Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0927DEC001195507
27 septembre 2016
27 septembre 2016
The applicant associations complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the unlawful quashing of a final judgment in their favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1011DEC006253013
11 octobre 2016
11 octobre 2016
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the abusive quashing of an administrative decision in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0516DEC003255711
16 mai 2017
16 mai 2017
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings brought on the basis of the final court judgment rendered in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1210DEC000950009
10 décembre 2013
10 décembre 2013
1 thereto about non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour of 25 February 2003 by the Justice of the Peace of the 1 st Court Circuit of Zverevo of the Rostov Region by municipal
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0327DEC003549706
27 mars 2012
27 mars 2012
1 about the quashing of a final judgment in their favour by way of supervisory review. On 3 May 2010 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-126506
30 août 2013
30 août 2013
The assize court noted, in its decision, that the public prosecutor had requested the ban since an article entitled “17’s were commemorated” contained propaganda in favour of the PKK (an illegal organisation
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0527DEC000105107
27 mai 2014
27 mai 2014
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing had been infringed on account of the fact that a final decision adopted in his favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0312DEC006191009
12 mars 2013
12 mars 2013
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol no.1 that despite the judgment given in his favour, the Municipality had not paid the due amount.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0701DEC003566504
1 juillet 2014
1 juillet 2014
The impugned publications were deemed to be propaganda in favour of armed terrorist organisations.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0902DEC007634511
2 septembre 2014
2 septembre 2014
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the illegal quashing of a final judgment in its favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1015DEC001834311
15 octobre 2013
15 octobre 2013
The applicant complained that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of a final decision given in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-200278
12 décembre 2019
12 décembre 2019
The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arguing that the decision in their favour has not been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1212DEC000598309
12 décembre 2019
12 décembre 2019
and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, concerning the domestic authorities’ refusal to register a property on the applicant and their alleged failure to execute a previous judgment in his favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-183503
9 mai 2018
9 mai 2018
After several remittals, on 12 February 2015, at a hearing held in private, the Bitola Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance court’s judgment in the applicants’ favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-183934
23 mai 2018
23 mai 2018
slander by accusation of having committed a serious or especially serious criminal offence) and sentenced him to seven months’ corrective work with deduction of ten per cent of his monthly income in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0626DEC004969711
26 juin 2018
26 juin 2018
The applicants’ complaint concerning the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court judgments in their favour were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who were represented
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-181936
6 mars 2018
6 mars 2018
The application concerns the conviction of the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of the content
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0628DEC002972806
28 juin 2016
28 juin 2016
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about non ‑ enforcement of a final judgment in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0908DEC006402911
8 septembre 2015
8 septembre 2015
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1007DEC002971606
7 octobre 2014
7 octobre 2014
the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the alleged failure of the State to enforce a final judgment rendered in its favour
Source officiellePage 114 sur 606