CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68080-68548
28 janvier 1999
been a violation of Article 10 (21   votes to 9), that there had been no violation of Article 11 (21 votes to 9), that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 read
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1202DEC005877800
2 décembre 2003
THE LAW On 17 October 2003 the Court received a declaration signed by the applicant that read, in its relevant part: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN   15,000
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0104DEC004023003
4 janvier 2008
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-228403
25 septembre 2023
Relying upon Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 11, the applicant union complained also of structural discrimination with regard to larger and already well-established trade unions.
ECLI:CEDH:001-162983
21 avril 2016
    Code of Criminal Procedure 2012 Article 349 § 3 of the Code reads: “3.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-110360
13 février 2012
s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } DEUXIÈME SECTION Requête n o 69486/11 Reza
ECLI:CEDH:001-241965
20 janvier 2025
    Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the alleged violation of their freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction
ECLI:CEDH:001-226050
30 juin 2023
The applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that the courts dismissed their claim against Mr Simeonov.
ECLI:CEDH:001-148360
5 novembre 2014
The applicant complains under Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, that that he was a victim of discrimination on account of his health status.
ECLI:CEDH:001-242932
2 avril 2025
    Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family and/or private life contrary to Article   8 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 of
ECLI:CEDH:001-230005
7 décembre 2023
The applicant furthermore complains under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that she has been discriminated against in the enjoyment of her private and/or family life as a
ECLI:CEDH:001-237323
11 septembre 2024
Under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8, he complains that he was subjected to a different treatment because the circular note of the Ministry of the Interior explicitly orders an administrative
ECLI:CEDH:001-147399
25 septembre 2014
On the same day, the Public Prosecutor sent an additional letter to the same Ministry which read as follows: “Pursuant to Article 86, and subsequent articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and considering
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1009DEC004069898
9 octobre 2003
THE LAW On 5   June   2003 the Court received from the Polish Government a declaration that read, in so far as relevant: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:0902DEC001931992
2 septembre 1992
  The applicant contends that this notification difference constitutes discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 5.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0702DEC002786895
2 juillet 1997
They invoke Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0504DEC001154605
4 mai 2010
The standard text of the requests, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “I.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1106DEC004963510
6 novembre 2012
  128/1999 and 190/2003), read as follows: DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES, MEASURES AND PROCEEDINGS Section 145 “... (2)     Minor disciplinary offences are: ... 8.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1206DEC005379412
6 décembre 2016
As to that conclusion, the relevant part of the judgment reads as follows: “It is not disputed between the parties that on 11 March 1992, the day of the killing of K.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0516JUD003522706
16 mai 2013
According to the applicant, only the operative part of the judgment of 26 April 2005 was read aloud to him. 13.
Page 64 sur 1410