Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68121-68589
14 juin 2000
14 juin 2000
On 25 June 1997 the Supreme Special Court held that Law No.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68112-68580
21 mars 2000
21 mars 2000
After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68285-68753
8 février 2000
8 février 2000
THE UNITED KINGDOM In a judgment notified in writing in the case of McGonnell v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-410658-410810
13 septembre 2001
13 septembre 2001
*** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0504DEC005779300
4 mai 2004
4 mai 2004
It held that the medical opinions at its disposal showed that the strain tolerance of the applicant's left elbow was reduced and that he was incapable of full-time carpentry work.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2120688-2263042
27 septembre 2007
27 septembre 2007
It held that such reasoning was incompatible with respect for the presumption of innocence.
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-56531
20 février 1992
20 février 1992
l'Homme et des Libertés fondamentales (ci-après dénommée "la Convention"), Vu l'arrêt de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme rendu le 29 octobre 1991 dans l'affaire Helmers
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68259-68727
27 juillet 2000
27 juillet 2000
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §1 and awarded the applicant 400,000 Portuguese escudos for any non-pecuniary damage.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2228437-2389000
15 janvier 2008
15 janvier 2008
The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2241471-2402943
24 janvier 2008
24 janvier 2008
It also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1517804-1597386
1 décembre 2005
1 décembre 2005
The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1943536-2042084
13 mars 2007
13 mars 2007
The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1170228-1217563
26 octobre 2004
26 octobre 2004
The Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68203-68671
5 avril 2000
5 avril 2000
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company ITL 15,000,000 for damage and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-433349-433972
18 octobre 2001
18 octobre 2001
He was transferred to Pianosa Prison on 20 July 1992 where he was held in the high-security “Agrippa” section until 2 September 1997.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1148306-1192197
28 septembre 2004
28 septembre 2004
The Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.) Marschner v.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-972627-1009066
8 avril 2004
8 avril 2004
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2219550-2381140
8 janvier 2008
8 janvier 2008
The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 in the case of Raban . (The judgments are available only in English.)
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2198950-2354024
6 décembre 2007
6 décembre 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1815581-1904685
19 octobre 2006
19 octobre 2006
It therefore held that there had been a further violation of Article 2 on that account.
Source officiellePage 24 sur 2571