Last Updated: Friday, 21 April 2017, 10:05 GMT

Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

The Court, based in Strasbourg, was set up as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, created in 1950. This set out a catalogue of civil and political rights and freedoms. It allows people to lodge complaints against States which have signed up to the Convention for alleged violations of those rights. Although founded in 1950, the Court did not actually come into existence until 1959. It gained its present form as a single European Court of Human Rights when Protocol No. 11 to the ECHR took effect in 1998.

The Court is currently made up of 47 judges, one in principle for every State signed up to the Convention. They are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and serve for six years. Judges sit on the Court as individuals and do not represent their country.  Website: www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
Selected filters: Case Law Germany
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 25 results
Aydin v. Germany

27 January 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements - Freedom of expression | Countries: Germany - Turkey

Mutlag c. Allemagne

25 March 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Jordan

Omwenyeke v. Germany

Admisibility decision.

20 November 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Freedom of movement - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Nigeria

Kaya v. Germany

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

28 June 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Turkey

Burga Ortiz c. Allemagne

16 October 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Peru

Jalloh v. Germany

11 July 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Countries: Germany - Sierra Leone

Keles v. Germany

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

27 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Germany - Turkey

Niedzwiecki v. Germany

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Okpisz v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 59140/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

Okpisz v. Germany

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Niedzwiecki v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 58453/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

Kaldik v. Germany

22 September 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Germany - Turkey

Search Refworld