CJC Database

ECtHR jurisprudence: Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human RightsDecision of the ECtHR from 13. 2. 2020, Trajkovski and Chipovski v North Macedonia, applications no. 53205/13 and 63320/13Decision of the ECtHR from 13. 2. 2020, Gaughran v the United Kingdom, application no. 45245/15Decision of the ECtHR from 22. 6. 2017, Aycaguer v France, application no. 8806/12Decision of the ECtHR [GC] from 4. 12. 2008, S. and Marper v the United Kingdom, applications no. 30562/04 and 30566/04

TRIIAL CASE

Spain, Court of Justice of the European Union, C-473/22, Judgment of 16 of May of 2024

Deciding court: Court of Justice of the European Union

Topic: Social Policy – use of the preliminary reference procedure

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): No

ECtHR jurisprudence: No

TRIIAL CASE

Poland, Supreme Court - Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021, C-720/21

Deciding court: Supreme Court

Topic:

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: Dolinska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, 8.11.2021

TRIIAL CASE

Romania, ECtHR, Application no. 22231/05, Case Lavric c. Romania, Judgment of 14 January 2014 (Final Judgment:14 April 2014)

Deciding court: Călărași District Court Hunedoara County Court

Topic: Trust - Relationship with media; - Doxing towards prosecutors

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The national case is NOT the direct follow up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.

ECtHR jurisprudence: Dalban v. Romania ([GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI) Timciuc v. Romania (no. 28999/03, §§ 95-97, 12 October 2010) Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 40, ECHR 2003-III Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-XIII) Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; Petrina v. Romania, no. 78060/01, 14 October 2008, §§ 27-29 and 34-36 A.v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; Mikolajová v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, § 55, 18 January 2011; Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, §§ 40-41, 5 July 2011 Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012 Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 66 and 68, ECHR 2001-I, and Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 60, ECHR 2004-VI Lešník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV MGN Limitedv. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011 Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06, 28964/06, § 57, 12 September 2011 Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012 Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 98, ECHR 2004-XI Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI; Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova, no. 42864/05, § 37, 27 November 2007 Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway ([GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III

TRIIAL CASE

Poland, Sąd Najwyższy (Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber), I NKRS 118/21, 12th January 2022, supreme

Deciding court: Supreme Court - Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber

Topic: independence, accountability

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A

TRIIAL CASE

Poland, Supreme Court, case PO 3/19 - CJEU C-508/19

Deciding court: Supreme Court

Topic: Independence and impartiality

National Follow Up Of (when relevant): N/A

ECtHR jurisprudence: N/A