CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0530DEC002087418
30 mai 2023
She also complained under Articles 3, 6 and 14 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 in that the consequences of not complying with the compulsory vaccination
Page 7 sur 4746
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1112DEC001085706
12 novembre 2013
for the delay, or compensation instead of compliance.
civ3
60794d169ba5988459c48023
19 mai 2004
propriétaire d'une servitude de passage, dans l'impossibilité de vaincre l'obstacle matériel lui en interdisant l'usage ; qu'en déclarant que l'action possessoire exercée par Mme Z... constituait une complainte
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0318DEC000111304
18 mars 2008
COMPLAINTS 1.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-204106
29 juin 2020
On 4 July 2019 the court rejected that complaint as manifestly ill ‑ founded.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0113DEC005725700
13 janvier 2004
COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings against him – over six years - exceeded a reasonable time.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1129DEC006875601
29 novembre 2005
On 26 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the complaint for non-compliance with the prescribed time limit in that the applicant had not lodged the complaint while the proceedings were still
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1114DEC001417203
14 novembre 2006
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the total length of the proceedings in his case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.
ECLI:CEDH:001-182802
9 avril 2018
On 3 November 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaints as being unfounded and upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1025DEC002687603
25 octobre 2005
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the length of his detention was excessive.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0927JUD001531289
27 septembre 1995
On 5 May 1993 the Commission declared the first complaint admissible and the second inadmissible.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-9159
26 mars 1996
SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT The Court has no jurisdiction to revive complaints which the Commission had declared inadmissible. II.
ECLI:CEDH:002-10103
SCOPE OF THE CASE Court lacked jurisdiction to take cognisance of a complaint based on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and declared inadmissible by the Commission.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0326JUD001731490
The following sets out the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they read at the time of the events complained of. 16.
cr
613724fecd5801467741a111
19 décembre 1989
acheté pour une somme dérisoire un appareil à X... dont il ne connaissait pas l'identité réelle ou la qualité exacte sans se soucier de l'origine de l'appareil ; qu'il n'a pas été en mesure de le payer comptant
soc
61372241cd580146773fb7cc
30 novembre 1994
Y..., qui affirmait avoir réglé comptant deux bouteilles de whisky par chèque et en espèces, au seul motif que M.
61372264cd580146773fc965
13 décembre 1994
du préavis ; qu'en se bornant, pour écarter la qualification de faute grave, à relever que les manquements professionnels ne concernaient que le traitement d'un seul dossier par un salarié qui comptait
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0708DEC003536302
8 juillet 2004
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to torture in police custody.
ECLI:CEDH:001-184560
12 juin 2018
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 11 June 2017 by the Constitutional Court. It was served on the applicant on 5 September 2017.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0127DEC003414796
27 janvier 2004