CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-114699
31 août 2011
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.
Page 101 sur 819
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0411DEC000229303
11 avril 2006
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0412DEC001974592
12 avril 1996
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention was violated in their case and that their case was not heard in a fair manner and
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1005JUD003419715
5 octobre 2017
In the case of Mitev v.
ECLI:CEDH:001-213088
11 octobre 2021
(a) The “Maidan case” The case was opened on 22 February 2014 and amended on 2 March 2014.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1022DEC007924913
22 octobre 2019
The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Background of the case 4.
soc
61372346cd58014677407a35
11 mai 1999
Jean-Louis B..., demeurant ..., défendeurs à la cassation ; LA COUR, en l'audience publique du 17 mars 1999, où étaient présents : M.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1127JUD005783709
27 novembre 2018
In the case of Soytemiz v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0615JUD000566607
15 juin 2021
On 1 August 2013 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case. The decision referred to video recordings made on a camera carried by one of the guards.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1129JUD000985203
29 novembre 2007
Concerning the applicant's criminal case 81.
PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1292680-1347834
23 mars 2005
FRANCE The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 23 March at 9.00 a.m., in the case of Draon v. France (application no. 1513/03) and Maurice v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0309DEC003958198
9 mars 2000
Having received an opinion of 23 March 1990 from the NHB based on a re ‑ assessment of the case, the PCB decided the complaint on 26 October 1990.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0929DEC004560109
29 septembre 2015
Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 other cases, §§ 69 ‑ 77, 25 March 2014; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0325JUD004364998
25 mars 2003
The case originated in an application (no.
ECLI:CEDH:001-183737
15 mai 2018
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. B.
ECLI:CEDH:001-193579
10 mai 2019
The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.
ECLI:CEDH:001-156344
29 juin 2015
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0521JUD002772808
21 mai 2019
An ambulance was called.
1ère Chambre
697399b3cdc6046d476fd298
22 janvier 2026
[L] [P] ont attrait respectivement la SAS Vetir (exerçant sous l'enseigne commerciale Gémo), la société Chubb Life Europe, et la Caisse d'assurance maladie des industries électriques et gazières (CAMIEG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0317JUD001582803
17 mars 2009
On 6 March 1999 at 2 a.m.