Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-210653
27 mai 2021
27 mai 2021
had been violent with her when they were living together, that he was alienating the child from her and preventing her from seeing the child, despite a court order setting a contact schedule in her favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-205932
14 octobre 2020
14 octobre 2020
After the first- and the second-instance courts ruled in the applicant’s favour and awarded her compensation, the Supreme Court, following the public companies’ appeal on points of law, reversed the lower
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-208000
20 janvier 2021
20 janvier 2021
instance dismissed the action as time-barred ruling that the applicant’s mother had missed the three years’ limitation period, but the two superior courts reversed that judgment and ruled in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-5056
28 janvier 2003
28 janvier 2003
.) - 26338/95 Decision 28.1.2003 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Expropriation in favour of the State on basis of interrupted occupation
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-208396
3 février 2021
3 février 2021
xa0; SECOND SECTION Application no. 14815/16 Ion HARAM against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 9 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the quashing of a final judgment in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-179705
27 novembre 2017
27 novembre 2017
3713) for disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-225061
5 mai 2023
5 mai 2023
The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that in other cases concerning factually and legally identical situations different appellate courts ruled in favour of the defendants
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-230003
7 décembre 2023
7 décembre 2023
1 on account of the applicants’ continued inability to have enforced the final, binding decisions in their favour? 2.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217827
20 mai 2022
20 mai 2022
CASE The present application concerns the applicant’s inability to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in which the final civil court judgment which had been rendered in his favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-218148
1 juin 2022
1 juin 2022
against Serbia lodged on 21 September 2018 communicated on 1 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns delayed enforcement of a final judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-216661
2 mars 2022
2 mars 2022
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a breach of the principle of “legal certainty” and the loss of enjoyment of a final judgment in her favour
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-203146
27 mai 2020
27 mai 2020
He complains that he could not participate in those proceedings, eventually leading to the quashing of a final judgment in his favour, which had a direct impact on his civil rights and obligations.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0709JUD001109307
9 juillet 2009
9 juillet 2009
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUASHING OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR 28.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-152798
10 février 2015
10 février 2015
defendants (including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service) from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0217DEC001370602
17 février 2009
17 février 2009
In a judgment of 25 April 2002 the Kyiv Court of Appeal decided in the applicant’s favour. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. B.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0219JUD001802404
19 février 2009
19 février 2009
The applicant reiterated that the State was responsible for the delay in the enforcement of the court judgment in her favour. 16.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1122JUD000532604
22 novembre 2007
22 novembre 2007
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1207JUD004310804
7 décembre 2006
7 décembre 2006
1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour to the Government.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1214JUD004247604
14 décembre 2006
14 décembre 2006
The applicant complained about the length of the enforcement of the judgment in her favour.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1117JUD006646201
17 novembre 2005
17 novembre 2005
On 4 November 2000, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment in her favour, the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the
Source officiellePage 69 sur 606