CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3093086-3424257
8 avril 2010
In March 2000 the applicant wrote a letter to the Prosecutor of the Belgorod Region with a copy to the Prosecutor General of Russia, alleging that in the course of the proceedings in his case in
Page 18 sur 448
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:0511DEC001051083
11 mai 1988
by the respondent Government on 13 February 1985 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 26 March
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1985:0528JUD000822578
28 mai 1985
Lord Justice Bridge delivered the first judgment.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-11978
15 mai 2018
He climbed over a bridge enclosed by metal railings, jumped into the river and drowned.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-115551
5 décembre 2012
The applicant was released on 26 March 2007 at about midday after paying the fine.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0131JUD001823211
31 janvier 2017
of 4 and 19 March. 16.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1986:0131JUD000873479
31 janvier 1986
In its judgment of 25 March 1985, the Court reserved the whole of the question.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1021DEC004231798
21 octobre 2003
Mr Justice Mance quoted, inter alia , the headnote of the case of R. v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1120DEC003110204
20 novembre 2007
On 12 March 1998 he lodged an objection.
ECLI:CEDH:002-5861
30 novembre 2000
In March 1999 a certificate of the third applicant’s entitlement to such aid was issued by a medical department.
ECLI:CEDH:001-219381
1 septembre 2022
7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 September 2022 THIRD SECTION Application no. 13129/19 Prasannakumary MANNANTHARA NATARAJAN against Germany lodged on 5 March
CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-49213
16 octobre 1972
decision of 18 January 1972 expressing the satisfaction of the Committee of Ministers with the legislative measures introduced in Belgium; Recalling also the second judgment of the Court of 10 March
ECLI:CEDH:002-3430
2 mars 2006
margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 84 March
ECLI:CEDH:001-249947
31 mars 2026
margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 April 2026 SECOND SECTION Application no. 7784/22 Ömer KULAÇ against Türkiye lodged on 3 February 2022 communicated on 31 March
ECLI:CEDH:002-12356
5 mars 2019
margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 227 March
ECLI:CEDH:001-211080
17 juin 2021
Russia , no. 58428/10, §§ 166-208, 27 March 2014)? 2.
ECLI:CEDH:001-230027
11 décembre 2023
By a final judgment of 27 March 2023, the domestic court upheld that decision.
ECLI:CEDH:001-225561
30 mai 2023
Armenia , no. 41817/10, §§ 48-49, 22 March 2022; and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia , no. 69517/11, § 91, 5 April 2022)? 2.
ECLI:CEDH:002-6362
11 octobre 2001
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time): the applicants were entitled to rely on the transitional provision laid down in section 6 of Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Law”).
ECLI:CEDH:001-161866
10 mars 2016
:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 10 March