Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1051948-1088840
20 juillet 2004
20 juillet 2004
The Court, therefore, held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-592110-596288
25 juillet 2002
25 juillet 2002
He was arrested by the police and held at police headquarters in İzmir. On 27 January 1995 he was examined by a police doctor at the request of police headquarters.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2200891-2354644
6 décembre 2007
6 décembre 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 conditions of the
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-205138
18 septembre 2020
18 septembre 2020
Z. held a press briefing together with Mr B. Ś., the State Prosecutor ( Prokurator Krajowy ).
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1972:0601DEC000493071
1 juin 1972
1 juin 1972
He normally resides in S., E., where he is a greengrocer, but is presently held in the Prison St. G. in Brussels. In April 1970 the applicant travelled to Belgium with two friends MM.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-448669-449428
15 novembre 2001
15 novembre 2001
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; unanimously, that there had been
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-640343-645886
31 octobre 2002
31 octobre 2002
The Court, therefore, held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1939681-2037938
27 février 2007
27 février 2007
The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the killing of Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun; a
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-161280
12 février 2016
12 février 2016
At a hearing held on 11 September 2003, the trial court heard Ms M.S. (Mr Z.S.’s wife) and read out the statement given by Mr Z.S. on 26 October 2001.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2197646-2340117
27 novembre 2007
27 novembre 2007
In both cases 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;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68283-68751
1 février 2000
1 février 2000
France, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3251159-3645099
16 septembre 2010
16 septembre 2010
The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision in so far as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was concerned.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1744378-1829169
10 août 2006
10 août 2006
In both cases the Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Court of Human Rights on account of the applicants
Source officiellePRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-640695-646240
24 octobre 2002
24 octobre 2002
The Court of Appeal held a retrial and acquitted the applicant after considering several pieces of evidence, including the examination of Mr B., who confirmed the applicant’s statements.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68415-68883
19 juin 2001
19 juin 2001
Regarding the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision. 1.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68401-68869
5 juillet 2001
5 juillet 2001
The Court held: by five votes to two, that Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights was not applicable; unanimously, that there had been no violation
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2293035-2469602
18 mars 2008
18 mars 2008
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 in respect of both applicants, on account of the unfairness
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3260887-3639978
14 septembre 2010
14 septembre 2010
However, a law enacted in June 2002 prohibited smoking in hospitals and the Romanian courts had frequently held that smokers and non-smokers should be detained separately.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68395-68863
3 mai 2001
3 mai 2001
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant CHF 2,000 for pecuniary damage and CHF 10,409 for costs and expenses.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-167916
29 septembre 2016
29 septembre 2016
The letter also alleged that the applicant had bought weapons for D.A. to enable him to commit unspecified criminal activities, and had bribed judges and prosecutors in order to help D.A. avoid criminal
Source officiellePage 81 sur 2440