CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0504DEC001894522
4 mai 2023
These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court
Page 40 sur 1809
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1120DEC003478823
20 novembre 2025
The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0205DEC003166223
5 février 2026
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0309DEC001886722
9 mars 2023
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:1109DEC002092922
9 novembre 2023
In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0530DEC005664022
30 mai 2024
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1209DEC005223720
9 décembre 2021
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0310DEC005057721
10 mars 2022
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0617DEC008405017
17 juin 2021
These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0205DEC000348425
, under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0922DEC001813221
22 septembre 2022
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1006DEC004567921
6 octobre 2022
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0310DEC004752920
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1130DEC004767209
30 novembre 2010
It found that there were no regulations providing for placement of the seized amount on a bank deposit or that the returned amount should have been index-linked.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0123DEC001950106
23 janvier 2024
In his application before the Court the first applicant submitted that he would have to repay the Municipality the difference between the amount already paid to him (see paragraph 10 above) and the amount
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1009JUD007144711
9 octobre 2018
On 27 June 2006, the applicants requested to increase the amount of their claim for pecuniary damage in the light of the expert report. 11.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0525DEC005122499
25 mai 2004
According to the applicant, he was thus forced to contract debts in order to pay the amounts due.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0915DEC005984514
15 septembre 2020
The applicants challenged this amount in court.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0405JUD003375105
5 avril 2016
, which was not the case in the applicant’s situation, as he had received the whole amount in one payment.
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-927693-954143
19 février 2004
The applicants challenged that amount in a document dated 1 August 1984 addressed to the Secretary of State for Finance.