case_id stringlengths 8 10 | para_idx int64 0 51.7k | paragraph_number int64 1 1.99k ⌀ | display_number int64 1 1.99k ⌀ | numbering_block stringclasses 7
values | section stringclasses 15
values | row_role stringclasses 13
values | text stringlengths 1 44.2k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
001-100018 | 0 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | SECOND SECTION |
001-100018 | 1 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | CASE OF BİÇER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY |
001-100018 | 2 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | (Application no. 19441/04) |
001-100018 | 3 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | JUDGMENT |
001-100018 | 4 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | STRASBOURG |
001-100018 | 5 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | 20 July 2010 |
001-100018 | 6 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | FINAL |
001-100018 | 7 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | 20/10/2010 |
001-100018 | 8 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. |
001-100018 | 9 | null | null | metadata | Header | metadata | In the case of Biçer and Others v. Turkey, |
001-100018 | 10 | null | null | null | Header | metadata | The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: |
001-100018 | 11 | null | null | metadata | Header | metadata | Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, Guido Raimondi, judges, |
001-100018 | 12 | null | null | metadata | Header | metadata | and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, |
001-100018 | 13 | null | null | null | Header | metadata | Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2010, |
001-100018 | 14 | null | null | null | Header | metadata | Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: |
001-100018 | 15 | null | null | null | Procedure | heading_h0 | PROCEDURE |
001-100018 | 16 | 1 | 1 | main_judgment | Procedure | paragraph | 1. The case originated in an application (no. 19441/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Turkish nationals, Mrs Züleyha Biçer, Mrs Birsen Ergünhan, Mr Ahmet Karaçakıl, Mrs Hacer... |
001-100018 | 17 | 2 | 2 | main_judgment | Procedure | paragraph | 2. The applicants were represented by Ms S.E. Altaş and Mr N. Altaş, lawyers practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. |
001-100018 | 18 | 3 | 3 | main_judgment | Procedure | paragraph | 3. On 28 November 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3). |
001-100018 | 19 | null | null | null | Circumstances | heading_h0 | THE FACTS |
001-100018 | 20 | 4 | 4 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 4. The applicants were born in 1933, 1938, 1952, 1948 and 1945 respectively, and live in Balıkesir and Istanbul. |
001-100018 | 21 | 5 | 5 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 5. On 8 December 1972 the applicants' mother lodged a case with the Gönen Civil Court against the Treasury and the Office of the Headman of the Paşaçiftlik village (muhtarlık), requesting that plots of land nos. 117, 130, 135, 168, 274, 438, 494, 497 and 578 be registered in her name. Six other persons intervened in t... |
001-100018 | 22 | 6 | 6 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 6. On 28 March 1977 the Gönen Civil Court delivered a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Gönen Cadastre Court. |
001-100018 | 23 | 7 | 7 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 7. On an unspecified date the applicants' mother died. On 24 October 1984 the applicants informed the first-instance court that they wished to become parties to the proceedings, as heirs. |
001-100018 | 24 | 8 | 8 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 8. On 18 March 2005 the court dismissed the applicants' case and held that the land should have been registered in the name of the interveners' heirs. |
001-100018 | 25 | 9 | 9 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 9. On 22 June 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. |
001-100018 | 26 | 10 | 10 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 10. On 4 March 2007 the first-instance court resumed the examination of the case following its remittal by the Court of Cassation. |
001-100018 | 27 | 11 | 11 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 11. On 28 January 2009 the last hearing was held. |
001-100018 | 28 | 12 | 12 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 12. According to the information submitted to the case file in June 2009, the proceedings are currently pending before the Gönen Cadastre Court. |
001-100018 | 29 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h0 | THE LAW |
001-100018 | 30 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h1 | I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION |
001-100018 | 31 | 13 | 13 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 13. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. |
001-100018 | 32 | 14 | 14 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 14. The Government argued that the case was complex. |
001-100018 | 33 | 15 | 15 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 15. The period to be taken into consideration began on 8 December 1972, when the applicants' mother initiated proceedings before the Gönen Civil Court. The proceedings are still pending before the Gönen Cadastre Court. They have thus lasted well over 36 years. |
001-100018 | 34 | 16 | 16 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 16. The Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis only permits it to consider the period of 23 years that has elapsed after 28 January 1987, the date of deposit of Turkey's declaration recognising the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights. It must nevertheless take account of the state of... |
