Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Application Nos. 54461/00+ (judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007), 50690/99 (judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008), 31918/02 (judgment of 6/03/2007, final on 6/06/2007), 50290/99 (judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008), 31695/02 (judgment of 29/01/2008, final on 29/04/2008) and 16254/02 (judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern a breach of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy as there was no appeal in domestic law before a national court whereby they might contest transfer decisions taken concerning them by the prefect of the region subject to the state of emergency (violations of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.