ROYAUME-UNI   La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a prononcé aujourd’hui en audience publique son arrêt de Grande Chambre [1] dans l’affaire Burden c. Royaume-Uni (requête n o 13378/05).

The Court notes that the applicant’s description of allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention was appropriately detailed, sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Government.

That consideration was relevant in the assessment of the burden the applicants had had to bear.

  Did the applicants suffer an excessive burden on account of the reversal of the burden of proof to their detriment?

D'APPEL DE RENNES N° 25/145 N° RG 25/00516 - N° Portalis DBVL-V-B7J-WBLF JURIDICTION DU PREMIER PRÉSIDENT O R D O N N A N C E article L 3211-12-4 du code de la santé publique Aude BURESI

D'APPEL DE RENNES N° 25/142 N° RG 25/00509 - N° Portalis DBVL-V-B7J-WBJJ JURIDICTION DU PREMIER PRÉSIDENT O R D O N N A N C E article L 3211-12-4 du code de la santé publique Aude BURESI

in the light of the requirements of those texts regarding “reasonable accommodation” – understood as “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden

Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy, [GC], no.

In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999 ‑ V)?

In particular, did such deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the deprivation of property in the present case impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicant?

In particular, as a result of decisions of the competent authorities and courts, did the applicant have to bear “an individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision (see Lekić v.

In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   2.

Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v.

The purpose of this legislation was to enable such households as indebted in Swiss francs to reduce their financial burdens.

That could be explained by the objective impossibility to discharge the requisite burden of proof due to the lack of judicial authorisation or supervision as those were not required by the relevant domestic

the conduct of the Romanian authorities called upon the Court to determine whether the time necessary for them to pay the applicant the compensation to which she was entitled had placed an excessive burden

applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 that she was arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived of the land plot; that the courts imposed a disproportionate burden

The purpose of this legislation was to enable such households as indebted in Swiss francs to reduce their financial burdens.