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "ea67f8cd-e215-45c3-8845-b8ca6af258c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation if they had established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "75b526c2-e278-4d53-b266-0c5975818b88", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["42.  The applicant submitted that his mother represented him throughout the proceedings and that the remedies which she had pursued regarding the excessive length of the proceedings had also been brought on his behalf. He further referred to a judgment given by the Court in her case (Berent-Derda v. Poland, no. 23484/02, 1 July 2008) where it found that she had complied with the requirement set by Article <mask> of the Convention. He further submitted that he had withdrawn the complaint of 2 February 2006 (see paragraph 24 above) because it had been successful in that a decision on the merits of the case had been given after his lodging of that complaint."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "7799bfc0-24f5-431c-b324-01075ecdacc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["21.  The Government argued that the applicants did not exhaust the domestic remedies as they did not request the rectification of the decisions delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court. They also stated that as the applicants did not submit any observations in reply to the submissions of the administration dated 4 November 1997, they cannot be considered as having exhausted the domestic remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "bc29fba1-bcd2-4bbf-b066-512261b5d7ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["15.  The Government averred that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, since they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation for the losses allegedly sustained as a result of the delays in payment of the additional compensation had they established that the losses exceeded the amount of default interest. The Government further claimed that the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants had been caused by the legal interest rates. They argued that before the domestic courts, the applicants had agreed to the application of the legal interest rates to their case and that, therefore, they could not be said to have raised their Convention grievances before the domestic authorities."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "5432539e-6cb5-416a-ba94-ba503a02fcf6", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The Government further described various legal avenues which were available to the applicant in connection with his complaint about conditions of detention. Alternatively, they claimed that the application in this part had been submitted outside the time-limit provided by Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, the application was introduced on 5 October 2002, whereas the applicant complained about the period of his detention which had ended on 26 June 2000. The Government maintained that it would be wrong to calculate the six-month time-limit from the date of the final decision in the applicant\u2019s civil proceedings against the colony administration, since the Court has found in a number of previous cases that in the Russian legal system tort proceedings cannot be considered an \u201ceffective remedy\u201d within the meaning of Article 35."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "e34be744-1661-43d0-ad50-7586e7ab680c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government asked the Court to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they maintained that the applicant had to complain before the national authorities prior to his application to the Court. They stated that at no stage of the domestic proceedings did the applicant question the length of the proceedings."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "57b78a82-5d24-474f-8576-a8b9ce518a4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["57.  The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the initial order for his retrospective preventive detention. In its judgment of 4 May 2011, the Federal Constitutional Court had not created a new remedy, but had only laid down conditions for the usual periodic review of preventive detention under Article 67e of the Criminal Code."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "d7b4ed4c-085a-4cfa-b41e-fecd7181f626", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["74.  The Government also stated that a criminal case had been opened in June 2012. The complaint was premature and thus inadmissible for one of the reasons under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court notes that the Government have not informed it of the course of the preliminary investigation or its outcome. In any event, between August 2009 and the date of lodging the present complaint before the Court, the national authorities were afforded ample opportunity to deal with the complaint relating to the use of force and to carry out an effective investigation in this respect. As noted above, the present complaint was lodged in time. The resumption of the investigation in 2012 does not make the complaint inadmissible under Article 35 of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "e8aeb671-a78d-4aef-ad6e-ef4789880a61", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["95.  The applicants complained that their rights under Article 11 had been affected by the decision by the local administration of 17 April 2006 not to allow the demonstration. The Government, in response, claimed that under Article 19 of the Public Gatherings Act it was open for the organisers of the demonstration to complain in court about the decision of the district administration of 17 April 2006 to ban the demonstration. However, the organisers did not lodge such a complaint. Therefore, they failed to exhaust domestic remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "dd1cab44-1dc2-4bc0-8fd1-8aede3a1254b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["35.  The Government considered that the applicant had not fully exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the proceedings before the domestic courts, he had failed to complain about his visual observation as such, which alone had established a link between himself and the data obtained by the GPS surveillance in that it had disclosed his presence in S.'s car. Moreover, the applicant had not contested the lawfulness of all surveillance measures other than the GPS surveillance, in particular the interception of his telecommunications, before the domestic courts."