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.
Art 3 • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Respondent State's failure to present sufficient evidence demonstrating conclusively that the police authorities provided detained sex workers with food, water and access to a toilet • No breach in relation to complaint of alleged inadequate medical treatment
Art 8 • Private life • Domestic courts failure to protect detained sex workers' right to respect for their private life against the infringement of that right by the publication of their photographs, taken while in custody, on the Ministry of Interior's website • Applicants' complaint dismissed by the Court of Appeal without sufficient reasoning • No prima facie evidence of any responsibility on the part of the police authorities for the taking and the publication of their photographs in certain media outlets
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Arnfinn Bårdsen , President , Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Frédéric Krenc, Diana Sârcu , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,
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.