Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1606147-1681772
9 mars 2006
9 mars 2006
It was also held that the police had acted in violation of the procedural law.
Source officielleCASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0416REP002713195
16 avril 1998
16 avril 1998
Between January 1988 and September 1991 the District Court held twelve hearings concerning the remainder of the applicant's action, which was modified or extended several times.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-551315-553116
16 mai 2002
16 mai 2002
Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68291-68759
16 novembre 2000
16 novembre 2000
The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded her ITL 15,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-682486-689853
23 janvier 2003
23 janvier 2003
Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1154338-1197874
5 octobre 2004
5 octobre 2004
The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 13.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3207065-3582200
27 juillet 2010
27 juillet 2010
The proceedings are still pending and no hearing has yet been held in his case.
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2270247-2428704
14 février 2008
14 février 2008
In a judgment of 10 July 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 as regards the lack of proper medical assistance at the CFECC remand centre,
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1889911-1984807
10 janvier 2007
10 janvier 2007
There had accordingly been no failure to respect the applicants’ rights to private and family life and the Chamber held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 8 or 12.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68396-68864
31 mai 2001
31 mai 2001
In both cases, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants the amounts listed below in Finnish marks (FIM).
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68197-68665
31 juillet 2000
31 juillet 2000
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was not necessary to examine
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1387575-1448799
29 juin 2005
29 juin 2005
In Chamber judgments of 10 November 2004 the Court held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-987407-1078137
30 juin 2004
30 juin 2004
It was declared partly admissible on 18 October 2001 and a public hearing was held in Strasbourg on 3 April 2003. On 5 February 2004, jurisdiction was relinquished in favour of the Grand Chamber.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1274518-1328459
3 mars 2005
3 mars 2005
Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1121475-1161544
2 septembre 2004
2 septembre 2004
The United Nation’s plan for the reunification of Cyprus (the Foundation Agreement – Settlement Plan) was put to the vote in Cyprus on 24 April 2004, with two separate referendums being held for
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1915853-2019004
7 février 2007
7 février 2007
In its Chamber judgment of 25 April 2006 (press release No. 234 , 2006) the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2090980-2214919
12 septembre 2007
12 septembre 2007
In its Chamber judgment of 12 December 2006 (press release no. 777), the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2187089-2325967
21 novembre 2007
21 novembre 2007
In its Chamber judgment of 30 January 2007 (press release no. 70) the Court held by five votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1533607-1604826
14 décembre 2005
14 décembre 2005
In a judgment of 8 February 2002 which brought the applicants’ action to an end, the Court of Cassation held that the Italian courts had no jurisdiction because Italy’s decision to take part in the air
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68413-68881
30 janvier 2001
30 janvier 2001
France, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (defence rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePage 49 sur 2440