Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0404DEC006574101
4 avril 2006
4 avril 2006
The applicant responds that he had not claimed the benefits earlier because no such benefits existed for men and because the scheme itself was unlawful and discriminatory. 3.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1004DEC007482801
4 octobre 2005
4 octobre 2005
On 15 April and 23 May 2000 the examination of the case was adjourned because of the parties’ failure to appear.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-141412
31 janvier 2014
31 janvier 2014
According to the decision of the appeal court, the hearing was adjourned because the applicant wished to read the case file and to conclude an agreement with another lawyer.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0608DEC003796602
8 juin 2006
8 juin 2006
The court considered it possible to hold the hearing in the applicant’s absence because the applicant had not appointed a representative, because he had been duly notified about the time and place of the
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:1219DEC007800801
19 décembre 2002
19 décembre 2002
On 11 August 1994 the first applicant filed an action for damages in the Zadar Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zadru ) against the Croatia Insurance Company ( Croatia osiguranje ), because the building
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-936026-963627
17 février 2004
17 février 2004
Mr Thampibillai submitted that in August 1990 his father was shot dead by the Sri Lankan Army because they suspected him of helping the LTTE. As a result, his brother joined the LTTE.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0227DEC003033896
27 février 1997
27 février 1997
It found that the order for detention with a view to expulsion was lawful because it was necessary in order to secure the applicant's removal.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0115JUD000524906
15 janvier 2009
15 janvier 2009
This judgment became binding on 14 December 2002 and was enforced on 15 December 2005. 7.
Source officielle3ème chambre
66863d1fb1dbbe3bae6004ae
3 juillet 2024
3 juillet 2024
BECHARD S.A.S. SYLVEA S.A.R.L. C&B RENOVATION S.A.S.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0129DEC001511202
29 janvier 2004
29 janvier 2004
In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because he had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-115817
14 décembre 2012
14 décembre 2012
She submitted that because of her old age (she was 80 years old) it was hard for her to visit her son.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-160654
15 janvier 2016
15 janvier 2016
The applicant claimed that he did not attend because of his poor state of health, notably feelings of “panic” and a severe depression, and produced a medical certificate of 23 October 2014.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-169394
9 novembre 2016
9 novembre 2016
The applicant also stated that he had never named any specific person in the courts whom he would have bribed because he had not intended to perform such an action.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1023DEC000976102
23 octobre 2003
23 octobre 2003
In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because he had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Split Municipal Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0512DEC003005213
12 mai 2015
12 mai 2015
The applicant’s visiting rights were limited, mainly because of her manipulative behavior.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0615DEC005667900
15 juin 2000
15 juin 2000
The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because of the decision to deprive him of his retirement benefits, including his pension. 4.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0129DEC001530802
29 janvier 2004
29 janvier 2004
In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because he had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:1109DEC001297287
9 novembre 1987
9 novembre 1987
As was later explained by the Judicial Office, in a letter dated 17 June 1986, the latter refusal was not only because the application had been made out of time, but also because it was considered
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0129DEC001386202
29 janvier 2004
29 janvier 2004
In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because he had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2765162-3025664
11 juin 2009
11 juin 2009
Having been subjected to detentions and violence by the Turkish authorities because of his political convictions and his work as a journalist, he left Turkey and swam to Greece in 2007.
Source officiellePage 77 sur 1597