Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68365-68833
30 janvier 2001
30 janvier 2001
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, as the applicant had not made an application under Article 132 (see Basic v. Austria above) he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1385166-1447794
28 juin 2005
28 juin 2005
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2614908-2843360
22 janvier 2009
22 janvier 2009
The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the Bulgarian authorities
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-700011-708580
13 février 2003
13 février 2003
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1980853-2098585
24 avril 2007
24 avril 2007
Hearings were held in camera between September and October 1999.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-534222-535788
11 avril 2002
11 avril 2002
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-675759-682994
9 janvier 2003
9 janvier 2003
Finally the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 in respect of the examination of the applicant’s second appeal against detention.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1613363-1689609
16 mars 2006
16 mars 2006
A public hearing in the case was held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 May 2003.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1820267-1909701
26 octobre 2006
26 octobre 2006
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1274352-1334500
1 mars 2005
1 mars 2005
Finding that the applicant had been denied access to a court, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1628838-1715705
4 avril 2006
4 avril 2006
The Court noted that the applicants had been held in police custody for seven days.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2135685-2278794
9 octobre 2007
9 octobre 2007
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1742323-1833776
8 août 2006
8 août 2006
Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1790473-1887458
28 septembre 2006
28 septembre 2006
It held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0402JUD001331004
2 avril 2009
2 avril 2009
Then they arrested [Ms H.A.] and held her at the Oktyabrskiy ROVD until 6 p.m.
Source officielleChambre des REFERES
69d982c4cdc6046d47d28af3
9 avril 2026
9 avril 2026
[B] [A] [Adresse 3] [Localité 3] Représentée par Maître Hubert HELIER, avocat au barreau de NANTES, substitué par Maître Antoine PEIGNARD, avocat au barreau de VANNES CCC délivrées le à : - Me LE
Source officielleciv1
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2012:C101271
7 novembre 2012
7 novembre 2012
Othopaedic Hellas.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1233133-1294633
18 janvier 2005
18 janvier 2005
The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 was inadmissible.
Source officielle5ème chambre
69e82309cdc6046d4714b4c2
21 janvier 2025
21 janvier 2025
Kertel cède son contrat de location financière à CM-CIC Leasing solution, ci-après dénommée « CCLS », qui devient le bailleur de Hélior ; En septembre 2022, Hélior cesse de payer CCLS.
Source officielleCour d'Appel
6253c8d0bd3db21cbdd86570
31 octobre 2002
31 octobre 2002
condamné in solidum les sociétés HELLY HANSEN aux dépens.
Source officiellePage 61 sur 2440