CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1214DEC002488005
14 décembre 2010
la matière dans le sens indiqué dans l’arrêt Verdú Verdú (précité), ou du moins spécifier les conditions permettant de s’écarter de l’approche traditionnelle fondée notamment sur son arrêt Nideröst-Huber
Page 42 sur 53
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:0709DEC001279487
9 juillet 1988
; Application No. 12794/87 by Jutta HUBER
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0109JUD002587494
9 janvier 2001
Belgium judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 135; p. 20, § 46; the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (Article 50) judgment of 30 May 1989, Series A no. 152-B, pp. 44-45, § 9; the Huber v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0114JUD002988904
14 janvier 2010
Finland , judgment of 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 16, § 42; and Nideröst-Huber v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0717JUD000015604
17 juillet 2012
other authorities, SZ 23/143; Herndl, JBl 1962, 15; JBl 1962, 43; Heß, JBl 1989, 285; ZfRV 1990, 300 [Seidl-Hohenveldern]; Schreuer, ÖJZ 1991, 41; Fischer, NZ 1991, 154; DRdA 1991/53 [Simotta]; Neuhold/Hummer
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0624JUD002894095
24 juin 2008
On the same day Hum. O. sector 4 and the interpreter visited E. Ph. in the school as requested by CHO.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0422JUD003702402
22 avril 2010
each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, Nideröst-Huber
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0122JUD004293110
22 janvier 2013
The court further pointed out that unlike in the case of Huber v. Switzerland (23 October 1990, Series A no.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1124JUD002060292
24 novembre 1997
France; 28.9.1995, Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands; 18.2.1997, Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland; 29.5.1997, Georgiadis v. Greece; 24.11.1997, Werner v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1006JUD006510716
6 octobre 2020
It was up to the applicant to decide whether or not that document called for her comments (compare Nideröst-Huber v.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1109DEC002894095
9 novembre 2006
On the same day Hum. O. sector 4 and the interpreter visited E. Ph in the school as requested by CHO. She stated that she was beaten by hand from TCPE in the office at Ledra ChPt.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0226DEC003766404
26 février 2008
These wind turbines measured 31.5 metres to the hub of the rotor blades, which had a diameter of 27 metres.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0104DEC002380006
4 janvier 2008
He was represented before the Court by Mr Sean Humber, a solicitor practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr J.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1128JUD003871802
28 novembre 2006
Pays-Bas du 27 mars 1998, Recueil 1998-II, p. 631, § 44, et Nideröst-Huber c. Suisse , arrêt du 18 février 1997, Recueil 1997 ‑ I, p. 108, § 24) 19.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0329JUD000115404
29 mars 2011
litigants’ confidence in the workings of justice, which is based on, inter alia , the knowledge that they have had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file ( Nideröst ‑ Huber
Pôle 6 - Chambre 2
633fc387e633183e2ee17c0b
6 octobre 2022
La société Air France exploite trois sites sur l'aéroport de [11] à savoir les secteurs « DGI », « CARGO » et « HUB » dont la surveillance est assurée par des sociétés spécialisées dans le domaine de la
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0520DEC000834607
20 mai 2014
If it is not so justified, the “officer” must have the power to make a binding order for the detainee’s release (see Huber v.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-212308
13 septembre 2021
Maria Denise HUMMER-TUTTLE 1944 American Los Angeles 8. Pamela JOYNER 1958 American Los Angeles 9. Paul Omer LECLERC 1941 American Los Angleses 10. David Li LEE 1949 American Los Angeles 11.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:0108DEC001702690
8 janvier 1993
néanmoins être prise en considération dès qu'il s'agit d'examiner la question d'une éventuelle violation du droit à être entendu dans un délai raisonnable, que garantit cette disposition (cf N° 4517/71, Huber
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2268400-2434163
21 février 2008
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Johanna Huber v. Romania (no. 37296/04) Pappszasz v. Romania (no. 25920/05) Tulea v.