{"id":166995,"date":"2026-02-08T17:31:29","date_gmt":"2026-02-08T17:31:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/?page_id=166995"},"modified":"2026-05-08T22:15:09","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T22:15:09","slug":"the-right-to-fair-trial","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/adjudication\/the-right-to-fair-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"The Right to a Fair Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wpb-content-wrapper\"><div data-sticky class=\"data-sticky\"><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row scroll-trigger-el scroll-trigger-el-mobile scroll-trigger-el-tablet scroll-trigger-parent has-bg need-focus style-back_color-309354-bg parallax-move row-container\"data-sticky-trigger=\"scroll-trigger\" data-anim-state=\"end\" data-anim-sticky=\"\" data-anim-els=\"\" data-anim-x=\"0\" data-anim-y=\"0\" data-anim-blur=\"0\" data-anim-perspective=\"0\" data-anim-rotate=\"0\" data-anim-origin=\"center\" data-anim-target=\"el\" data-anim-scale=\"100\" data-anim-scale-step=\"\" data-anim-opacity=\"0\" data-anim-radius=\"\" data-anim-radius-unit=\"\" data-anim-start=\"\" data-anim-top=\"0\" data-anim-bottom=\"85\" data-anim-safe=\"\" data-anim-ease=\"none\" data-parallax-move=\"3\" id=\"row-unique-0\"><div class=\"row-background background-element\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"background-inner\" style=\"background-image: url(https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/TEDH.jpg);background-repeat: no-repeat;background-position: center center;background-attachment: scroll;background-size: cover;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode for-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"opacity: 0.5;\"><\/div><div class=\"block-bg-overlay block-bg-blend-mode not-ie style-overlay_color-309354-bg\" style=\"mix-blend-mode:multiply;\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div><div class=\"row exa-top-padding exa-bottom-padding exa-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-bottom pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-next-to-blend row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-left align_left column_child col-lg-9 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-spec style-dark\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h3 class=\"font-161747 custom fontspace-111509 font-weight-300 fontsize-167084-custom font-size-custom\" ><span>Adjudication<\/span><\/h3><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_custom_heading_wrap \"><div class=\"heading-text el-text\" ><h6 class=\"h2 text-color-xsdn-color\" ><span>THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL<\/span><\/h6><\/div><div class=\"clear\"><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-3 tablet-hidden mobile-hidden single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-0\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-0\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-0\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div data-parent=\"true\" class=\"vc_row has-bg need-focus style-color-xsdn-bg row-next-to-blend row-container\" id=\"row-unique-1\"><div class=\"row single-top-padding single-bottom-padding single-h-padding full-width row-parent\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_parent col-lg-12 double-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\"  ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell quad-block-padding style-color-xsdn-bg has-bg  unradius-std\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"uncode-accordion wpb_accordion wpb_content_element  sign-size-rg w-border\" data-collapsible=\"no\" data-target=\"\" data-active-tab=\"0\" >\n\t\t<div class=\"panel-group wpb_wrapper wpb_accordion_wrapper\" id=\"accordion_1254956499\" data-no-toggle=\"1\">\n\n<div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_1254956499\" href=\"#d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Grand Chamber Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"d21d5937-3bb0-215556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>GU\u00d0MUNDUR ANDRI \u00c1STR\u00c1\u00d0SSON v. ICELAND (application no. 26374\/18, judgment of 1 December 2020): violation of the right to a court established by law, circumvention of the law on judicial appointments, absolute defects in criminal procedure, effects of the Court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-206582%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-326421 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA (application no. 36658\/05, judgment of 18 December 2018): conviction for terrorism based on absent witnesses, right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on behalf of the defendant under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her, principle of immediacy, overall fairness test.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-187932%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-129080 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E S\u00c1 v. PORTUGAL (applications nos. 55391\/13, 57728\/13 and 74041\/13, judgment of 6 November 2018): lack of procedural guarantees before the High Judicial Council, lack of independence and impartiality of the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court, insufficient extent of the review conducted by the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court and lack of a public hearing.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-187507%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-123938 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>CORREIA DE MATOS v. PORTUGAL (application no. 56402\/12, judgment of 4 April 2018): conviction of lawyer for defamation of a judge, the lawyer\u2019s right to defend himself or herself in person in criminal procedure, distortion of European consensus and fragmentation of international law.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-182243%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-502331 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>K\u00c1ROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY (application no. 56665\/09, judgment of 14 September 2017): dismission of a pastor of the Hungarian Reformed Church, right of access to court concerning the compensation claim.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-177070%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-197003 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MOREIRA FERREIRA C. PORTUGAL (N\u00b0 2) (application no. 19867\/12, judgment of 11 July 2017): refusal to reopen criminal proceedings following a judgement delivered by the European Court of Human Rights which found a violation of article 6, principle of subsidiarity and national margin of appreciation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-175646%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-192361 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (application no. 76943\/11, judgment of 29 November 2016): forced transfer of property from the Greek Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church, redistribution of property, duty of neutrality of the State, uncertainty in the case law and lack of legal certainty, discrimination of religious minority.