CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1966:1212REP000229964
12 décembre 1966
.s4DB02338 { position:absolute;left:0em;top:-0.01em;width:49.32em;height:63.51em; } .sD28D9A96 { position:absolute;left:0em;top:-0.0067em;width:49.71em;height:63.84em; } .s7176863 { position:absolute;left
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:1004JUD003377696
4 octobre 2001
:13.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8580D090 { width:228.71pt; display:inline-block } .s330E12DF { width:11.11pt; display:inline-block } .s9575B067 { width:255.06pt; display:inline-block }    
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-6328
With regard to the application for temporary ownership, the court held that it could not review the application for temporary use, lodged in 1947, since it was not competent to deal with appeals against
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0202DEC002618402
2 février 2006
:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0530JUD005189599
30 mai 2006
:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }    
ECLI:CEDH:002-4196
7 octobre 2004
On both occasions the prison authorities refused to dispatch the letters unless he previously filed his complaint with the domestic courts.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1007JUD006077600
:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0225JUD007774601
25 février 2003
:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A
ECLI:CEDH:002-4410
27 mai 2004
Violation of Art. 6-1;Inadmissible with regard to one applicant
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1977:0310DEC000723875
10 mars 1977
: hidden;}} .pdfOutput_06 { position: absolute; pointer-events: none; clip: rect(-0.041667em,33.29166em,48.375em,-0.041667em); width: 100%; } .pdfOutput_07 { font-size: 1em; line-height: 0.0em; width:
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0527JUD006629601
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:1107JUD004543599
7 novembre 2002
    On 6   May   1993 the applicant, together with 244 other plaintiffs, filed an action for re-payment of their loans with the Zagreb Municipal Court.
ECLI:CEDH:002-10324
12 juillet 2001
Nevertheless, only supervised meetings with the children held once a month on premises chosen by the Social Welfare Board were authorised.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0712JUD002570294
:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC2DC2ACA { width:79.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC6FCA6DF { width
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1022REP001779891
22 octobre 1997
:inline-block } .s8828C2CA { width:31.28pt; display:inline-block } .s41A29154 { width:6.84pt; display:inline-block } .s9A9585A5 { width:23.34pt; display:inline-block } .s28DAEA75 { width:27.97pt; display
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0406JUD007511601
6 avril 2004
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0703DEC000655325
3 juillet 2025
:33.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4D2D3397 { width:115.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1989:0712REP001248986
12 juillet 1989
: hidden;}} .pdfOutput_06 { position: absolute; pointer-events: none; clip: rect(-0.041667em,48.04167em,70.125em,-0.041667em); width: 100%; } .pdfOutput_07 { font-size: 1em; line-height: 0.0em; width:
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0928JUD006766001
28 septembre 2004
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0114JUD002775195
14 janvier 2003
Page 2 sur 6630