Jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului: iunie-septembrie 2015
The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: June-September 2015

Summary/Abstract: Case 1. Article 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention; Prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. The right to private and family life; Prohibition of discrimination - Costel Gaciu v. Romania:In its judgment, the ECHR condemned Romania for the conditions endured by the applicant during pre-trial detention and for discrimination and violation of the right to respect for family life, setting authorities have applied this differential treatment when they refused demand to receive conjugal visits from his wife during a particularly long detention, 1 year and 10 months respectively.Case 2. The right to private and family life; Article 8 of the Convention - Olari and others v. ItalyFacts: The applicants in this case three gay couples wishing to marry Italians or enter into a civil partnership in Italy, were denied by the Italian authorities. The Constitutional Court held that "family" and "marriage" cannot be interpreted so as to alter the very essence of these notions that marriage is only the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of founding a family. ECHR finds "that the Italian Government has exceeded the discretion and failed to discharge their positive obligation to ensure that applicants provide a specific legal framework to ensure their recognition and protection of their same-sex unions".Case 3. The right to private and family life; Article 8 of the Convention - Sérvulo & Associados, Sociedade de Advogados, RL et al v. PortugalThe applicants in this case are a law firm and four Portuguese citizens, lawyers in that company. Central Department for investigative authorities opened an investigation on a few citizens of Portuguese and German, including a lawyer who worked for the applicant company, with the suspicion of corruption, conflict of interest and money laundering in connection with acquisition the Portuguese Government to a consortium of two German submarines.The Court considered that there was a breach of art. 8 of the Convention.

• Details
• Contents