Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68173-68641
14 mars 2001
14 mars 2001
The Chamber further held (unanimously) that there had been no violation of Article 13.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-421712-422043
27 septembre 2001
27 septembre 2001
Turkey (application no. 31850/96) Violation Article 5 § 3 The applicants, all ten of whom are Turkish nationals, complained about the length of time (between five and 11 days) they were held in
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1236254-1302862
27 janvier 2005
27 janvier 2005
It had held that the question of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68354-68822
22 février 2001
22 février 2001
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to stand trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0928DEC003996403
28 septembre 2010
28 septembre 2010
The seized items were held by the investigating authorities as physical evidence in the preliminary investigation against the applicant.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:1202DEC002016592
2 décembre 1992
2 décembre 1992
xa0; Application No. 20165/92 by Reinhard HELMERS
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1971803-2081961
10 avril 2007
10 avril 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 EUR for costs and expenses.
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-55805
3 décembre 1999
3 décembre 1999
brought before the Court by the Commission and the Government of the United Kingdom on 28 May 1996 and 27 August 1996 respectively; Whereas in its judgment of 25 June 1997 the Court: - held
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1659421-1739208
27 avril 2006
27 avril 2006
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of both sets of proceedings.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68374-68842
5 juillet 2001
5 juillet 2001
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-477655-478824
17 janvier 2002
17 janvier 2002
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 9,447.66 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,446.73 for costs and expenses.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1718210-1801533
27 juin 2006
27 juin 2006
After initially being held in Nanterre Prison, the applicant was subsequently held in Fresnes Prison, Cergy-Pontoise Prison, Meaux-Chauconin Prison and La Santé Prison in Paris.
Source officiellePRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1952238-2051440
12 mars 2007
12 mars 2007
In the context of the G8 summit held in Genoa, from 19 to 21 July 2001, numerous anti- globalisation demonstrations were held in the city and substantial security arrangements were put in place
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2155045-2304148
30 octobre 2007
30 octobre 2007
Given that finding, the Court further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68274-68742
8 février 2000
8 février 2000
On 28 August 1992 the District Court held a hearing. Subsequently two other hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s illness.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-424060-424448
2 octobre 2001
2 octobre 2001
The applicant also complains that he was not summoned to the hearing held by the Conseil d’Etat , contrary to Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68302-68770
5 octobre 2000
5 octobre 2000
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him 30,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1197183-1243818
22 novembre 2003
22 novembre 2003
In a judgment of 30 March 2004 (see press release no. 157), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 3 to the Convention (right to free elections) and considered that
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1311593-1368169
11 avril 2005
11 avril 2005
In a judgment of 10 November 2004 (see press release no. 558), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention (no punishment without law).
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-895175-919948
11 décembre 2003
11 décembre 2003
In a judgment of 10 June 2003 (see press release no. 305) the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression).
Source officiellePage 17 sur 2571