FIRST SECTION CASE OF M.P. v. FINLAND (Application no. 36487/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 December 2016

36. but had understood that they concerned only the demonstrators. The court found it established that the police actions had been legal and that the applicant had been aware

The United States’ Department of Justice has given no indication of where the applicant would or could be held, although it has advised that if he consents to his

131. The Court notes at the outset that the child T.C. was born from an embryo obtained from an ova donation and a sperm donation provided by unknown donors, and was

They argued that the restriction imposed on the first applicant’s parental authority over the second applicant had resulted in their continued separation and

He further submitted that the authorities of Kaisheim Prison, where no substitution treatment had ever been provided, had omitted to examine the medical necessity of drug

The Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention on the ground that the applicant no longer ran any

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, following his decision to move to the North of Finland in order to live with his former foster parents,

the offence with which [the applicant] is charged is considered an exceptionally serious crime, which allows for detention pending trial, [the court] takes into account the nature