CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1103DEC002359109
3 novembre 2020
pursue the case. 22.
Page 106 sur 819
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-211550
6 juillet 2021
Subsequent events in the case 42.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0626DEC005464500
26 juin 2003
On 13 January and 11 March 1993 the court obtained further expert opinions. From April to June 1993 forest pest control measures had to be carried out in the forest belonging to the L. farm.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0922DEC001596604
22 septembre 2009
The Regional Court sent the cases back to the District Court in Spišská Nová Ves. On 22 March 2006 the District Court sought an expert opinion.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0827DEC003578018
27 août 2024
In March 1995 officers of the Partinico municipal police ( polizia municipale ) carried out an inspection of a plot of land owned by the applicant and found that a 200-square-metre warehouse
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0622JUD003249296
22 juin 2000
On 24 March 1999 the text of the decision on admissibility [1] was communicated to the parties.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113JUD001596604
13 novembre 2012
In the case of I.G. and Others v.
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:1024REP002272993
24 octobre 1996
The facts of the case, in particular those which relate to the events of 25 March 1993, are in dispute between the parties.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0901DEC005666812
1 septembre 2015
The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and established by the Court, may be summarised as follows. 1.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0708JUD005414313
8 juillet 2025
In the case of Iskolskiy v.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0227DEC002292293
27 février 1995
However, in cases where the accused is convicted, it is not unusual that initially a so-called "head-tail-judgment" (kop- staart-vonnis) is drafted.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0304DEC007199801
4 mars 2008
The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1125DEC001935212
25 novembre 2014
This is also illustrated by the facts of the Kambadzi case, in which the relevant period of detention was from March 2006 to January 2008, during which that claimant had had only 10 reviews of his detention
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1108JUD002966003
8 novembre 2007
of a given case.
ECLI:CEDH:001-141748
13 février 2014
At about 1 a.m. on 21 March 2008 Mr Z.C. called the applicant to bring some documents.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0607DEC000994406
7 juin 2016
Decree of 9 March 2016 12. The Turkish Council of Ministers issued a decree which came into force on 9 March 2016.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1005DEC001647204
5 octobre 2010
3460/03, 25 March 2008).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1124JUD002396805
24 novembre 2009
In the case of Halilović v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1117DEC003586111
17 novembre 2020
The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Detention and death of the applicant’s brother 4.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0531DEC000842905
31 mai 2011
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1. Background The applicants are married.