Browse 40 leading European Court of Human Rights judgments — filter by Convention Article, country, topic, outcome and period, or search by case name. Each entry links to a full, plain-English analysis of the judgment and what it means for applicants.
40 of 40 judgments
Application no. 35271/19
The J. Paul Getty Trust v. Italy (2024): Italy's confiscation of the 'Victorious Youth' bronze did not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, being a…
Read analysis →Application no. 22854/20
Sanchez-Sanchez v. UK (GC, 2022): extradition to the US would not breach Article 3; no real risk of an irreducible life sentence was shown. Trabelsi overruled.
Read analysis →Application no. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15
Big Brother Watch v. UK (GC, 2021): the UK bulk interception and communications-data regimes breached Articles 8 and 10, though bulk interception is not itself unlawful.
Read analysis →Application no. 29580/12 and 4 others
Navalnyy v. Russia (GC, 2018): the repeated arrest of an opposition politician at public gatherings violated Articles 5, 6, 11 and — for an ulterior purpose…
Read analysis →Application no. 61496/08
Bărbulescu v. Romania (GC, 2017): the domestic courts failed to protect an employee's private life and correspondence when he was dismissed for personal use of a…
Read analysis →Application no. 18030/11
Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary (GC, 2016): refusing an NGO access to State-held information breached Article 10, which can include a right of access to information.
Read analysis →Application no. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09
Ibrahim and Others v. UK (GC, 2016): access to a lawyer may be delayed only for compelling reasons; the test is the overall fairness of the…
Read analysis →Application no. 38590/10
Biao v. Denmark (GC, 2016): a family-reunification rule that indirectly discriminated on the basis of ethnic origin against a naturalised citizen breached Article 14 with Article…
Read analysis →Application no. 27510/08
Perinçek v. Switzerland (GC, 2015): a criminal conviction for denying that the 1915 events were genocide breached Article 10, as the statements did not incite hatred.
Read analysis →Application no. 37553/05
Kudrevičius v. Lithuania (GC, 2015): convicting farmers who blockaded major highways during a protest did not violate Article 11; the disruption exceeded the duty of tolerance.
Read analysis →Application no. 23380/09
Bouyid v. Belgium (GC, 2015): a slap by police on persons under their control amounted to degrading treatment under Article 3, affirming the centrality of human…
Read analysis →Application no. 64569/09
Delfi AS v. Estonia (GC, 2015): holding a large commercial news portal liable for clearly unlawful hate-speech comments did not violate Article 10.
Read analysis →Application no. 42750/09
Del Río Prada v. Spain (GC, 2013): retroactively applying the 'Parot doctrine' to delay release breached Article 7; the applicant's continued detention was unlawful and the…
Read analysis →Application no. 8139/09
Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK (2012): deportation to Jordan would not breach Article 3, but would breach Article 6 because of the risk of torture-tainted evidence.
Read analysis →Application no. 26766/05 and 22228/06
Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. UK (GC, 2011): a conviction based on an absent witness's statement is not automatically unfair if there are sufficient counterbalancing factors.
Read analysis →Application no. 2034/07
Otegi Mondragon v. Spain (2011): convicting a politician of 'serious insult to the King' for political criticism breached Article 10; special protection for heads of State…
Read analysis →Application no. 30696/09
M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (GC, 2011): Greece and Belgium both violated Articles 3 and 13 in the treatment and Dublin transfer of an Afghan asylum-seeker.
Read analysis →Application no. 22978/05
Gäfgen v. Germany (GC, 2010): threatening a suspect with violence to find a kidnapped child breached Article 3, but there was no violation of Article 6.
Read analysis →Application no. 3455/05
A. and Others v. UK (2009): the indefinite detention of foreign-national terrorism suspects at Belmarsh violated Article 5 § 1 as disproportionate and discriminatory.
Read analysis →Application no. 30562/04 and 30566/04
S. and Marper v. UK (GC, 2008): the indefinite retention of DNA, fingerprints and samples of unconvicted people breaches Article 8 of the Convention.
Read analysis →Application no. 36391/02
Salduz v. Turkey (GC, 2008): denying a suspect a lawyer in police custody and using his statements to convict him violated Article 6. Access to a…
Read analysis →Application no. 57325/00
D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic (GC, 2007): the disproportionate placement of Roma children in special schools was indirect discrimination in education, breaching Article 14 with…
Read analysis →Application no. 35014/97
Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (GC, 2006): Poland's rent-control scheme imposed a disproportionate burden on landlords, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 — a pilot judgment on…
Read analysis →Application no. 43577/98 and 43579/98
Nachova v. Bulgaria (GC, 2005): using lethal force to arrest two fleeing, unarmed Roma conscripts violated Article 2, as did the failure to investigate a possible…
Read analysis →Application no. 46827/99 and 46951/99
Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (GC, 2005): extraditing applicants despite a Rule 39 interim measure breached Article 34 — the landmark establishing that interim measures are…
Read analysis →Application no. 59320/00
Von Hannover v. Germany (2004): publishing photographs of a public figure's private daily life, with no contribution to a debate of general interest, violated Article 8.
Read analysis →Application no. 30210/96
Kudła v. Poland (GC, 2000): the first case to hold that Article 13 requires an effective domestic remedy for excessive length of proceedings, plus violations of…
Read analysis →Application no. 25803/94
Selmouni v. France (GC, 1999): sustained police violence in custody amounted to torture in violation of Article 3; the length of proceedings breached Article 6.
Read analysis →Application no. 23452/94
Osman v. UK (1998): the leading case on the State's positive duty to protect life — the 'Osman test' — and on police immunity and access…
Read analysis →Application no. 21987/93
Aksoy v. Turkey (1996): the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights found that a State had committed torture, plus violations of Articles…
Read analysis →Application no. 18984/91
McCann and Others v. UK (1995): the SAS killing of three IRA members in Gibraltar violated Article 2 because of failures in the planning and control…
Read analysis →Application no. 14038/88
Soering v. UK (1989): the landmark ECHR ruling that extraditing a fugitive to face the death-row phenomenon breaches Article 3. Facts, holding and impact.
Read analysis →Application no. 7151/75 and 7152/75
Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (1982): prolonged expropriation permits and construction bans without compensation or review violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6.
Read analysis →Application no. 7525/76
Dudgeon v. UK (1981): criminalising consensual homosexual acts in Northern Ireland breached Article 8 — the ECHR's first judgment on gay rights.
Read analysis →Application no. 7367/76
Guzzardi v. Italy (1980): compulsory residence on an island under strict supervision amounted to a deprivation of liberty in violation of Article 5 — the leading…
Read analysis →Application no. 6301/73
Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (1979): the leading case on the lawful psychiatric detention of persons of unsound mind — the 'Winterwerp criteria' — plus Article 5…
Read analysis →Application no. 6833/74
Marckx v. Belgium (1979): Belgian law discriminating against children born outside marriage violated Article 8 and Article 14, and family life covers unmarried families.
Read analysis →Application no. 6538/74
The Sunday Times v. UK (1979): an injunction against publishing an article on the thalidomide litigation breached Article 10 — a landmark on prior restraint and…
Read analysis →Application no. 5493/72
Handyside v. UK (1976): no breach of Article 10 for an obscene-book conviction. The origin of the margin of appreciation and 'offend, shock or disturb'.
Read analysis →Application no. 4451/70
Golder v. UK (1975): refusing a prisoner access to a solicitor breached Articles 6 and 8. The case that established the implied right of access to…
Read analysis →No judgments match your filters.