Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1941245-2039653
6 mars 2007
6 mars 2007
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-438141-438786
23 octobre 2001
23 octobre 2001
It held that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were not political or military in nature but ordinary criminal offences.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-929437-956008
10 février 2004
10 février 2004
published on 21 November and 10 December 1996, reporting that Mr A. was the husband of a Member of the Finnish Parliament and Chair of its Committee for Education and Culture and that he had been
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-612233-617304
10 septembre 2002
10 septembre 2002
The judge, who had been informed of the applicant’s case, ruled that disclosure would not assist the defence.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1220869-1269342
17 décembre 2004
17 décembre 2004
That had not been the case in this instance.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-98
16 mai 1997
16 mai 1997
Petzold, Registrar, Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court on 15 January 1997 by Mr Joseph De Brabandere
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2498439-2709459
2 octobre 2008
2 octobre 2008
Malta (no. 17056/06) The applicant, Joseph Micallef, is a Maltese national who lives in Vittoriosa (Malta).
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-55701
19 février 1999
19 février 1999
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No.16969/90) against Ireland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 May 1990 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Joseph
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2179856-2317745
20 novembre 2007
20 novembre 2007
disputed; a party had taken place at the hotel and the Budget Act had been amended.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2149447-2283071
23 octobre 2007
23 octobre 2007
the applicant had allegedly been tortured.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0205DEC000840606
5 février 2013
5 février 2013
the magazine nor its editors had been considered to be suspects.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0117DEC004206506
17 janvier 2012
17 janvier 2012
He also complained that he had been classed as “an official” based on a norm which had not been in force at the material time. 10.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0308DEC001982604
8 mars 2011
8 mars 2011
He had accordingly been moved to another cell. 10. On 31 August 2004 he had been transferred to a cell which his fellow inmates had refused to share with him.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1007JUD002871219
7 octobre 2021
7 octobre 2021
Owners thus could not have been blamed for initiating proceedings at that time. 36.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0208DEC000545002
8 février 2011
8 février 2011
The applicant complains that the proceedings against him had been unfair on several accounts: they had not been adversarial; he had not been able to propose evidence in his defence; he had
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0307DEC004458598
7 mars 2000
7 mars 2000
{ width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 44585/98 by Joseph
Source officielleCASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1986:0515REP001006182
15 mai 1986
15 mai 1986
Patrick Joseph Conroy on 30 March 1981 under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25).
Source officiellePRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3270987-3667739
30 septembre 2010
30 septembre 2010
The applicant also claimed that he had not been able to challenge the decision concerning his category of disability (“second degree”), as he had not been able to access the building of the commission
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1013855-1048174
1 juin 2004
1 juin 2004
There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 5 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3160683-3514759
8 juin 2010
8 juin 2010
Accordingly, in view of the applicant’s conviction without evidence being taken from him in person and especially after he had been acquitted at first instance, the Court held that there had been
Source officiellePage 38 sur 136