Grand Chamber judgment concerning Hungary
In the case of Albert and Others v. Hungary the Court declared the application inadmissible in respect of 233 of the applicants and struck the case out of its list in respect of four others who no longer wished to maintain their application.
The case concerned a Hungarian law of 2013 imposing the integration of two banks, Kinizsi Bank Zrt. and Mohácsi Takarék Bank Zrt, into a central supervisory scheme.
The 237 applicants, who had been shareholders in two savings banks, complained about the impact of that law on their right to influence the management and policy of those banks.
Webcast of the hearing (18/12/2019)
Visit by the First President of the Supreme Court of Poland09/07/2020
On 9 July 2020, Małgorzata Manowska, First President of the Supreme Court of Poland, visited the Court and was received by President Robert Spano. Krzysztof Wojtyczek, the judge elected in respect of Poland, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Registrar, also attended the meeting....
Visit by the Défenseur des droits, France06/07/2020
On 6 July 2020, President Robert Spano met Jacques Toubon, French Défenseur des droits. Mattias Guyomar, judge elected in respect of France, and Roderick Liddell, Registrar, also attended the meeting....
Rule 39 - No duty team available08/07/2020
Exceptionally, the Court will be closed on 13 and 14 July 2020, and no duty team will be available to deal with requests for interim measures (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)....
Judgment concerning Switzerland07/07/2020
In the case of K.A. v. Switzerland, the Court found that there had been no violation of the Convention.
The applicant is a Kosovar national who was deported from Switzerland, where his wife and son, who are both ill, are still living, following his criminal conviction for a drugs offence. He complained about the denial of his request for an extension of his residence permit and the order temporarily banning him from returning to Switzerland.
The Court found that, despite the strength of the applicant’s personal ties with Switzerland, the Swiss authorities could legitimately consider, in view of his conduct and the seriousness of his offences, that it was necessary, for the purposes of preventing disorder and crime, not to extend his residence permit and to prohibit him from entering Switzerland for a limited duration of 7 years....
The Court will be delivering its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Mugemangango v. Belgium on 10 July 2020.
The case concerns a post-election dispute following the elections held on 25 May 2014.
The applicant complains about the procedure conducted by the Walloon Parliament after he had challenged the election results. He argues that the Walloon Parliament, as the only body with the power to decide on his complaint, acted as both judge and party in examining it.
Webcast of the hearing (04/12/2019)...