CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-11742
7 novembre 2017
The judge notified about the urgent interception of the telephone communications did not carry out any judicial review of the police’s decision to tap his telephone and no independent authority had assessed
Page 32 sur 79
1ère chambre civile B
67908cc91b5a79f732705496
21 janvier 2025
Localité 3] Représentée par Me Frédéric PIRAS de la SELARL PVBF, avocat postulant au barreau de LYON, toque : 704 ayant pour avocat plaidant Me David ROGUET de la SELARL GUMUSCHIAN ROGUET BONZY POLZELLA
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-116850
29 janvier 2013
According to the applicants, M.B. and M.D had to put their hands and faces to the wall and Mr Ion Boacă was brought into the Chief police’s office at the Clejani Police Station.
ECLI:CEDH:002-11745
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0504JUD006239300
4 mai 2006
L’après-midi du 28 avril 2000, en exécution de cette ordonnance, la police d’État ( valsts policija ) arrêta le requérant.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0209JUD007344301
9 février 2006
régionale modifia la mesure préventive appliquée au premier requérant en le libérant de son confinement à domicile et en lui appliquant le régime du placement sous surveillance de la police ( nodošana policijas
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0412DEC002211293
12 avril 1996
The applicant complains that his trial was unfair because he has been denied access to the original witness statements and to precognition of two Crown witnesses (an eye witness and a policeman
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0925JUD001267305
25 septembre 2012
On 5 May 2004, while the applicant was passing by the Ardahan police station, a policeman asked him whether he was Ferhat Kaya.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-181089
1 février 2018
PALOTTI 50327/10 27/08/2010 Italo GIACOMINI 08/11/1942 SONDRIO Roberta PALOTTI 50328/10 27/08/2010 Romedi POLETTI 01/01/1933 SONDRIO Roberta PALOTTI 50329/10 27/08/2010 Paolo POLINELLI
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0130DEC007344301
30 janvier 2003
cour régionale modifia la mesure préventive appliquée au premier requérant, en le libérant de son confinement à domicile et en lui appliquant le placement sous surveillance de la police ( nodošana policijas
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0506DEC006682001
6 mai 2004
Entre-temps, le 26 janvier 2001, V.S., l'un des coïnculpés de la requérante, fut libéré de la détention et placé sous le contrôle de la police ( nodošana policijas uzraudzībā ).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0315JUD003229305
15 mars 2011
The policeman went for reinforcements, but before leaving said “get ready to go [with the police]”. 7.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0710JUD005232708
10 juillet 2012
In order to calm down the applicant, who wanted to set the dogs on them, policeman V. took hold of her and took her to a police car. The applicant shook him off and started screaming.
Sociale C salle 3
62c67be7ca9bf263790306fc
29 avril 2022
2022 République Française Au nom du Peuple Français COUR D'APPEL DE DOUAI Chambre Sociale - Prud'Hommes- APPELANTE : Mme [V] [F] [Adresse 1] [Localité 2] représentée par Me Anne POLICELLA
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0115DEC000175103
15 janvier 2008
appealed against the decision of 21 November 2002, stating that the tax police had refused to award him compensation by their letter of 23 November 2001 and that he could not be responsible for the tax police’s
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1302921-1361936
31 mars 2005
In spite of the steps taken, the applicant was unable to obtain M.F.’s expulsion but was granted compensation for the damage caused by the police’s refusal to provide assistance.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0525DEC004076898
25 mai 1999
The Court observes that the police’s question concerning the scales was directed to R. in the presence of the applicant.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0909DEC003786914
9 septembre 2014
In the appeal he complained that, in principle, the ordinary courts had not accepted evidence submitted by him, that they had not reflected his submissions and that the State’s (police’s) failure
ECLI:CEDH:001-181095
2 février 2018
defective and put the defence at a distinct disadvantage, inter alia , on account of having no opportunity to examine officers B. and G., attesting witnesses or defence witness So., and the traffic police’s
ECLI:CEDH:002-13105
21 janvier 2021
Article 3 (Use of excessive force by police during dispersal of demonstrations ( Shmorgunov and Others ): a) Substantive limb – There was no evidence or information indicating that the police’s