hudoc.echr.coe.int
Open in
urlscan Pro
2606:4700::6812:198e
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://www.prisonlitigation.org/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=track&action=click&data=WyI2MDQiLCIxYXd1ZHl3cDAzOWM4a284Y293c2djMGNvMG...
Effective URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-224572
Submission: On June 13 via manual from PT — Scanned from FR
Effective URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-224572
Submission: On June 13 via manual from PT — Scanned from FR
Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM
<form class="inputContainer">
<a tabindex="20" skiplinkurl="#section_keywordsearch" class="skipLink">TERMINATOR</a>
<a tabindex="21" id="section_keywordsearch" skiplinkurl="#skipLink_search" class="skipLink">Go Back (Press Enter)</a>
<input id="input_fulltext" name="search" title="Simple Search" tabindex="22" class="textinput fieldOptionButtonPresent" type="text" autocomplete="off" autocorrect="off" autocapitalize="off" spellcheck="false" value="">
<button class="fieldOptionsButton" type="button" tabindex="-1" title="Show field options"></button>
</form>Text Content
TERMINATOR
TERMINATOR
resultCountPhrase
Keyword Search (Press Enter)
Advanced Search (Press Enter)
Document Collection (Press Enter)
Filters (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
Go Back (Press Enter)
Filters - Language (Press Enter)
Filters - Importance (Press Enter)
Filters - State (Press Enter)
Filters - Article (Press Enter)
Filters - Non Violation (Press Enter)
Filters - Violation (Press Enter)
Filters - Keywords (Press Enter)
Filters - Date (Press Enter)
Filters - Courts (Press Enter)
Filters - Judges (Press Enter)
Filters - Originating Body (Press Enter)
Filters - Organisations (Press Enter)
Filters - Organisations (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
Sort (Press Enter)
Results (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
TERMINATOR
TERMINATOR
Go Back (Press Enter)
Navigator - View (Press Enter)
Navigator - Case Details (Press Enter)
Navigator - Language Versions (Press Enter)
Navigator - Related (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
This site uses cookies. Read our policy ×
Please Note: Only currently visible results are printed. To print more you can
either scroll to reveal more results or use the Export feature.
SEARCH
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
SEARCH
TERMINATOR
Filters A
Aa Aa Aa
Useful Links | Preferences | Advanced Search | Help | Other
Languages
Preferences
Enable Result List Preview
Enable Result List Detailed View
Hide Metadata-Only Documents
Other Languages
French
Armenian
Bulgarian
Georgian
Russian
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Council of Europe | European Court of Human Rights | Useful Links |
Privacy | Help | Disclaimer
Back to top
NARROW YOUR SEARCH
DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
* Case-Law (0)
* Judgments (0)
* Grand Chamber (0)
* Chamber (0)
* Committee (0)
* Decisions (0)
* Grand Chamber (0)
* Chamber (0)
* Committee (0)
* Commission (0)
* Screening Panel (0)
* Communicated Cases (0)
* Legal Summaries (0)
* Advisory Opinions (0)
* Article 47 (0)
* Protocol No. 16 (0)
* Opinions (0)
* Panel refusals (0)
* Other requests (0)
* Reports (0)
* Resolutions (0)
* Execution (0)
* Merits (0)
Press Collection
NOL Legal Summaries
Communicated Cases 2008-2011
TERMINATOR
MORE HUDOC SITES
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
HUDOC-CPT
HUDOC-ECRI
HUDOC-ESC
HUDOC-EXEC
TERMINATOR
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
HUDOC-FCNM
HUDOC-GRECO
HUDOC-GRETA
HUDOC-GREVIO
TERMINATOR
FILTERS
LANGUAGE
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
IMPORTANCE
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
STATE
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
ARTICLE
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
NON-VIOLATION
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
VIOLATION
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
KEYWORDS
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
MORE FILTERS
DOCUMENT TYPE
DATE
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
JUDGE
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
ORIGINATING BODY
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
COURT
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
ORGANISATION
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TERMINATOR
ADVANCED SEARCH
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
TEXT
CASE TITLE
APPLICATION NUMBER
STRASBOURG CASE-LAW
RULES OF COURT
APPLICABILITY
ECLI
CONCLUSION
RES NUM
DATE
to
SEPARATE OPINION(S)
No
Yes
DOMESTIC LAW
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL
KEYWORDS
REQUEST NUMBER
SEARCH
Search in Document Sections
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
FOR THESE REASONS
SEPARATE OPINION(S)
APPENDIX
TERMINATOR
0 Results Found
Print Export RSS
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter) Sort by: Relevance Date (Newest) Date (Oldest)
Case Title (A-Z) Case Title (Z-A) State (A-Z) State (Z-A) App Number Ascending
App Number Descending Date (Newest) then State Date (Oldest) then State
TERMINATOR
Export Options
CSV Excel
Note: Only a maximum of 500 results can be exported
CRITERIA
CLEAR ALL
Sort: Relevance
×
Sort : Relevance
Item Id: 001-224572
×
Item Id : 001-224572
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
...