001-100018 | 35 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h2 | A. Admissibility |
001-100018 | 36 | 17 | 17 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 17. The Government first submitted that the whole application was outside the Court's competence ratione temporis. |
001-100018 | 37 | 18 | 18 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 18. The Court notes, apart from the considerations above, that it has already dismissed such an objection in its Şahiner judgment (cited above, § 16). It finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from that finding. Accordingly, the Court rejects this objection. |
001-100018 | 38 | 19 | 19 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 19. The Government further argued that the applicant could not be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies as the civil proceedings were still pending before the first-instance court. |
001-100018 | 39 | 20 | 20 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 20. The Court notes that, according to its case-law, complaints concerning the length of proceedings can be brought before it prior to the final termination of the proceedings in question (see, among many others, Plaksin v. Russia, no. 14949/02, §§ 34-35, 30 April 2004). Accordingly, the Government's objection regardi... |
001-100018 | 40 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h2 | B. Merits |
001-100018 | 41 | 21 | 21 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 21. The Government submitted that the length of the proceedings had not exceeded the reasonable time requirement. They argued that the applicants' case had been a complex one, having included several interveners and parcels, whose owners had to be determined. The Government further stated that the conduct of the parti... |
001-100018 | 42 | 22 | 22 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 22. The applicants maintained their allegations. |
001-100018 | 43 | 23 | 23 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 23. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Ezel Tosun v. Turkey, no. 33379/02, 10 January 2006). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forwar... |
001-100018 | 44 | null | null | null | Just Satisfaction | heading_h1 | II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION |
001-100018 | 45 | 24 | 24 | main_judgment | Just Satisfaction | paragraph | 24. The applicants claimed 200,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary, and EUR 300,000 for non-pecuniary damage. |
001-100018 | 46 | 25 | 25 | main_judgment | Just Satisfaction | paragraph | 25. The Government contested these claims. |
001-100018 | 47 | 26 | 26 | main_judgment | Just Satisfaction | paragraph | 26. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. It therefore, rejects this claim. However, deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the applicants, jointly, EUR 15,600 for non-pecuniary damage. |
001-100018 | 48 | 27 | 27 | main_judgment | Just Satisfaction | paragraph | 27. Furthermore, according to the information submitted by the parties, the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. In these circumstances, the Court considers that an appropriate means for putting an end to the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be to conclude the civil proceedi... |
001-100018 | 49 | 28 | 28 | main_judgment | Just Satisfaction | paragraph | 28. The applicants claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of the costs and expenses and 68 Turkish liras (TRY) for postal expenses. In support of their claims, the applicants submitted the receipts of legal expenses incurred before the domestic courts and an invoice in respect of postal expenses. The Government disputed these ... |
001-100018 | 50 | 29 | 29 | main_judgment | Just Satisfaction | paragraph | 29. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. |
001-100018 | 51 | null | null | null | Operative part | heading_h0 | FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY |
001-100018 | 52 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | 1. Declares the application admissible; |
001-100018 | 53 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; |
001-100018 | 54 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | 3. Holds |
001-100018 | 55 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; |
001-100018 | 56 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | (i) EUR 15,600 (fifteen thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; |
001-100018 | 57 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | (ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; |
001-100018 | 58 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; |
001-100018 | 59 | null | null | operative_dispositif | Operative part | operative_list | 4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction. |
001-100018 | 60 | null | null | judgment_footer | Appendix | footer | Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 July 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. |
001-100018 | 61 | null | null | signature | Appendix | signature | Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens Deputy Registrar President |
001-100022 | 0 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | SECOND SECTION |
001-100022 | 1 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | CASE OF BUHUR v. TURKEY |
001-100022 | 2 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | (Application no. 24869/05) |
001-100022 | 3 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | JUDGMENT |
001-100022 | 4 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | STRASBOURG |
001-100022 | 5 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | 20 July 2010 |
001-100022 | 6 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | heading | FINAL |