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "94ceb513-573e-40c7-a870-62a5488b5e87", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants\u2019 complaints in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this regard, they maintained that the applicants had not invoked this complaint before the domestic courts. They further argued that the applicants should have lodged their application with the Court within six months of the date on which the State Security Court rendered its judgment."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "7dc30d0d-cde9-4d20-b410-9d20321cc192", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["19.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants had failed to comply with the six months rule. In this regard, they claimed firstly that the application had been lodged with the court outside the six-month time limit. They further submitted that the complaints pertaining to the independence and impartiality of the \u0130zmir State Security Court and the lack of access to a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings should have been lodged with the Court within six months of the date on which the State Security Court rendered its judgment and the date on which the applicants\u2019 detention period ended, respectively."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "476c12f7-cc9f-4a57-8e38-efc1d963767b", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["65.  The applicant further argued that the criminal investigation had been ongoing for more than ten years (see paragraph 48 above). The Government could not, therefore, claim in a convincing way that this constituted an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular with regard to the serious nature of the alleged crime. Moreover, they did not explain why the investigation had been protracted (see Timurtas \u03bd. Turkey (dec.), no. 23531/94, 13 June 2000; Sarli \u03bd. Turkey (dec.), no. 24490/94, 28 September 1995; and Ertak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20764/92, 12 April 1996). The applicant maintained that in this case the investigating authorities had failed to comply with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition (see, for example, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00, .57945/00, 57942/00, 57945/00, 24 February 2005, \u00a7 155, and Yasa v. Turkey, no. 22495/93, 2 September 1998, \u00a7 102-104)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "0bcbf152-b534-41a9-aa43-9121e869e0b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the non-communication of the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. They maintained that the applicant should have lodged this complaint to the Court within six-months following the dismissal of his request for a rectification of the Court of Cassation\u2019s decision whereas his complaint was introduced to the Court on 7 January 1998."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "7317505d-e15c-43c5-9556-561d88c81c22", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["92.  The Government argued that the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by the Convention. They maintained that, in so far as the applicant\u2019s main argument was the failure to enforce the State Arbitration Commission\u2019s decision of 1993, which constituted the basis for the applicant\u2019s further complaints, that decision was the last decision for the purposes of Article 35. Thus, the application should be taken to have been lodged well outside the time-limit provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "62376c1f-1438-4339-a298-cf9ac11bc4ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants\u2019 complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicants were complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court, they should have lodged their application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 9 October 1996."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "fead6808-6ee7-4fc8-84c5-aaa23784fb0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article <mask> of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 17 March 1998. However, the applicants had not lodged their application with Court until 4 May 1999, that is almost fourteen months after the final domestic decision."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "32943ae9-2740-409c-908c-ee4d7d8340c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["36.  The Government argued that the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by the Convention. They maintained that, in so far as the applicants\u2019 main argument was that, by the letter of 2 November 2005, the Gurjaani Public Registry prevented enforcement of the Gurjaani District Court\u2019s decision of 31 January 2005, that letter was the last decision for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "274177e8-273a-4c01-bb4a-df1dc2c6bff7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["26.  The Government submitted that the application had not been made within six months of the last domestic decision as it was received by the Court on 2 November 2016. However, according to the Court\u2019s settled case\u2011law it is the date of dispatch which is the relevant date for the purposes of calculating the six-month period in Article <mask> of the Convention (see by way of example Shishkov v. Russia, no. 26746/05, \u00a7 83, 20 February 2014). The postal records show that the application was dispatched on 24 October 2016 and was therefore made within six months from the date on which the final decision was taken in the case, which was that of the Supreme Court of 27 April 2016. It follows that the application was made within the six\u2011month time limit."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "91db19bb-d243-454d-8550-8cf000db6b2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["79.  The Government firstly claimed that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. In particular, she had not begun court proceedings against the journalists whose television show, Srov\u0117s, had been based on the interview with the applicant\u2019s psychiatrist, doctor D.