THIS EXACT WORD OR PHRASE
ALL OF THESE WORDS
ANY OF THESE WORDS
NONE OF THESE WORDS
NEAR THESE WORDS
BOOLEAN SEARCH
OK CANCEL CLEAR
(1 of 1) CASE OF BOJAR v. POLAND
11148/18 | Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) | Court (First
Section Committee) | 11/05/2023
Document URL:
* View
* Case Details
* Language Versions
* Related
*
Terms (0 of 0) Highlight Exact term only
TERMINATOR Go Back (Press Enter)
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BOJAR v. POLAND
(Application no. 11148/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 May 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bojar v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee
composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 11148/18) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the
Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 February 2018 by a Polish
national, Mr Bartłomiej Bojar (“the applicant”), who was born in 1973 and is
currently detained in Strzelce Opolskie, and who had been granted legal aid and
was represented by Ms B. Solińska, a lawyer practising in Wrocław;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Polish Government (“the
Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 11 April 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns several instances of strip searches to which the
applicant was subjected while detained.
2. Since 2002 the applicant has been serving a sentence of twenty-five years’
imprisonment. In December 2013 he was placed in Strzelce Opolskie Prison. On 5
March 2014 he started working for a company located outside the prison.
3. On 29 August 2017 during a general prison check the applicant was subjected
to a strip search in his cell. He complained about it. On 14 November 2017 the
Director of the Regional Prison Service Inspectorate (“the Director”) informed
the applicant that his complaint had been unfounded. The applicant lodged a
further complaint with the Opole Regional Court, which, on 12 January 2018,
replied that the Director’s reply “remained valid”.
4. On 11 September 2017 the applicant was strip-searched after finishing his
shift at work. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Director, in which he
argued that there had been no grounds to perform the strip search and alleged
that strip searches were performed systematically on randomly chosen working
prisoners after the end of their shifts. On 22 November 2017 the Director
informed him that the complaint had been unfounded as the applicant had been
subjected to a so-called “enhanced supervision programme” in view of suspicions
that he had been involved in drug dealing. Strip searches of inmates, in
particular as they returned from work, were the main protective measure used to
maintain order and security in prison. The applicant lodged an appeal with the
Opole Regional Court, which on 21 December 2017 refused to examine it. The court
found that since the Director had not issued any decision, there had been no
right of appeal to a court.
5. On 19 October 2017 the applicant was subjected to a strip search after he
had finished his shift. The applicant alleged that during the strip search a
person who was not wearing a uniform and who was unknown to the applicant had
been present, as well as other prison guards who had not performed the strip
search of the applicant. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Director, who
on 19 December 2017 informed the applicant that the complaint had been
unfounded.
6. The next strip searches took place on 3 June 2018, after the applicant had
received a visit, and on 15 June 2018, after he had finished his shift. The
applicant lodged a complaint with the Director. In reply, the Director informed
him that it had not been possible to confirm whether the strip searches had
taken place, because there was no official register of strip searches.
7. The applicant complained that the strip searches had breached his right to
respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention. Secondly, he
complained that he had not had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for
his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of
the Convention in that the authorities had not issued any reasoned decision
ordering strip searches and that he had no right to lodge an appeal to a court.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION in respect of strip
searches
8. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
9. The general principles concerning strip searches have been summarised in
Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-17, 17 April 2012).
10. The applicant submitted that the strip searches had no justification and
had not been proportionate. In particular, he had never given the prison
authorities any reason to suspect that he might have hidden any objects in the
intimate parts of his body, and he objected to the Government’s assertion that
he had been involved in dealing in drugs, which would have justified enhanced
supervision.
11. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant’s right
to respect for his private life had been justified for the prevention of
disorder or crime and to protect the rights and freedoms of others and that it
had been proportionate. Furthermore, the strip searches had been performed in
the presence of two officers of the same sex as the applicant with no other
persons present. The applicant had not been treated in a humiliating way and
nobody had used abusive or offensive language towards him. In the Government’s
view, the strip searches had also been justified by a suspicion that the
applicant had been involved in drug dealing and therefore subjected to enhanced
supervision. The applicant’s complaints about the strip searches had been
examined and no breach of domestic regulations had been found.
12. The Court has already found that where a measure falls short of Article 3
treatment, it may fall foul of Article 8 of the Convention, which, among other
things, provides for the protection of physical and mental integrity under the
head of respect for the individual’s private life. There is no doubt that the
requirement to undergo a strip search will generally constitute an interference
under the first paragraph of Article 8 and must be justified in terms of the
second paragraph, namely as being “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in
a democratic society” for one or more of the legitimate aims listed therein.
According to the settled case-law, the notion of necessity implies that the
interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it
is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Wainwright v. the United
Kingdom, no. 12350/04, § 43, ECHR 2006-X).
13. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the orders for the strip
searches had a basis in the provisions of domestic law, namely the Code of
Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Court is also satisfied that the
interference complained of pursued the legitimate aim of “the prevention of
disorder or crime”.
14. It remains to be examined whether the strip searches to which the applicant
was subjected were proportionate in the circumstances of the present case.
15. The authorities referred to the security needs of the prison in general
terms without pointing to any concrete event or behaviour by the applicant that
would have justified the measures. From the grounds given by the authorities it
also appears that the prisoners were subjected to preventive strip searches when
returning from work. The Government have provided no evidence justifying the
authorities’ suspicion that the applicant might have been involved in drug
dealing.
16. The Court is aware of the need to ensure security in institutions where
people are deprived of their liberty. It considers, however, that highly
invasive and potentially debasing measures like body searches or strip searches
require a plausible justification. It does not appear that such a justification
was given to the applicant by the prison authorities in the present case (see
Dejnek v. Poland, no. 9635/13, § 75, 1 June 2017). The Court also notes that the
Regional Court considered that it could not examine the complaint as there had
been no official decision issued. On another occasion the authorities were not
able to confirm that a strip search had been carried out, as alleged by the
applicant, since there was no register of searches. Such a situation prevents
the Court from assessing whether the requirement of a sufficient justification
for strip searches at the domestic level had been complied with (see, mutatis
mutandis, Dejnek, cited above, § 75, and Nowak v. Poland, no. 60906/16, § 37,
13 October 2022).
17. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude
that the authorities failed to provide sufficient and relevant reasons
justifying the strip searching of the applicant.
18. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
II. Other COMPLAINTS
19. The applicant also complained that the facts of the case gave rise to a
breach of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 in that the
authorities had not issued any reasoned decision ordering the strip searches of
the applicant which could be appealed against.
20. The Court observes that at the heart of the applicant’s complaint under
Article 13 of the Convention lie issues that have been examined and have
resulted in the finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
(see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). Having regard to the facts of the case, the
submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that no
separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention and makes no sperate
finding under this provision (see Prus v. Poland, no. 5136/11, § 43, 12 January
2016).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. The applicant claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage
(of which EUR 4,000 in respect of Article 8 of the Convention). In respect of
costs and expenses incurred before the Court the applicant sought 1,474 Polish
zlotys (equivalent to EUR 320) and additionally 30% of the award granted to the
applicant by the Court.
