Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1887196-1982012
9 janvier 2007
9 janvier 2007
The domestic courts held that the impugned statements regarding Mr S.L. were untrue.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1926412-2023431
22 février 2007
22 février 2007
As a result two hearings were held in July 1998 in which two police officers, who had participated in the applicant’s arrest, confirmed that Mr Wieser had been informed of his arrest and of the
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1991878-2099525
26 avril 2007
26 avril 2007
In those circumstances it held that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-999303-1041083
19 mai 2004
19 mai 2004
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-634751-640225
15 octobre 2002
15 octobre 2002
Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,100 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 80 for costs and expenses.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2277412-2445037
28 février 2008
28 février 2008
Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1044662-1081739
6 juillet 2004
6 juillet 2004
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1735831-1820016
18 juillet 2006
18 juillet 2006
The Court accordingly concluded that the balance had not been properly struck in the present case and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1540796-1619553
22 décembre 2005
22 décembre 2005
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-532666-534222
9 avril 2002
9 avril 2002
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of assembly and association); that there was no need to determine whether
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2142837-2291888
18 octobre 2007
18 octobre 2007
The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68290-68758
14 novembre 2000
14 novembre 2000
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of the civil proceedings and of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2179809-2334895
22 novembre 2007
22 novembre 2007
It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68276-68744
28 mars 2000
28 mars 2000
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant GRD 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 500,000 for costs and expenses.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1808110-1902532
12 octobre 2006
12 octobre 2006
The Court therefore held that both applicants’ rights under Article 8 had been violated.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-990599-1022949
29 avril 2004
29 avril 2004
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 2,400 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1533534-1604751
16 décembre 2005
16 décembre 2005
In its Chamber judgment of 28 June 2005, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-420151-420437
27 septembre 2001
27 septembre 2001
Summary of the facts Between 1993 and 1997 the applicant company held 49% of the shares in Sovtransavto–Lugansk, a Ukrainian public limited company.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1167085-1211242
19 octobre 2004
19 octobre 2004
That decision was declared null and void by the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) , which held that the question of Alexander Blücher’s nationality was not relevant.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1131841-1177205
14 septembre 2004
14 septembre 2004
It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first set of proceedings, but no violation in respect of the second.
Source officiellePage 27 sur 2440