Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-205622
28 septembre 2020
28 septembre 2020
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? 3.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-202596
23 mars 2020
23 mars 2020
Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249856
23 mars 2026
23 mars 2026
If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the children’s whereabouts (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-177376
4 septembre 2017
4 septembre 2017
Did such interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for instance, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-220227
26 septembre 2022
26 septembre 2022
If the deprivation was lawful, did that deprivation impose an excessive burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999 ‑ V)?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-250334
30 avril 2026
30 avril 2026
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249863
26 mars 2026
26 mars 2026
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , S.A. Dangeville v. France , no. 36677/97, §§ 52–61, ECHR 2002-III)? 2.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249953
2 avril 2026
2 avril 2026
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? 2.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187176
26 septembre 2018
26 septembre 2018
Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-228251
18 septembre 2023
18 septembre 2023
the general interest and the requirements of the applicant’s right to “the peaceful enjoyment” of his possession under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or did they impose a disproportionate and excessive burden
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-202799
17 avril 2020
17 avril 2020
Was the principle of equality of arms respected in connection with the distribution of the burden of proof?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187167
29 septembre 2018
29 septembre 2018
In particular, was it proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Vaskrsić v.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-231666
23 février 2024
23 février 2024
If so, has that interference been in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company,
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-231667
23 février 2024
23 février 2024
If so, has that interference been in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant, within the
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-209975
14 avril 2021
14 avril 2021
In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)? 3.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-247961
17 décembre 2025
17 décembre 2025
Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, for general principles, Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey , nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, §§ 142-52; see also , Džinić v.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249353
25 février 2026
25 février 2026
Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for general principles, Karahasanoğlu v. Turkey , nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, §§ 142-52; see also Filkin v.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217557
3 mai 2022
3 mai 2022
In particular, was the applicant subjected to “an individual and excessive burden”, within the meaning of that provision, when losing his land as a result of a mistake by the authorities ( Lekić v.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-244664
23 juillet 2025
23 juillet 2025
In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-196078
26 août 2019
26 août 2019
He submits that the construction was carried out in accordance with all the relevant permits and planning documents issued by public authorities and that he should not have to bear the burden of the authorities
Source officiellePage 20 sur 375