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-169054%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-942774 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>BAKA v. HUNGARY (application no. 20261\/12, judgment of 23 June 2016): dismissal of the president of the Supreme Court by a transitional constitutional provision, ad hominem legislation against the independence of the judiciary, lack of access to Constitutional Court to impugn transitional constitutional norms, transitional constitutional provision incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, unconstitutional constitutional norms (verfassungswidrige Verfassungsnormen), direct, supra-constitutional effect of the European Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-163113%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-636848 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>AL-DULIMI and MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND (application no. 5809\/08, judgment of 21 June 2016): Security Council Resolutionbased confiscation measures as penalties, the fundamental character of the right of access to court in criminal and civil matters, the conflict between obligations derived from the United Nations Charter and obligations derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention as the European Constitution, the Court\u2019s Bosphorus case law applied to the United Nations.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-138948%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-110067 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>DVORSKI v. CROATIA (application no. 25703\/11, judgment of 20 October 2015): erroneous deprivation of choice of lawyer, the right to a lawyer of one\u2019s own choosing from the initial stages of the proceedings, impact of structural errors on the fairness of criminal proceedings<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-158266%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-104777 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_1254956499\" href=\"#6dad8f3c-7309-815556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section I Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"6dad8f3c-7309-815556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA (application no. 46998\/08, judgment of 19 November 2015): lack of free legal assistance to a defendant in a criminal or administrative offence.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-158708%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-151375 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MELO TADEU v. PORTUGAL (application no. 27785\/10, judgment of 23 October 2014): presumption of innocence in tax enforcement proceedings after acquittal in criminal proceedings based on the same facts.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-147330%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-268599 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (application nos. 6228\/09, 19123\/09, 19678\/07, 52340\/08 and 7451\/09, judgment of 24 April 2014): undercover operations, human rights legislation on special investigation techniques.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-142518%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-102543 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA (application no. 58428\/10, judgment of 27 March 2014): lack of cross-examination of the alleged victim; deficient application of a blanket criminal provision, waiver of the statute of limitations in criminal law.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-141950%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-100826 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_1254956499\" href=\"#9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section II Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"9346230d-a835-915556789140011555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>DILIPAK v. TURKEY (application no. 29680\/05, judgment of 15 September 2015): defamation of State and state organs, Majest\u00e4tsbeleidigung.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-157399%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-193088 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY (applications nos. 18640\/10, 18647\/10, 18663\/10, 18668\/10 and 18698\/10, judgment of 4 March 2014): unfair administrative proceedings for market manipulation before the Commissione Nazionale per la Societ\u00e0 e la Borsa (CONSOB), lack of an effective judicial review of the CONSOB\u2019s decision, the court of appeal\u2019s amendment of the accusation, to the detriment of the appellant, illegality and disproportionality of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary sanctions, ne bis in idem effect of conviction of an administrative offence in subsequent criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-141794%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-116528 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ATES MIMARLIK MUHENDISLIK A.S. v. TURKEY (application no. 33275\/05, judgment of 25 September 2012): jurisdiction over claim of payment of work fee regarding an international construction contract.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-113441%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-120409 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>K.M.C. v. HUNGARY (application no. 19554\/11, judgment of 10 July 2012): groundless decision of termination of employment.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-112086%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-110383 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>MENARINI DIAGNOSTICS S.R.L. v. ITALY (application no. 43509\/08, judgment of September 2011): scope of judicial review of administrative sanctions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-106438%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-164972 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ADAMOV v. SWITZERLAND (application no. 3052\/06, judgment of 21 June 2011): salvus conductus guarantee, conduct of State agents with bad faith.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-105336%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-138125 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>DOBRIC v. SERBIA (applications nos. 2611\/07 and 15276\/07, judgment of 21 June 2011): rejection by the Supreme Court of an appeal in civil procedure due to redenomination of the Serbian currency and change of the value of the dispute.