Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1206DEC003077503
6 décembre 2007
6 décembre 2007
On 25 December 2003 the Town Court applied a different method of calculation of payments and recovered in the applicant’s favour RUB 34,500 and held that as of 1 January 2004 the applicant was entitled
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0327DEC006751701
27 mars 2007
27 mars 2007
On 26 April 1999 the Ciocana District Court ruled in his favour and awarded him MDL 60,000 (EUR 5,841). Both parties appealed.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-1619
17 mars 2009
17 mars 2009
In 1993 an amnesty Act was passed in favour of members of the armed forces and the security forces who had committed offences between 1989 and 1992, relating to events involving armed actions and acts
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-171247
18 janvier 2017
18 janvier 2017
the applicant, under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), with publishing declarations of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, and disseminating propaganda in favour
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2931516-3228008
18 novembre 2009
18 novembre 2009
On 19 May 2009, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention, the Chamber to which the applications had been assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-112377
4 juillet 2012
4 juillet 2012
On 16 September 2005 the Tuapsinskiy Town Court of the Krasnodar Region ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered payment of 1,002,655 Russian roubles in damages to each of them
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1951993-2051190
14 mars 2007
14 mars 2007
On 19 September 2006, under Article 30 of the Convention [1] , the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
Source officielleJuge des référés
CETAT:CETATEXT000026264873
15 mai 2012
15 mai 2012
justifie l'existence d'une atteinte grave et manifestement illégale au droit constitutionnel d'asile ; Vu l'ordonnance attaquée ; Vu le mémoire en défense, enregistré le 7 mai 2012, présenté par Mme Favour
Source officielle1ère chambre
DTA_2100809_20230124
24 janvier 2023
24 janvier 2023
d'annuler l'arrêté en date du 28 janvier 2021 par lequel le maire de Conca a retiré le permis de construire, intervenu tacitement le 17 octobre 2020, sur la parcelle cadastrée section B n° 945, lieudit " Favone
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-6992
2 mai 2000
2 mai 2000
He was successful at first instance, but the High Court found in favour of the applicants.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC003073803
11 décembre 2007
11 décembre 2007
On 25 December 2003 the Town Court applied a different method of calculation of payments and recovered in the applicant’s favour RUB 34,500 and held that as of 1 January 2004 the applicant was entitled
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-492
28 juin 2011
28 juin 2011
insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there were factors of immigration control or considerations of public order weighing in favour
Source officiellePRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2856698-3132944
11 septembre 2009
11 septembre 2009
On 2 September 2008 the Chamber to which the case had been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0922DEC001650512
22 septembre 2015
22 septembre 2015
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of his
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0405JUD003859704
5 avril 2011
5 avril 2011
In those cases the Court found that the quashing of final judgments in the applicants’ favour was not justified by circumstances of compelling and exceptional character.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0519JUD000274917
19 mai 2020
19 mai 2020
INTRODUCTION The applicant company complained, in particular, that the quashing, upon an extraordinary appeal on points of law filed by the Prosecutor General, of a final and binding judgment in its favour
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0203DEC001450112
3 février 2015
3 février 2015
On 4 April 2008 the CoL asked the court to suspend execution of the judgment in the applicants’ favour in view of the above-mentioned expropriation, which included part of the applicants’
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1015JUD002199814
15 octobre 2019
15 octobre 2019
The applicants argued that the quashing of the final and binding judgment in their favour had been contrary to the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms. 33.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0201DEC005350099
1 février 2005
1 février 2005
In particular, he stressed that the final decisions given in his favour were quashed and, therefore, the principle of legal certainty had been infringed. b.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1114JUD000692303
14 novembre 2006
14 novembre 2006
On 14 September 2001 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry to pay her MDL 244,953 (EUR 21,007 at the time) in compensation.
Source officiellePage 73 sur 606