Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-864710-887070
28 octobre 2003
28 octobre 2003
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1649216-1727943
20 avril 2006
20 avril 2006
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:003-3249594-3640183
14 septembre 2010
14 septembre 2010
In judgments of 20 October 2009 and 10 March 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68384-68852
19 juin 2001
19 juin 2001
Poland (application number 28249/95), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3205566-3570857
27 juillet 2010
27 juillet 2010
The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-872810-895929
12 novembre 2003
12 novembre 2003
The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1907708-2003647
1 février 2007
1 février 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;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1904146-1999843
24 janvier 2007
24 janvier 2007
*** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1190344-1236526
16 novembre 2004
16 novembre 2004
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life and the home).
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2310138-2490599
3 avril 2008
3 avril 2008
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the Ukrainian authorities
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1941245-2039653
6 mars 2007
6 mars 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and considered that the question of just satisfaction
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1331639-1389422
29 juin 2005
29 juin 2005
In a Chamber judgment of 29 July 2004, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2329939-2522915
29 avril 2008
29 avril 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 concerning the conditions of the
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-438141-438786
23 octobre 2001
23 octobre 2001
It held that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were not political or military in nature but ordinary criminal offences.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1857538-1950297
5 décembre 2006
5 décembre 2006
The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards Selvi Dönmez, Leyla Lüle and Meral
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-7230
11 octobre 2012
11 octobre 2012
In the present case, the first applicant had been obliged to perform so much work that, without her help, the couple who used her services would have been required to have recourse to a professional –
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-649806-655496
13 novembre 2002
13 novembre 2002
In its Chamber judgment (2 October 2001) in the case, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) of
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68245-68713
11 juillet 2000
11 juillet 2000
Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that it was unnecessary to pursue the examination of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1322351-1379791
19 avril 2005
19 avril 2005
The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in each of these cases.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-929437-956008
10 février 2004
10 février 2004
However, under Section 32 of the Freedom of the Press Act ( painovapauslaki, tryckfrihetslag ), as an editor-in-chief, he was held responsible for any original material published in his newspaper.
Source officiellePage 73 sur 2440