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-105234%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-299816 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>ABDULLAH YILDIZ v. TURKEY (application no. 35164\/05, judgment of 26 April 2011): compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by violation of article 6.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-104626%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-193953 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_1254956499\" href=\"#1555679162900-3-11555679505952d6a2-ca1e\"><span>Section III Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"1555679162900-3-11555679505952d6a2-ca1e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>BELUGIN v. RUSSIA (application no. 2991\/06, judgment 26 November 2019): compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by violation of article 6.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-198641%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-607436 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA (applications nos. 75734\/12 and 2 others, judgment of 19 November 2019): abduction of asylum seeker from Ukraine to Russia; excessively intensive court hearing schedule and lengthy prison transfers; dissent regarding inadmissibility decision.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-198480%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-927130 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>URAZBAYEV v. RUSSIA (application no 13128\/06, judgment of 8 October 2019): compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by violation of article 6.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-196408%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-187728 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>FARRUGIA v. MALTA (application no. 63041\/13, judgment of 4 June 2019): overall fairness test, access to lawyer during police custody.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-193453%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-169084 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"panel panel-default wpb_accordion_section group  no-block-padding\"><div class=\"panel-heading wpb_accordion_header ui-accordion-header\"><p class=\"panel-title font-weight- text-   icon-size-rg\"><a data-toggle=\"collapse\" data-parent=\"#accordion_1254956499\" href=\"#1768653103440-4-8\"><span>Section IV Judgments<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/div><div id=\"1768653103440-4-8\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse\"><div class=\"panel-body wpb_accordion_content ui-accordion-content half-internal-gutter single-block-padding\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>GARBUZ v. UKRAINE (application no. 72681\/10, judgment of 19 February 2019): separate opinions on decisions regarding inadmissibility which are incorporated into merits judgments, attesting witnesses.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-190028%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-159427 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>PRODUKCIJA PLUS STORITVENO PODJETJE D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA (application no. 47072\/15, judgment of 23 October 2018): reopening of domestic proceedings after finding of Article 6 violation; compensation for pecuniary damages, loss of real opportunities.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-187199%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-127748 btn-round btn-icon-left\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>SOMORJAI v. HUNGARY (application no. 60934\/13, 28 August 2018): lack of reasoning in connection with the need for a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling; dissent regarding inadmissibility decision.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-185311%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-122611 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>DEVINAR v. SLOVENIA (application no. 28621\/15, 22 May 2018): objective impartiality of the disability experts\u2019 commission, distinguishing technique, silent overruling of previous case law.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-183127%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-871575 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>SVETINA v. SLOVENIA (application no. 38059\/13, 22 May 2018): conviction based on \u201cinevitable discovery\u201d exception to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-183124%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-141832 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>DRAGO\u015e IOAN RUSU v. ROMANIA (application no. 22767\/08, judgment of 31 October 2017): conviction based on evidence collected in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-178175%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-471725 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"vc_row row-internal row-container\"><div class=\"row row-child\"><div class=\"wpb_row row-inner\"><div class=\"wpb_column pos-top pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-8 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"uncode_text_column\" ><p>BORG v. MALTA (application no. 37537\/13, judgment of 12 January 2016): breach of the Court\u2019s Salduz case law by the Constitutional Court of Malta, lack of impartiality of magistrate, lack of legal assistance to third persons called as witnesses against the applicant.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><div class=\"wpb_column pos-middle pos-center align_left column_child col-lg-4 single-internal-gutter\"><div class=\"uncol style-light\" ><div class=\"uncoltable\"><div class=\"uncell no-block-padding\" ><div class=\"uncont\" ><div class=\"empty-space empty-half\" ><span class=\"empty-space-inner\"><\/span><\/div>\n<span class=\"btn-container\" ><a role=\"button\"  href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-159924%22]}\" class=\"custom-link btn border-width-0 btn-button_color-190163 btn-round btn-icon-left\" target=\"_blank\">Access Decision<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><script id=\"script-row-unique-1\" data-row=\"script-row-unique-1\" type=\"text\/javascript\" class=\"vc_controls\">UNCODE.initRow(document.getElementById(\"row-unique-1\"));<\/script><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"AdjudicationTHE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL Grand Chamber Judgments GU\u00d0MUNDUR ANDRI \u00c1STR\u00c1\u00d0SSON v. ICELAND (application no. 26374\/18, judgment of 1 [...]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":166607,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-166995","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166995"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":167645,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166995\/revisions\/167645"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/166607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pintoalbuquerque.com\/pt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}