Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68282-68750
30 mai 2000
30 mai 2000
He resumed the proceedings on an unspecified date and on 15 November 1995 the bailiff evicted the tenant with help from the police.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2342294-2508375
17 avril 2008
17 avril 2008
He undertook to help the Court by contributing to the resources, especially financial and human, that it required in order to function efficiently.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2328240-2491795
4 avril 2008
4 avril 2008
representing universities in six countries will compete against each other on the topic of new technologies in secondary schools during the 22 nd René Cassin European Human Rights Competition, to be held
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-671878-679054
18 décembre 2002
18 décembre 2002
The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1743166-1827925
27 juillet 2006
27 juillet 2006
Notwithstanding his appeals and at least one suicide attempt (two according to the applicant), he was held in the police detention centre until 10 October 2003, when he was transferred to Larissa Prison
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3203509-3565171
15 juillet 2010
15 juillet 2010
As a result of the fall, she applied for medical help on the same day.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2324024-2510541
22 avril 2008
22 avril 2008
It found that period excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68363-68831
11 janvier 2001
11 janvier 2001
The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation). (Judgment in English) (5) Magyar v.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2137301-2268977
11 octobre 2007
11 octobre 2007
Consequently, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had not been lawful and held that there had been a violation of Article 10.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2085492-2208813
4 septembre 2007
4 septembre 2007
The applicant party further complained that it was deprived of its chance to win parliamentary seats because the general election results were finalised without a vote having been held in two electoral
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1853460-1945799
21 novembre 2006
21 novembre 2006
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-934644-962008
12 février 2004
12 février 2004
Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (d).
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68298-68766
10 octobre 2000
10 octobre 2000
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention as regards his detention on remand
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68325-68793
23 mai 2000
23 mai 2000
France, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (by five votes to two), a violation
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68181-68649
20 mars 2001
20 mars 2001
However, it held that in this case the additional provision in question could apply only to offences committed in 1986, and not in 1995.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0915DEC001493107
15 septembre 2009
15 septembre 2009
The trial court held the first hearing on 17 May 2005. In 2005 it held in total 5 hearings. On 7 February 2006 the Zamość Regional Court gave a judgment in the case.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-12183
8 novembre 2018
8 novembre 2018
contributions collection agency (“the URSSAF”) for reimbursement of the employer’s share of the contributions paid in respect of their employees, arguing that they provided their residents with home help
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-141732
14 février 2014
14 février 2014
Under pressure from B.T.F. the applicant agreed to help him obtain ecstasy pills. For this purpose the applicant contacted C.A.O. who agreed to bring him some pills. 4.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2143034-2275552
18 octobre 2007
18 octobre 2007
The Government did not indicate the number of inmates actually held in the cells.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-857287-878969
21 octobre 2003
21 octobre 2003
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, but that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant company’s complaint raised under Article 1 of Protocol
Source officiellePage 22 sur 2440