Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-934823-962187
12 février 2004
12 février 2004
The Court unanimously: dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection that Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights was not applicable; held
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1563127-1645865
26 janvier 2006
26 janvier 2006
It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s further complaints under that article.
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1737642-1821998
19 juillet 2006
19 juillet 2006
In its Chamber judgment of 7 February 2006 (press release No. 64 , 2006), the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 2
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1886859-1986133
9 janvier 2007
9 janvier 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68366-68834
9 janvier 2001
9 janvier 2001
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1190332-1236514
16 novembre 2004
16 novembre 2004
A hearing was held on 13 January 2004.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1392499-1457598
7 juillet 2005
7 juillet 2005
The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3271071-3648240
28 septembre 2010
28 septembre 2010
Germany (no. 59320/00) of 24.06.2004, in which the Court held that the court decisions had infringed Princess Caroline’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3253985-3640210
14 septembre 2010
14 septembre 2010
The case concerned the police’s suppression of – as well as the arrests made during – three demonstrations held by the applicants in August and September 2007 in Chişinău in front of the Ministry
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1621663-1710500
29 mars 2006
29 mars 2006
In a judgment of 10 November 2004 (see press release no. 558 from 2004) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 7.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-13680
9 juin 2022
9 juin 2022
However, a long line of authority held that the Convention did not guarantee a right to have a terminated case reopened.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1891266-1986242
11 janvier 2007
11 janvier 2007
The Court held, by 15 votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2331994-2523301
30 avril 2008
30 avril 2008
A hearing was held in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 April 2005.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-633499-638958
17 octobre 2002
17 octobre 2002
The Court also held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 (just satisfaction).
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68407-68875
24 juillet 2001
24 juillet 2001
The Court held: by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously that there had been
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2953286-3250185
3 décembre 2009
3 décembre 2009
Pursuant to the relevant provisions of domestic law, Article 1626a § 2 of the German Civil Code, the mother held sole custody for the child.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1816574-1905738
19 octobre 2006
19 octobre 2006
After the applicants had lodged a complaint alleging torture, criminal proceedings were instituted against the officers in whose custody they had been held.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-499137-500452
19 février 2002
19 février 2002
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-559149-561212
28 mai 2002
28 mai 2002
In its principal judgment delivered on 5 January 2000 the Court held, by 16 votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2297630-2474080
20 mars 2008
20 mars 2008
It found that period excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePage 52 sur 2440