SECOND SECTION CASE OF UDEH v. SWITZERLAND (Application no. 12020/09) JUDGMENT (Extracts) STRASBOURG 16 April 2013

In that judgment, the Court, interpreting Article 3, established that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence; nonetheless, in order to

The Government submitted that the present application is inadmissible as regards the applicant’s complaints about the alleged violation of Article 2 of the

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

The applicants complained that, as a result of the NIPO’s protraction of the administrative proceedings relating to their patent application, they had been denied the

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

The Court will therefore examine whether the information provided by the applicants in the present case to the domestic authorities on 11 July 2002, suggesting the involvement

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,