\u0160. On that point the Government noted that domestic law allowed individuals to bring a claim directly against a producer and/or broadcaster of a television programme, irrespective of who else might have contributed to the dissemination of the information in question (see paragraph 72 above). Accordingly, and notwithstanding the applicant\u2019s belief that the breach of her right to privacy was linked to the actions of the psychiatrist, the impact on her privacy that she had purportedly experienced had been caused by the journalists and the television channel which had broadcast the Srov\u0117s programme. The Government also referred to several Supreme Court rulings from 2005 and argued that there was a plentiful amount of Lithuanian case\u2011law showing that journalists could be brought to justice for breaching the right to privacy, proving that such an action was an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It was therefore not reasonable to shift all the responsibility for the public dissemination of information which the applicant saw as concerning her private life to the hospital, or, all the more so, to the State, only because the applicant had chosen to bring her claim for responsibility against the hospital during the domestic proceedings. The Government underlined that domestic law aimed at enabling plaintiffs to approach alleged violations of their rights in the most effective way, considering all the relevant factors showing wrongful behaviour. In this case, neither the hospital nor the psychiatrist had been able to control the scope of the information broadcast, in contrast to the actual broadcaster of that information."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "e86197c6-731a-4005-a9ef-a915af9dcca1", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["31.  The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit as required under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They referred to the fact that the final judgment in the applicant\u2019s criminal case had been given on 21 April 2011 and served on his lawyer on 7 June 2011. The time-limit provided for by Article <mask> of the Convention had expired on 7 December 2011. The applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 2 January 2012, as shown by the receipt stamp of the Registry on the application form."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "e46cb8ee-3494-45ca-8470-566125eeedc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant's complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Malatya State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Malatya State Security Court, he should have lodged his application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "54ee86d8-bfe5-4fd0-bc20-e50d05f24d5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["18.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court, he should have lodged his application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 27 November 1997."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "73019ee2-ab73-4617-a847-ec905e68d170", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["30.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Istanbul State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant did not raise this complaint before the domestic courts. Moreover, the Government referred to the constitutional amendment of 1999 whereby military judges could no longer sit on such courts. They contended that the applicant cannot therefore claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a trial by an independent and impartial court."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "c7780c7e-5884-4cc5-8f0a-dca9912afc5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["28.  The Government argued in the first place that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant could have filed an objection against the confiscation order pursuant to Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, they contended that this complaint was unsubstantiated. In this connection, they stated that the vehicle in question had been returned to the applicant in 2002 and that the confiscation order, which had been issued because there was a dispute over the ownership of the car, was in accordance with the domestic law and served the general interest."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "ee15b8e7-7f51-469a-bb61-67f3b2ef9f2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["199.  The Government claimed that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of this complaint. Thus, he had not challenged the lawfulness of those searches before the courts. Alternatively, the Government claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit established in Article <mask> of the Convention, if calculated from the date of the searches."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "9a674627-7b82-4251-9879-ea750e6769f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["37.  The Government considered that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention \u2013 in particular, the applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity, provided for by the international conventions on legal assistance in criminal matters, to participate in the execution of the letters rogatory or to indicate the questions to be put to the witnesses outside Ukraine."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "2124aaf0-832a-4a88-bc76-94593f8057e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court, he should have lodged his application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 18 November 1996."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "6038b797-6601-465e-a20e-1b209e752fc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government further argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants' complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicants had not invoked their complaint before the domestic courts. In this respect, they refer to the case-law of the Court (in particular Ahmet Sad\u0131k v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V)."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "ebf38339-2ce8-4b39-a44d-2746084a640c", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["179.  The Government maintained that the applicant could have appealed against the court order committing him for compulsory psychiatric treatment. It followed therefore that the applicant had not done all that could be expected of him to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and for that reason his complaint should have been declared inadmissible. The applicant disagreed."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "547f799a-3d14-4234-90b2-77b20f93d76d", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["16.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court, he should have lodged his application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 15 October 1997."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "fd87e64f-5f01-4c38-9ffb-4aea515a4ab2", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}
+{"masked_sentences": ["14.  The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants\u2019 complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicants were complaining of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court, they should have lodged their application with the Court within six months of the date on which that court rendered its judgment, namely 25 March 1997."], "obj_label": "35", "id": "2db0a5e7-d5e3-4c93-9a24-1538fb67d49e", "sub_label": "ECtHR"}