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.
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President , Carlo Ranzoni , Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
. The case originated in five applications (nos. 11599/14 , 11602/14 , 31185/14 , 11100/15 and 29258/16 ) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"), by the applicants listed in the appended table on the dates specified therein.
Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. However, since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it in whole and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within six months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach.
The parties did not reach an agreement on just satisfaction within the time allocated for that purpose. The applicants and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments.
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.