22. The Government contested the claims.
23. The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
24. Having regard to the documents in its possession, and the fact that the
applicant had been granted legal aid, the Court considers it reasonable to award
EUR 320 for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the
complaint under Article 13 of the Convention taken together with Article 8
of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the
following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 320 (three hundred and twenty euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the
marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period
plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 May 2023, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Lətif Hüseynov
Deputy Registrar President
Language versions
Official Languages
Judgments, decisions and other texts are available in HUDOC in one or both of
the Court's official languages (English and French):
Non-official translations
Disclaimer
Unless otherwise indicated, translations into non-official languages are not
produced by the Registry of the Court and the Registry does not check their
accuracy or linguistic quality. These translations are published in HUDOC for
information purposes only and the Court accepts no responsibility for their
quality or content. Multiple translations into the same language of individual
judgments or decisions may appear. If you do a copy of the URL address of the
session related to your non-official language search, every time you will paste
it in the address bar you will obtain the updated results concerning this
search. Example: you will have all results to date of the Grand Chamber
judgments in Croatian by pasting the copy of the following URL address in the
address bar:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"languageisocode":["HRV"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER"]}
Documents and tools provided by the Court
The Registry of the Court has produced a Practical Guide on Admissibility
Criteria in English and French which describes the conditions of admissibility
which an application must meet. This guide has also been translated and is
available in many non official languages. The Court Library database enables
users to search for bibliographical references in a number of languages, either
by case title (e.g. Kalashnikov) or by Convention Article (e.g. CEDH-3 - please
note that searches by Article have to be made using the French initials for the
Convention: 'CEDH'). Documentation providing information for persons wishing to
lodge an application with the Court is available in many languages.
External on-line collections of translations
A series of links is provided below to Internet sites hosting translations of
Convention case-law into languages other than English and French. This list is
not exhaustive. Please note: The Court is not responsible for the content of
external websites and the inclusion of a link in the list below does not
constitute any endorsement of the site or the materials contained on it. Links
are listed by country and, if there is more than one link for a country, by
alphabetical order. Further links will be added from time to time. If you have a
suggestion for a new site to be included in the list, or are a Web or other
publishers interested in having translations integrated into the HUDOC database,
or if you wish to contact us to object to a link to your site, please let us
know using this form. (Select the option: "Send any comments concerning HUDOC").
Publishers, organisations and governments who would like to submit non-official
translations for inclusion in the Court's database HUDOC are invited to follow
this procedure.
Albania
http://www.magjistratura.edu.al/?fq=info&metod=shfaqkat&katID=id_vendime
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/the-european-human-rights-database-for-south-east-europe
http://www.avokaturashtetit.gov.al/
Andorra
https://www.bopa.ad/Pagines/inici.aspx
Armenia
http://www.justice.am
Austria
http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/newsletter-menschenrechte/archiv.html
Azerbaijan
http://www.supremecourt.gov.az/en
Bosnia and Herzegovina
http://www.mhrr.gov.ba/ured_zastupnika/odluke/?id=170
http://www.coe.int/fr/web/sarajevo
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/the-european-human-rights-database-for-south-east-europe
https://csd.pravosudje.ba/vstvfo/S/142/kategorije-vijesti/765/767
Bulgaria
http://www.justice.government.bg/47/
Croatia
https://uredzastupnika.gov.hr/
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/the-european-human-rights-database-for-south-east-europe
Czech Republic
http://eslp.justice.cz/
http://portal.justice.cz/justice2/MS/ms.aspx?j=33&o=23&k=390
Denmark
http://www.justitsministeriet.dk
https://menneskeret.dk
Estonia
http://vm.ee/et
