Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0120DEC003514106
20 janvier 2009
20 janvier 2009
The family’s problems emanated from S.’s destructive behaviour. but when she had asked the authorities for help, they had taken her children from her instead of trying to help them.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1384107-1450765
30 juin 2005
30 juin 2005
Following a hearing, held on 9 April 2001, his appeal was dismissed.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-659609-665611
28 novembre 2002
28 novembre 2002
The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2007719-2129661
24 mai 2007
24 mai 2007
The Court further held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
Source officielleciv3
61372099cd580146773ec32a
14 janvier 1987
14 janvier 1987
Hellier du Verneuil, désireuse de vendre un immeuble, a donné un mandat, non exclusif, de vendre à la société Clausaz-Modelin qui l'a délégué à M.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-585802-589452
9 juillet 2002
9 juillet 2002
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-879196-902650
25 novembre 2003
25 novembre 2003
The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in these four cases.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1628225-1705553
29 mars 2006
29 mars 2006
Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2352966-2536637
15 mai 2008
15 mai 2008
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2270593-2428511
14 février 2008
14 février 2008
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-689875-697406
30 janvier 2003
30 janvier 2003
Turkey (no. 43818/98) Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is currently being held in Malatya Prison.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-698131-706228
13 février 2003
13 février 2003
A hearing was held on 19 June 2002.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68157-68625
28 juin 2000
28 juin 2000
In the judgment given on 29 June 1995, which concerned three cases, Lord Browne-Wilkinson held, among other things, that public policy considerations were such that local authorities should not be held
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1956787-2056447
29 mars 2007
29 mars 2007
The applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 until 16 February 2003.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0511DEC003609497
11 mai 1999
11 mai 1999
On 23 and 24 June 1996 the HADEP held its annual congress in Ankara. The applicant participated in the congress as a delegate from Diyarbakır.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3046321-3364973
16 mars 2010
16 mars 2010
A public hearing was held at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 2 September 2009. Third party comments were received from Age Concern and Help the Aged.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68215-68683
21 décembre 2000
21 décembre 2000
It also held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints lodged by the applicant under Article 6 §§ 2 and 3(c) of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1324029-1381519
21 avril 2005
21 avril 2005
In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-914405-940230
29 janvier 2004
29 janvier 2004
It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of that article and awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-883968-908286
4 décembre 2003
4 décembre 2003
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human
Source officiellePage 55 sur 2440