Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1896255-1998461
18 janvier 2007
18 janvier 2007
In short, the Court considered that the investigation had not been effective and it held that there had been a violation of Article 13.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1926511-2023530
22 février 2007
22 février 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1594310-1673554
23 février 2006
23 février 2006
The applicants brought an action against the Ministry of Defence arguing that the sums held back had been wrongfully deducted.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68324-68792
11 juillet 2000
11 juillet 2000
On 4 March 1992 the first hearing was held before the Katowice Regional Court. Subsequently, as the judge rapporteur fell ill, the case was assigned to a new panel of judges.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68216-68684
20 juillet 2000
20 juillet 2000
Article 41 The applicant sought compensation for pecuniary and professional damage sustained as a result of his having been held in police custody, but made no quantified claim.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-828185-847835
16 septembre 2003
16 septembre 2003
The European Court of Human Rights considered that a total period of over nine years exceeded a reasonable time and held unanimously that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-848871-869695
7 octobre 2003
7 octobre 2003
Those courts had held hearings at which the applicant or his lawyer had appeared and presented his case in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1659493-1738894
27 avril 2006
27 avril 2006
The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on that account.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1113DEC000577810
13 novembre 2012
13 novembre 2012
Between 12 December 2008 and 14 October 2009 the applicant was held in cell no 5, Block 3 which measured 59.25 square metres and held fourteen inmates (4.23 square metres of
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2264660-2428688
14 février 2008
14 février 2008
The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant’s allegation
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2146021-2279094
12 octobre 2007
12 octobre 2007
The Court further held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) on account of the lack of legal assistance during police custody.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-482639-483840
31 janvier 2002
31 janvier 2002
The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, during the criminal proceedings, on account of the Attorney-General’
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1052767-1093708
22 juillet 2004
22 juillet 2004
The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 6 § 1 or 13 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.) Zhbanov v.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1512720-1588812
24 novembre 2005
24 novembre 2005
The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1476993-1544252
11 octobre 2005
11 octobre 2005
It was declared admissible on 11 January 2005 after a hearing which was held at the Human Rights Building in Strasbourg.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-972307-1004841
6 avril 2004
6 avril 2004
The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3202923-3568189
20 juillet 2010
20 juillet 2010
Decision of the Court The Court held that registration of a marriage, being a recognition of an individual’s legal civil status, came within the scope of Article 8 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1146237-1188502
28 septembre 2004
28 septembre 2004
Both courts held that the evidence submitted did not constitute sufficient proof that in 1991 the Ministry of the Interior still possessed the confiscated coins. 2.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-918512-944578
3 février 2004
3 février 2004
The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0115DEC002822395
15 janvier 1997
15 janvier 1997
The Real Estate Court held an oral hearing, during which the parties were heard.
Source officiellePage 54 sur 2440