001-100022 | 7 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | 20/10/2010 |
001-100022 | 8 | null | null | main_judgment | Header | paragraph | This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. |
001-100022 | 9 | null | null | metadata | Header | metadata | In the case of Buhur v. Turkey, |
001-100022 | 10 | null | null | null | Header | metadata | The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: |
001-100022 | 11 | null | null | metadata | Header | metadata | Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Dragoljub Popović, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, Guido Raimondi, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, |
001-100022 | 12 | null | null | null | Header | metadata | Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2010, |
001-100022 | 13 | null | null | null | Header | metadata | Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: |
001-100022 | 14 | null | null | null | Procedure | heading_h0 | PROCEDURE |
001-100022 | 15 | 1 | 1 | main_judgment | Procedure | paragraph | 1. The case originated in an application (no. 24869/05) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet Buhur (“the applicant”), on 9 June 2005. |
001-100022 | 16 | 2 | 2 | main_judgment | Procedure | paragraph | 2. The applicant was represented by Mr S. Güzel, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. |
001-100022 | 17 | 3 | 3 | main_judgment | Procedure | paragraph | 3. On 30 January 2009 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3). |
001-100022 | 18 | null | null | null | Circumstances | heading_h0 | THE FACTS |
001-100022 | 19 | null | null | null | Circumstances | heading | THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE |
001-100022 | 20 | 4 | 4 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Diyarbakır. |
001-100022 | 21 | 5 | 5 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 5. On 4 September 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance against the National Water Board for compensation for the damage suffered due to a flood. |
001-100022 | 22 | 6 | 6 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 6. On 12 February 1998 the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction. |
001-100022 | 23 | 7 | 7 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 7. On 25 May 1998 the applicant lodged a case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the National Water Board for compensation. |
001-100022 | 24 | 8 | 8 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 8. On 12 May 2000 that court dismissed the case. |
001-100022 | 25 | 9 | 9 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 9. On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 12 May 2000. |
001-100022 | 26 | 10 | 10 | main_judgment | Circumstances | paragraph | 10. On 14 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request. |
001-100022 | 27 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h0 | THE LAW |
001-100022 | 28 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h1 | I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION |
001-100022 | 29 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h2 | A. Admissibility |
001-100022 | 30 | 11 | 11 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 11. The Court observes that, initially having lodged his claim for damages before non-competent civil court, the applicant then initiated proceedings before the competent administrative court in compliance with the domestic law. According to Section 193 of the Code of Civil Procedure, non-competent civil courts in Tur... |
001-100022 | 31 | 12 | 12 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 12. The Court concludes that the complaint concerning the length of proceedings before the Diyarbakır Administrative Court is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. |
001-100022 | 32 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h2 | B. Merits |
001-100022 | 33 | 13 | 13 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 13. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that argument. |
001-100022 | 34 | 14 | 14 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 14. The period to be taken into consideration began on 25 May 1998, when the applicant lodged the action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, and ended on 14 March 2005 when the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request. It thus lasted six years and nine months for two levels of... |
001-100022 | 35 | 15 | 15 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 15. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases disclosing comparable lengthy periods before the Supreme Administrative Court (see, for example, Hayrettin Kartal v. Turkey, no. 4520/02, § 20, 20 October 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 60, 15 December 2009, and Karakullu... |
001-100022 | 36 | 16 | 16 | main_judgment | Merits | paragraph | 16. In view of the above, the Court finds that the overall length of the proceedings in the present case was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. |
001-100022 | 38 | null | null | null | Merits | heading_h1 | II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
ECtHR Judgments — paragraph level
The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in English, split into the Court's own numbered paragraphs with the part of the judgment each belongs to, plus case metadata and the citation links between judgments. It is the corpus behind HUDOC Researcher, a paragraph-level search tool for Strasbourg case-law.
Snapshot of 9 October 2026: 20,123 judgments and 31 Grand Chamber admissibility decisions (14 November 1960 – 8 October 2026), 3,323,788 text rows of which 1,259,906 carry the Court's paragraph number, and 247,436 citation links.