http://www.riigiteataja.ee/oigusuudised/kohtuuudiste_nimekiri.html
http://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtuteave/eik_liigitus.html
Finland
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/eurooppa/feit/
https://um.fi/frontpage
Georgia
http://www.supremecourt.ge/human-rights-centre/european-court-of-human-rights/recent-judgements/
Germany
https://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/DE/Bundesregierung/Bundesministerien/BMJ/_node.html
http://www.eugrz.info
http://www.egmr.org/
Greece
http://www.nsk.gov.gr/web/nsk/home
Hungary
http://igazsagugyiinformaciok.kormany.hu/az-emberi-jogok-europai-birosaganak-iteletei
Iceland
http://mhi.hi.is/
Italy
http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_20.wp
Latvia
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumu-arhivs/cilvektiesibu-un-pamatbrivibu-aizsardzibas-konvencijas-1-protokols/pec-pieteiceja
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumu-arhivs/cilvektiesibu-un-pamatbrivibu-aizsardzibas-konvencijas-4-protokols/pec-pieteiceja
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumu-arhivs/cilvektiesibu-un-pamatbrivibu-aizsardzibas-konvencijas-7-protokols/pec-pieteiceja
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumu-arhivs/ect-spriedumu-apkopojumi
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumu-arhivs/ect-nolemumu-mekletajs
http://at.gov.lv/lv/judikatura/ect-nolemumu-arhivs/ect-spriedumu-apkopojumi
Lithuania
http://lrv-atstovas-eztt.lt/
Republic of Moldova
http://www.lhr.md/hot/
http://agent.gov.md/category/impotriva-moldovei/impotriva-moldovei-impotriva-moldovei/hotariri-jurisprudenta-curtii-europene/
Montenegro
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/the-european-human-rights-database-for-south-east-europe
Netherlands
https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-justice-and-security
https://njcm.nl/
http://europeancourts.blogspot.fr
North Macedonia
http://biroescp.gov.mk/en/en.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/the-european-human-rights-database-for-south-east-europe
Norway
http://www.lovdata.no/avg/emdn/index.html
Poland
http://www.ms.gov.pl/
http://bip.ms.gov.pl/pl/prawa-czlowieka/europejski-trybunal-praw-czlowieka/orzecznictwo-europejskiego-trybunalu-praw-czlowieka/
http://www.nsa.gov.pl/orzecznictwo-etpc.php
http://trybunal.gov.pl/publikacje/orzeczenia-etpcz/
http://pk.gov.pl/wyroki-etpcz-wobec-innych-panstw-stron/wyroki-etpcz-wobec-innych-panstw-stron.html
http://www.msz.gov.pl/pl/polityka_zagraniczna/europejski_trybunal_praw_czlowieka/wybrane_orzeczenia_eptcz/orzeczenia_inne_panstwa/tlumaczenia_wyrokow_europejskiego_trybunalu_praw_czlowieka_na_jezyk_polski
Portugal
http://direitoshumanos.gddc.pt/4/IVPAG4_3_3_3.htm
Romania
http://www.scj.ro/
http://www.csm1909.ro/PageDetails.aspx?PageId=275&FolderId=3659
http://ier.gov.ro/
Russia
http://www.coe.ru/00sud-cases.htm
http://www.srji.org/resources/search/
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/our-research/centres/ehrac
http://sutyajnik.ru/rus/echr/school/judg_v_all.html
http://jpr-pechr.ru/
http://pytkam.net/v-pomosch-postradvshemu.reshenija-evropeyskogo-suda-po-pravam-cheloveka
http://www.mmdc.ru/praktika_evropejskogo_suda/novoe_v_praktike_evrosuda/
http://genproc.gov.ru/documents/espch/
http://precedent.in.ua/index.php?organ=1&r=1.11.1
http://www.ip-centre.ru/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=2
http://www.refworld.org.ru/
http://minjust.ru/ru/ECJ/precedent
http://www.echr.ru/
Serbia
http://www.coe.int/fr/web/belgrade
http://www.bgcentar.org.rs/
http://www.zastupnik.mpravde.gov.rs/
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/the-european-human-rights-database-for-south-east-europe
https://e-case.eakademija.com/
Slovakia
http://www.radaeuropy.sk/?43
http://www.justice.gov.sk
Slovenia
http://www.dp-rs.si
http://www2.gov.si/dp-rs/escp.nsf
http://www.sodisce.si/vsrs/
Spain
http://www.icam.es/
http://www.mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/es/1288776153228/EstructuraOrganica.html
Sweden
https://www.domstol.se/
Switzerland
http://www.bger.ch/index/juridiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht/jurisdiction-recht-leitentscheide1954.htm
http://www.skmr.ch/de/aktuell/newsletter/index.html
Türkiye
http://www.yargitay.gov.tr
http://www.barobirlik.org.tr
http://www.ankarabarosu.org.tr
http://insanhaklari.gen.tr
http://insanhaklarimerkezi.bilgi.edu.tr/
http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/
Ukraine
https://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws
http://www.khpg.org/index.php?r=1.3.5
http://precedent.in.ua/index.php?organ=1&r=1.11.1
https://minjust.gov.ua/cat_9329
http://helsinki.org.ua/index.php?r=a1b8
http://kmp.ua/uk/category/documents/echr-translations/
https://www.echr.com.ua/category_translation/case-law/
Related English Documents
Related French Documents
TERMINATOR