CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68140-68608
7 mars 2000
  After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.
ECLI:CEDH:003-1371956-1432360
15 juin 2005
  At the request of the Polish Government, the Registry of the Court has agreed to help the parties reach a friendly settlement concerning just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention).
ECLI:CEDH:003-67979-68447
10 novembre 2000
On account of their participation in decisions of the National Defence Council or the Politbüro, which had laid down the regime for the policing of the former GDR’s border, they were held to be responsible
ECLI:CEDH:003-67982-68450
14 juin 1999
Decision on admissibility     Following the hearing held on 27 April 1999 and its subsequent deliberations, the Chamber found that the applicant Government’s complaints under Article 3 of the
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68348-68816
20 février 2001
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 100,000
PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68032-68500
30 novembre 1999
    After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.
ECLI:CEDH:003-563503-565618
4 juin 2002
  The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
ECLI:CEDH:003-1184330-1229840
16 novembre 2004
The Divisional Court subsequently held that the binding-over order had been procedurally irregular.
PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-972755-1003298
8 avril 2004
The Court held a hearing on the merits of the case on 19 November 2003.
ECLI:CEDH:003-2054744-2181078
5 juillet 2007
  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 10.
ECLI:CEDH:003-1905497-2013213
1 février 2007
Moreover, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 because of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
ECLI:CEDH:003-2317449-2495981
8 avril 2008
Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.
ECLI:CEDH:003-68329-68797
19 octobre 2000
  A hearing was held on 13 June 2000.
ECLI:CEDH:003-647569-653245
7 novembre 2002
Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13 in relation to the proceedings which were still pending.
ECLI:CEDH:003-1847512-1946488
28 novembre 2006
  The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Golik v.
ECLI:CEDH:003-1852771-1957464
30 novembre 2006
It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article   8   §   2.
ECLI:CEDH:003-68344-68812
2 août 2001
The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 11.
ECLI:CEDH:003-1639914-1718158
13 avril 2006
  It was held that the applicants had failed to comply with the requirements of the Political Parties Act of 1990.
ECLI:CEDH:003-849707-870555
9 octobre 2003
By 16 votes to one, the Court held that the applicants were to be paid 44,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses, less EUR 4,294.79 paid in legal aid by the Council of Europe.
ECLI:CEDH:003-2053302-2186025
10 juillet 2007
It thus held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of failure to maintain equality of arms.
Page 36 sur 2571