There was therefore “family life” and the denial of the right to recognise S. constituted an interference.

Court’s case-law 54 June 2003 Stretch v. the United Kingdom - 44277/98 Judgment 24.6.2003 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Denial

In the Court’s view, that situation did not constitute a denial of justice attributable to the judicial authorities.

  QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the denial of access to the Civil Court of Appeal in breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

30 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65906/13 Kateryna Sergiyivna AVRAMCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 14 October 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged denial

dismissed the applicant’s claim and referral request with reference to European Union law and the case ‑ law of the CJEU, the Federal Social Court declared the applicant’s appeal against the denial

FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65805/17 Kostyantyn Oleksiyovych MELNIKOV against Ukraine lodged on 30 August 2017 communicated on 28 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a denial

The applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the denial to allow the third applicant to join her parents – the first two applicants – in the Netherlands, was communicated to

The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the denial of access to the requested information was in breach of her right to receive and impart information.

2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 55001/20 Vasile CHIVU against Romania lodged on 3 December 2020 communicated on 30 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged denial

Finally, as to the denial of access to a solicitor during interrogation, the Court of Appeal observed that the Human Rights Act did not apply retrospectively to convictions before it came into force.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in Kamińsk Prison and about the alleged denial of access to a court in so far as his appeal against the

In conclusion, the Court found that the denial of registration of the applicant’s marriage for a prolonged period of time had been a disproportionate interference with his Article   8 rights.

The applicant’s complaints under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention concerning denial of access to a higher court in her civil case were communicated to the Ukrainian Government, who

COMPLAINTS The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the rejection of its appeal on points of law amounted to a denial of its right of access to the Supreme Court.

The applicant alleges that the proceedings initiated by the third party were conducted contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, resulting in denial of the enforcement order concerning her

GONCHARENKO against Ukraine lodged on 8 February 2019 communicated on 26 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a denial

  1 Complaint under this head, namely denial of a judicial remedy, in substance identical to that already examined and rejected in the context of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention

in the provision of health care, the Court has stated that an issue may arise under Article 2 where it is shown that the authorities of a Contracting State put an individual’s life at risk through denial