CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1540796-1619553
22 décembre 2005
Although certain passages in the talk painted a negative picture of the Turkish State's policy and gave the words a hostile tone, they did not incite violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1205JUD001965712
5 décembre 2017
Against this background, including the fact that the word ‘approved’ was not explained during the programme, namely the difference between medication approved for treatment and [medication] approved for
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-709718-718944
4 mars 2003
Using words with leftist connotations, the author criticised and reprimanded the military actions of the authorities in south-east Turkey and condemned the policy they had adopted, which, in his view,
ECLI:CEDH:003-1346933-1405553
31 mai 2005
  It seemed that in both these cases the orders confirming the applicants’ detention had been made by the Turkish courts using an identical, not to say stereotyped, form of words, particularly phrases
ECLI:CEDH:003-1438399-1511663
13 septembre 2005
The court based its decision on an expert opinion and on an extract from the book in which the author asserted, among other things: “Some of these words were, moreover, inspired in a surge of exultation
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1213DEC001712004
13 décembre 2005
In other words, the present order, which has been enlightened by subsequent events, draws upon those experiences, and looks upon and assesses a great many phenomena with the advantage of hindsight, may
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1025DEC003920302
25 octobre 2005
In 1982 the applicant’s wife, Mrs Emma Nagula, whom he had married in 1959 in Oriol, the Russian Federation, his mother-in-law, Mrs   Zinaida Nabokova (born in 1912) and his son, Mr Konstantin Nagula
ECLI:CEDH:003-1057505-1100752
29 juillet 2004
His words had not incited anyone to violence, armed resistance or an uprising; nor was it hate speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration.
Page 6 sur 6