Configurations
| Config | Rows | One row per |
|---|---|---|
paragraphs (default) |
3,323,788 | text row of a judgment, in document order |
judgments |
20,154 | judgment or decision, with HUDOC metadata |
citations |
247,436 | link from a citing judgment to a cited one |
from datasets import load_dataset
paras = load_dataset("lszoszk/ecthr-judgments", "paragraphs", split="train")
cases = load_dataset("lszoszk/ecthr-judgments", "judgments", split="train")
links = load_dataset("lszoszk/ecthr-judgments", "citations", split="train")
paragraphs
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
case_id |
HUDOC item id of the judgment (e.g. 001-58920) |
para_idx |
position of the row in the document |
paragraph_number |
the Court's paragraph number (§), when the row is a numbered paragraph; null otherwise |
display_number |
the § a row belongs to for citation — its own number, or that of the paragraph an unnumbered quotation or list item belongs to |
numbering_block |
which numbering a row belongs to: main_judgment, operative_dispositif, separate_opinion, table, metadata, signature, judgment_footer (null when unknown) |
section |
part of the judgment: Header, Introduction, Procedure, Circumstances, Subject Matter, Facts, Legal Framework, Admissibility, Merits, Just Satisfaction, Article 46, Operative part, Separate Opinion, Appendix, Summary |
row_role |
paragraph, quote, operative_list, table_cell, heading, heading_h0–heading_h4, metadata, signature, footer |
text |
the text of the row |
For full-text work on the Court's reasoning, keep row_role in (paragraph, quote, operative_list) and leave
out the Header and Appendix sections; the other rows are headings, cover-page lines, signature blocks and the
tables of applicants and awards that fill the appendices of Committee judgments.
judgments
case_id, title, application_numbers, ecli, judgment_date (ISO), respondent_states, document_type,
originating_body (Chamber, Grand Chamber, Committee …), importance (HUDOC: Key cases, 1, 2, 3), articles,
violation, non_violation (Convention articles, as in HUDOC), conclusion, keywords (HUDOC thesaurus),
separate_opinion, strasbourg_caselaw (HUDOC's list of cited case-law), hudoc_url.
citations
citing_case_id, cited_case_id, citing_para_idx and citing_paragraph_number (where the reference is, when
it was found in the text), method, reference (the reference as written). method is how the link was found:
appno_with_cue / appno_no_cue (an application number in the text), name_date (a case name and date, the way
judgments before about 1999 are cited), hudoc_caselaw and hudoc_extracted (from HUDOC's own metadata, for
references our text pass did not find, mostly in footnotes).
How it was built
Each judgment was downloaded from HUDOC as a DOCX file and parsed into rows, keeping the Court's paragraph numbering; sections were labelled from the Court's own headings and corrected by rule-based passes, checked by sampled audits; citation links were resolved from application numbers and, for older judgments, from name and date. The full account — validation figures, the October 2026 repairs, the citation-matching rules and the known limits — is in the Methodology.
Not included: HUDOC's other collections (admissibility decisions other than the 31 above, communicated cases, legal summaries, advisory opinions), the roughly 9,300 judgments that exist only in French, and footnotes.
Licence
The curation in this dataset — the segmentation into rows, the paragraph numbers and section labels, the row roles, the normalised metadata and the citation links — is released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
The texts of the judgments and HUDOC's metadata are © Council of Europe / European Court of Human Rights. They are reproduced from HUDOC for research; their reuse is governed by the Court's terms for HUDOC content, which this dataset does not change. HUDOC is the authoritative source of every judgment.
This is an independent research project, not affiliated with, endorsed or operated by the Court or the Council of Europe, and not legal advice.
Citation
@software{szoszkiewicz_marcisz_hudoc_researcher,
author = {Szoszkiewicz, {\L}ukasz and Marcisz, Sebastian},
title = {{HUDOC Researcher} --- {ECtHR} Case-Law Search and {RAG}},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Zenodo},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.21319703},
url = {https://lszoszk.github.io/ECHR-Dashboard/}
}
Szoszkiewicz, Ł., & Marcisz, S. (2026). HUDOC Researcher — ECtHR case-law search and RAG [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21319703
Authors: Łukasz Szoszkiewicz and Sebastian Marcisz, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań. Contact: l.szoszkiewicz@amu.edu.pl
- Downloads last month
- 26