ECHR Jurisprudence


“Continued detention could be justified in a given case only if there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty.” (Shalimov v Ukraine [2010] ECHR 20808/02, Decided by European Court of Human Rights on 26 Jan. 2010)

“The right to form and join trade unions was a special aspect of freedom of association, and the notion of a freedom implied some measure of freedom as to choice as to its exercise. Therefore, art 11 of the ECHR had also to be viewed as encompassing a negative right of association. (Sorensen v Denmark (App no 52562/99); Rasmussen v Denmark (App no 52620/99) ECtHR(Grand Chamber), [2006]

The use of a combination of five techniques, such as hooding and sleep- and food-deprivation, in the course of interrogation of detainees, amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to art 3 of the Convention. The use of the techniques fell short of torture as the pain occasioned to detainees lacked the ‘intensity and cruelty’ inherent in the notion of torture as understood by the Court.” (Tanase v Moldova (App. No. 7/08), EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (grand chamber), 10 March 2010)