Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1371956-1432360
15 juin 2005
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).
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-67979-68447
10 novembre 2000
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
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-67982-68450
14 juin 1999
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
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68348-68816
20 février 2001
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
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68032-68500
30 novembre 1999
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.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-563503-565618
4 juin 2002
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).
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1184330-1229840
16 novembre 2004
16 novembre 2004
The Divisional Court subsequently held that the binding-over order had been procedurally irregular.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-972755-1003298
8 avril 2004
8 avril 2004
The Court held a hearing on the merits of the case on 19 November 2003.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2054744-2181078
5 juillet 2007
5 juillet 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 10.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1905497-2013213
1 février 2007
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.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2317449-2495981
8 avril 2008
8 avril 2008
Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68329-68797
19 octobre 2000
19 octobre 2000
A hearing was held on 13 June 2000.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-647569-653245
7 novembre 2002
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.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1847512-1946488
28 novembre 2006
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.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1852771-1957464
30 novembre 2006
30 novembre 2006
It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8 § 2.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68344-68812
2 août 2001
2 août 2001
The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 11.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1639914-1718158
13 avril 2006
13 avril 2006
It was held that the applicants had failed to comply with the requirements of the Political Parties Act of 1990.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-849707-870555
9 octobre 2003
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.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2053302-2186025
10 juillet 2007
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.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-681224-688580
16 janvier 2003
16 janvier 2003
The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePage 38 sur 2440