Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1217DEC001953118
17 décembre 2020
17 décembre 2020
The Government also undertake to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions in his favour under consideration in this case within the same three-month period.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187793
22 octobre 2018
22 octobre 2018
In October 2015 N. instituted divorce proceedings before the Leninskiy District Court of Ufa, and asked for a residence order in her favour in respect of V.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0531DEC002689505
31 mai 2011
31 mai 2011
On 13 November 2002 the Płock Regional Court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour. On 24 September 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal. C.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-218039
24 mai 2022
24 mai 2022
In particular, on 30 October 2020 the Supreme Court of Justice finally upheld the appellate judgment, which had reversed the first-instance court judgment in the applicant’s favour and had withdrawn his
Source officielleciv1
61372162cd580146773f3505
20 novembre 1990
20 novembre 1990
Stéphane Z..., demeurant à Commentry (Allier), La Combe, commune de la Celle, 2°/ Mme Marcelle Z..., épouse Y..., demeurant à Saint-Eloy Les Mines (Puy-de-Dôme), Ars, Les Favets, 3°/ Mme Renée Z...
Source officielleciv3
607940e79ba5988459c3f8ab
9 décembre 1970
9 décembre 1970
AURAIT EFFECTUE SUR LES GARRIGUES UNE COUPE DE FAGOTS A UNE EPOQUE PLUS ANCIENNE, RESTEE IMPRECISE, MAIS QUE, DE TOUTE FACON, CETTE COUPE ISOLEE NE POUVAIT LEGALEMENT CARACTERISER UNE POSSESSION TRENTENAIRE
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2367733-2542763
19 mai 2008
19 mai 2008
On 22 May 2007 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2485193-2691172
19 septembre 2008
19 septembre 2008
On 3 May 2007 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0930DEC007183001
30 septembre 2008
30 septembre 2008
On 20 December 1995 the Sivas Administrative Court, on the basis of the doctrine of social risk, decided in the applicant's favour and ordered the Ministry of Interior to pay him, together with costs and
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-957039-986455
12 mars 2004
12 mars 2004
display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 122 12.3.2004 Press release issued by the Registrar Relinquishment in favour
Source officiellePRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-67981-68449
15 décembre 2000
15 décembre 2000
The Chamber further decided to inform the parties of its intention to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (seventeen Judges) in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, which
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0920DEC003250912
20 septembre 2016
20 septembre 2016
COMPLAINTS The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-200277
12 décembre 2019
12 décembre 2019
In 2014 the applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about, inter alia , the authorities’ prolonged failure to fully comply with the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0604DEC005160117
4 juin 2024
4 juin 2024
The applicants complained of a prolonged non-enforcement of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) Immovable Property Commission (“IPC”) awards made in their favour, the absence
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0612DEC000025105
12 juin 2007
12 juin 2007
On 10 September 2003 the Edineţ District Court found in his favour and awarded him 41,175 Moldovan lei (MDL)(the equivalent of 2,688 euros (EUR) at the time) to be paid from the State budget in the person
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-241867
15 janvier 2025
15 janvier 2025
He also complains that the quashing of the final judgment in his favour was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0528DEC003684411
28 mai 2013
28 mai 2013
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-5849
14 décembre 2000
14 décembre 2000
The Chamber further decided to inform the parties of its intention to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (seventeen Judges) in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, which provides
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1108DEC000559903
8 novembre 2005
8 novembre 2005
In their observations of 11 January 2005 the Government informed the Court that, on 26 October 2004, the decision of 20 January 1999 in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0906DEC000661006
6 septembre 2007
6 septembre 2007
COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
Source officiellePage 59 sur 606