In the case of Yeranosyan and others v Armenia the applicants alleged the violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 6 and 8 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 20 July 2010 found violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. You can download the full text of the judgment in English.

In the case of Nolan and K. v Russia the applicant alleged violation of Article 9, Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9, Article 8, Article 5, Article 1 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In its judgment from 12 February 2009 the European Court of Human Rights found violation of Article 9, Article 8, Article 5 § 1, Article 5 § 5 and Article 1 of Protocol 7 of the Convention and obliged the respondent State to pay 810 euros for costs and expenses suffered by the applicant, as well as for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 7,000 euros. Download the judgment in English or the brief in Russian. [Note: deportation from Russian in connection with the ongoing religious activities of application].

In the case of Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina the applicants alleged the violation of Article 14, Article 3 of Protocol 1, Article 1 of Protocol  12, as well as Articles 3 and 13 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In its judgment from 22 December 2009 the European Court of Human Rights [GC] by fourteen votes to three found violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol 1, holds by sixteen votes to one that has been violation of Article 1 of Protocol 12 and obliged the respondent State to pay 1,000 euros to the first applicant and 20,000 euros to the second applicant in respect of costs and expenses. Download the judgment in English or the brief in Russian. [Note: exclusion of possibilities for gypsies and jews to run for elections to the House of Commons of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Presidium of State].

In the case of Munoz Diaz v Spain the applicant alleged the violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 12 of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In its judgment from 8 December 2009 the European Court of Human Rights by six votes to one found violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol 1 and obliged the respondent State to pay 5,412.56 euros for costs and expenses suffered by the applicant, as well as for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 70,000 euros. Download the judgment in English or the brief in Russian. [Note: refusal to appoint pension upon lost of wage earner to a person who concluded traditional gypsy marriage].