FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ASWAT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 17299/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 April 2013

“40 iii) Whilst I agree of course that the CACD does not ordinarily address the question of guilt or innocence, but only the safety of the conviction, those cases where

For the purposes of Article 4 of the Convention, trafficking in human beings shall be interpreted within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the Palermo Protocol, Article

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

In conclusion, although the Court accepts that the decisions of the national authorities were made in what they considered to be the best interests of the child and

“inevitably” be left to national authorities who are in principle better placed than the Court to evaluate particular needs and conditions in a given case.. Regard ought to be had

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

In that case it found, inter alia, that even though a final judgment in a taxation case, in which tax surcharges had been imposed, prevented criminal charges