Panteleyenko v Ukraine 11901/02 [2006] ECHR 667

Revision as of 21:21, 26 May 2015 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "")

A search of the applicant's office, and the disclosure of confidential psychiatric information, was not in accordance with domestic law and therefore violated Article 8; the domestic authorities' refusal to pay compensation on the ground that criminal proceedings had been discontinued on "non-exonerating grounds" contravened the presumption of innocence and violated Article 6(2).

External link

Bailii