CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0110JUD002570603
10 janvier 2008
Non-violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'art. 8
Page 8 sur 66672
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1026JUD004604007
26 octobre 2010
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION The applicant also complained of a violation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides: “Every natural or legal
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0203JUD001920605
3 février 2009
Neither the Government nor the applicant contested the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the instant case.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1008JUD001066405
8 octobre 2009
In a judgment of 13 November 2006, the Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court (case no. 3-3-1-45-06) found that the assessment of the feasibility of expulsion could not be based
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0513JUD003330702
13 mai 2008
However, Article 333 of the Civil Code did not allow for that aspect to be taken into consideration. B. The Court’s assessment 1. General principles 22.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0522JUD000109204
22 mai 2008
France (no. 63879/00, 3 October 2006). THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 21.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-1758
13 janvier 2009
Law ( Faimblat ): Article 6 § 1 – The applicants’ access to the procedure made available by Law no.
CASELAW;REPORTS;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0904REP001296487
4 septembre 1991
Observation de l'article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) de la Convention 37.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0114JUD003681503
14 janvier 2010
Romania (no. 1) , no. 30658/05, § 35, ECHR 2007 (extracts)). 38.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0921JUD006888001
21 septembre 2004
However, in their argument these restrictions were not so serious as to be held incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0909REP002484694
9 septembre 1997
Sur la violation de l'article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1) de la Convention 42.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1118JUD000886306
18 novembre 2010
According to her, the documents submitted by the Government could not prove that she had received a copy of the ruling of 1 July 2005, as the acknowledgment of receipt did not bear the post mark of Post
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0906JUD003867202
6 septembre 2007
Hence, the present case was different from the situation in which the Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ( [GC], no.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0304REP002534194
4 mars 1999
Violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-lieu à examiner P1-1
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0304REP003988098
CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-55070
18 février 1998
Violation de l'Art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'Art. 25-1
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0916REP003313496
16 septembre 1997
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1209REP003424296
9 décembre 1997
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0327JUD007135401
27 mars 2007
Violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'art. 6-1
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0721JUD002817102
21 juillet 2005
Violation de P1-1;Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-1