Lawformer brings together summaries of important court decisions, simplifying legal research for lawyers and law students. Lawformer case brief is an executive summary of a court decision. The exact structure depends on the issuing institution, but each case brief summarizes important facts and reasoning of the court in a simple, clear language, easily understood by lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

On a weekly basis, we identify five interesting case briefs for our subscribers and summarize them in a blog. Below you can find an overview of selected judgements from international and regional courts that shape the modern interpretation of law.

A. and others v. The United Kingdom (ECtHR)

The case concerns the detention of eleven applicants on terrorism grounds by UK authorities pursuant to antiterrorist legislation passed after the 9/11 attacks. The court unanimously held that holding prisoners indefinitely under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

M.N and others v. Belgium (ECtHR)

The case concerns the members of a Syrian family who requested visas on humanitarian grounds from the Belgian Consulate in Beirut, Lebanon.

The court deemed the application inadmissible stipulating that individuals who apply for visas at embassies with the intention to seek protection, do not necessarily fall within the jurisdiction of the ECHR State Parties in the sense of Article 1 ECHR, unless they display other relevant links to that particular state.

IOS Finance EFC SA v. Servicio Murciano de Salud (ECJ)

The case concerns late payment in commercial transitions and the creditor's right to request remuneration.

The Court stipulated, that the very purpose of the Directive (on combating late payment in commercial transactions) is to contend with late payments in commercial transactions, thus the creditor is entitled to ask for the interest and compensation from the debtor, even if the debtor is a public authority.

Waltuch v. Conticommodity Services., Inc (United States Court of Appeals)

The case concerns plaintiff, who sought indemnification for unreimbursed legal expenses from his former employer. 

The Court ruled that a corporation cannot bypass a “good faith” requirement to indemnify an employer in a manner that is inconsistent with the state statute, but the employer is entitled to indemnification if the charges against them have been dismissed.

Burdov v. Russia (ECtHR)

The case concerns the applicant was exposed to radioactive emissions during an emergency nuclear operation in Chernobyl. He was continuously granted benefits by national courts, but these decisions remained unenforced. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) of the Convention as the state continuously failed to enforce monetary payments to the applicant.

Thank you for reading our weekly summary. Complete versions of these and other case briefs can be accessed in our case brief library.

Follow our social media to discover more legal content every day.