Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;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 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 officielle2ème Chambre
DTA_2001842_20220928
28 septembre 2022
28 septembre 2022
B doivent être imposées, il y a lieu d'analyser les relations qui, durant l'année en litige, existaient entre lui et la société Heli-Union qui a été bénéficiaire de ses services.
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 officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1815867-1909474
17 octobre 2006
17 octobre 2006
It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68240-68708
9 mai 2000
9 mai 2000
That being so, the Court held that it was not required to examine the question of its own motion.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1199894-1261883
9 décembre 2004
9 décembre 2004
It held that the applicant’s sentence was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, consequently, not “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-909391-935069
15 janvier 2004
15 janvier 2004
However, on 17 July 1995 the Court of Appeal held that the applicants’ right to compensation had lapsed since at least 1971.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2231342-2392559
17 janvier 2008
17 janvier 2008
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Source officiellePage 26 sur 2440