Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0711DEC003625897
11 juillet 2000
11 juillet 2000
On 5 March 1996 the court held a hearing. The next hearings were listed for (and held on) 7 March, 10, 13 and 31 May, 26 June and 9 July 1996.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1208925-1256571
2 décembre 2004
2 décembre 2004
The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officielle4ème chambre
67ec3edbdd062d9f810e495d
1 avril 2025
1 avril 2025
HELIOS [O] sollicite la condamnation de la S.A.S.U.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1897441-1998853
18 janvier 2007
18 janvier 2007
did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1463549-1537002
4 octobre 2005
4 octobre 2005
It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Source officiellesoc
6079b0a59ba5988459c4f4ef
2 mars 1978
2 mars 1978
PARIS-RHONE AYANT, DANS LA PERSPECTIVE DES GREVES DE L'ELECTRICITE DE FRANCE, FERME SON ETABLISSEMENT INDUSTRIEL DE LYON LE 19 NOVEMBRE 1974, PUIS LE 12 DECEMBRE, ET DEUX DE SES OUVRIERS, FAYOLLE ET HELIS
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1470685-1540874
6 octobre 2005
6 octobre 2005
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2052854-2172210
3 juillet 2007
3 juillet 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2269888-2425022
12 février 2008
12 février 2008
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the ill-treatment
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2305
8 janvier 2008
8 janvier 2008
The articles directly criticised the Principal Public Prosecutor’s assistant because of the post he had held at the time of the prisoner’s disappearance.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1861122-1954300
7 décembre 2006
7 décembre 2006
The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; that there was no need to examine the complaint under
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1969808-2088116
12 avril 2007
12 avril 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the ill-treatment inflicted
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-704437-713453
27 février 2003
27 février 2003
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each of the applicants 6,000 euros
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68217-68685
3 octobre 2000
3 octobre 2000
A hearing was held on 6 June 2000.
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1167717-1215987
27 octobre 2004
27 octobre 2004
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, for the reasons given in its earlier Chamber judgment
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1014095-1048476
27 mai 2004
27 mai 2004
After one of the prosecutors referred to in the article had brought proceedings for criminal libel and proffering insults, the Salonika Court of First Instance held that, while the first part of
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1446369-1510865
20 septembre 2005
20 septembre 2005
After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68265-68733
12 mai 2000
12 mai 2000
THE UNITED KINGDOM In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 12 May 2000 in the case of Sultan KHAN v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there has
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1237997-1288848
26 janvier 2005
26 janvier 2005
The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the allegation of a breach of Article 14 taken together with
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1018110-1052668
3 juin 2004
3 juin 2004
They lost their case in the Izmir Administrative Court, but succeeded before the Supreme Administrative Court, which, on 13 May 1997, held that the safety measures implemented by the mining company
Source officiellePage 72 sur 2440