CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1386674-1447859
28 juin 2005
The latter could however waive this right, provided this waiver was not equivocal and did not run counter to any important public interest.
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1725364-1815296
11 juillet 2006
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 5) (no. 63239/00)   Maselli v.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0412DEC002413405
12 avril 2018
According to the Government, the time-limit had started to run from 9 November 2012, 18 March 2005 and 30 July 2012, respectively, the dates when the judgments had been enforced. 5.
ECLI:CEDH:003-909391-935069
15 janvier 2004
  They brought an action challenging the authorities’ refusal to grant them a licence to run a pig farm.
CIVIL + 10 000
69731c2fcdc6046d4763eade
12 janvier 2026
SOCIÉTÉ SWISS LIFE ASSURANCES DE BIENS En sa qualité d’assureur de Monsieur [X] , demeurant [Adresse 5] Représentés par : Maître Albane SADOT de la SELARL SELARL SADOT-PROUST, avocats postulant au barreau
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0913DEC001638203
13 septembre 2007
Sur recours du parquet, la cour d’appel d’Alba Iulia confirma l’arrêt rendu en appel, par un arrêt définitif du 25 mai 2000. 2.
4ème chambre jugeant seule
ECLI:FR:CECHS:2024:456821.20240227
27 février 2024
illégaux en ce qu'ils méconnaissent le principe constitutionnel de l'égale admissibilité aux emplois publics et de l'impartialité des jurys de concours, d'autre part, constitutifs de fautes, enfin, ont ruiné
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:1014DEC001875791
14 octobre 1992
Prison Albany, Newport, Isle of Wight.         The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0410REP001203286
10 avril 1991
     On 14 November 1989 the parties were invited to submit further written observations in the light of the Court's judgment in the Allan Jacobsson case (Eur.
Cour d'Appel
6253c973bd3db21cbdd885bd
28 septembre 2006
retenues.Elle souligne que le travail chez N.D LOGISTICS lui a demandé des sacrifices familiaux et financiers et que son licenciement brutal, 12 mois seulement après son entrée dans l'entreprise, a ruiné
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0525DEC002902195
25 mai 1999
Such a consent is a precondition ... and without it a business cannot be run.   It follows that the defendant authority’s decision at issue is superfluous.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0624DEC002350094
24 juin 1996
   "Hangi yöntem, maksat ve düsünceyle olursa olsun Türkiye      Cumhuriyeti Devletinin ülkesi ve milletiyle bölünmez bütünlügünü      bozmayi hedef alan
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0413JUD001325217
13 avril 2021
In the case of Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0516DEC006026709
16 mai 2017
01/02/1961 Batman   Adem Avağ 01/01/1962 Batman   Ahmet Baltaş 01/03/1967 Batman Ahmet Karataş 26/02/1954 Batman   Ali Adanır 01/01/1953 Batman     64168/09 03/11/2009 Aydın Algan
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1990:0221JUD001185585
21 février 1990
Through their purchase the applicants had intended to build up units which would, in the short run, create opportunities for employment and, in the long run, become financially sound properties to be exploited
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1011DEC006847610
11 octobre 2011
infractions, la peine sera calculée avec confusion des peines («   concurring sentences   » ) : “If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, the terms may run
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0401JUD007496101
1 avril 2008
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Alan
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0219JUD002272993
19 février 1998
It was signed by six members of the security forces, amongst whom Alper Sır, Paşa Bülbül, Ahmet Gümüs and Altan Berk (see paragraph 11 above).
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-192045
25 février 2019
correct to find that they could not complain about the latter because they had failed to do so under Article 6 (2) of the Ordinance, since the latter did not provide that the time ‑ limit was to run
1ere Chambre Section 2
6811aeb381f47e994feb268f
29 avril 2025
Madame [F] [U] [Adresse 5] [Localité 20] Représentée par Me Aurélien DELECROIX, avocat au barreau de TOULOUSE INTIMÉ Monsieur [B] [W] [Adresse 4] [Localité 21] Représenté par Me Loïc ALRAN
Page 3 sur 7