CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juin 2021
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-211002
- Date
- 9 juin 2021
- Publication
- 9 juin 2021
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s519556EA { width:113.72%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCEF7FC32 { width:6.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4D1DB35C { width:29.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB87E84C4 { width:23.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1E1CDC56 { width:15.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s803B7F31 { width:25.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC1C4314A { width:6.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s341EE1E4 { width:29.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53819B6C { width:23.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76314BE6 { width:15.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3E681508 { width:25.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 June 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 40327/20 Anton Vitalyevich MASLOV and Kseniya Antonovna MASLOVA against Russia lodged on 26 August 2020 communicated on 9 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the first applicant’s access to one of the FIFA World Cup matches held in Russia in 2018 on the grounds of the first applicant’s outstanding conviction of a particularly serious crime and the results of the check carried out by the Federal Security Service. Because of the refusal, neither the first applicant nor his underage daughter (the second applicant) who had the tickets to the match could attend it. The application raises likewise an issue of the first applicant’s restricted access to the trial court’s decision in the proceedings challenging the refusal of the first applicant’s access to the match because of the case file’s classification as a State secret. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the first and/or the second applicant’s right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, owing to the refusal of the first applicant’s access to the match?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the first applicant and/or his lawyer provided access to the trial court’s decision in the applicants’ case in a manner that allowed for the applicants’ effective participation in the proceedings? APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Anton Vitalyevich MASLOV 1976 Russian Nevyansk 2. Kseniya Antonovna MASLOVA 2009 Russian Yekaterinburg  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 9 juin 2021
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-211002
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel