Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-174689
31 mai 2017
31 mai 2017
The agreement had authorised the Company to act on behalf of the State and conclude contracts with individuals upon the termination of their property rights in respect of real estate expropriated for State
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2171
10 avril 2012
10 avril 2012
After communicating the application in 2005, the applicant’s lawyer did not submit any observations on his behalf despite being granted extensions of time for doing so.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1015DEC005437610
15 octobre 2013
15 octobre 2013
Mr Srećko Pejović and Mr Milan Pejović, both Serbian nationals, born in 1958 and 1961 respectively and living in Guča and Čačak, wished to pursue the application and that he would continue to act on behalf
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625DEC001288019
25 juin 2020
25 juin 2020
The Government’s observations, received on 9 September 2019, were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit any comments on behalf of the applicant.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-205030
7 septembre 2020
7 septembre 2020
failed to establish all parties to the dispute and, in particular, to involve as co-defendant the relevant territorial department of the State Treasury which was the body in charge of making payments of behalf
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1210DEC003816115
10 décembre 2019
10 décembre 2019
By a letter of 6 June 2019 the applicant’s representative was invited to submit by 18 July 2019 at the latest any written observations he might wish to make in reply on behalf of the applicant, together
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0626DEC003140514
26 juin 2018
26 juin 2018
The applicant’s lawyer failed to file observations and just satisfaction claims on behalf of the applicant.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1010DEC004972512
10 octobre 2017
10 octobre 2017
No heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0923DEC002651212
23 septembre 2021
23 septembre 2021
applicant’s representative, through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms), who was invited to submit by 4 January 2021 any written observations he wished to make in reply on behalf
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-206180
20 octobre 2020
20 octobre 2020
Moreover, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal lodged by the first applicant on behalf of his son (concerning the alleged domestic violence) as incompatible ratione personae since he did not have
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-188249
15 novembre 2018
15 novembre 2018
The General Prosecutor’s Office and the Sebastopol prosecutor’s office intervened on behalf of the State company in both sets of proceedings, which allegedly gave the latter an unfair advantage vis-à-vis
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0522DEC003996707
22 mai 2012
22 mai 2012
The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1104DEC003406805
4 novembre 2014
4 novembre 2014
These observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-219280
23 août 2022
23 août 2022
The application to this Court was lodged by the Official Solicitor on the applicant’s behalf. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0121DEC006823713
21 janvier 2021
21 janvier 2021
Osnach, who was invited to submit the observations on behalf of the applicant. This letter returned to the Registry as wrongly addressed.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1011DEC003504206
11 octobre 2011
11 octobre 2011
The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicant. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1124DEC000992918
24 novembre 2022
24 novembre 2022
At the same time, he stated that he would “most probably” send the just satisfaction claims on behalf of the applicant by fax. However, no just satisfaction claims have been received by the Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0121DEC001667215
21 janvier 2021
21 janvier 2021
The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicant. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-148602
13 novembre 2014
13 novembre 2014
On 17 October 2007 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants by the Malatya Public Prosecutor for making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the “DHKP/C” (Revolutionary
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0826DEC005223509
26 août 2014
26 août 2014
He died on 21 January 2013 and the applicant’s son, Mr Igor Nakovski, expressed his intention to pursue the application on behalf of his late father.
Source officiellePage 62 sur 527