CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-159300
3 novembre 2015
and M. had again been placed in State custody, following the incident when they had been abandoned by their mother, who since then had never visited them or expressed interest in their life or fate
Page 86 sur 6767
ECLI:CEDH:001-163145
27 avril 2016
of the Convention, as interpreted by this Court, they had to take steps provisionally to accommodate the inhabitants of the Kremikovtsi settlement who would be affected by the demolition of their houses
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2445
13 novembre 2007
and, subsequently, the merits of the case, while another three judges had also had to decide on a matter on which they had already expressed their opinions.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0410DEC003735897
10 avril 2001
Having regard to the similarities in the above applications the Court finds it convenient to join them (Rule 43 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
ECLI:CEDH:002-2443
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0909REP002527994
9 septembre 1998
They decided immediately on the prison option without considering the alternative ways there were in which to exercise the discretion vested in them...
ECLI:CEDH:002-4302
29 juin 2004
From their arrival in Sweden until their expulsion, all the members of the family were in contact with the Swedish health care system and under psychiatric treatment.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0605JUD005172899
5 juin 2012
This equipment had never been given back to them by the authorities. 24.
ECLI:CEDH:002-9117
12 novembre 2013
The Government upheld this view and maintained that there was no evidence of the State’s involvement in the incident.
ECLI:CEDH:002-12968
13 octobre 2020
They complained that they had less time than their Romanian peers to prepare for the exams, or simply to rest between them, and less chance of success in the baccalaureate.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0119JUD002184013
19 janvier 2021
According to the applicants, the officers took their fingerprints, threatened and insulted them, took away their mobile phones and refused to allow them to contact their relatives or a lawyer, or to call
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0326JUD002052492
26 mars 1996
The latter inquired, inter alia, into their reasons for testifying against a dealer who they both said sold good quality drugs and asked them whether they were being paid for giving evidence.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:0623JUD001295287
23 juin 1993
Although this admittedly meant that the persons concerned suffered restrictions on the judicial protection of their rights, as they could not challenge in the courts the necessity of the seizure of their
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0905JUD006120409
5 septembre 2013
They stated that they had lost all their identity papers in the 1994 war.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1104DEC000951021
4 novembre 2021
Furthermore, they maintained that there had been a violation of rights granted to them by virtue of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, which reads as follow: “1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0215DEC002913303
15 février 2007
They pulled the applicant’s three sons on the floor and asked their names. They then told Idris to dress.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0719JUD003048105
19 juillet 2011
The heirs of P.D. obtained a decision restoring to them their 7,344 square metres of land. 7.
ECLI:CEDH:002-10883
2 février 2016
account of the domestic courts’ decision to return them to their father.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1209DEC004779799
9 décembre 2004
not the owners of the land they occupied.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0112JUD000415805
12 janvier 2010
It is elementary that if the police abuse these powers and target them disproportionately against those whom they perceive to be no particular friends of theirs the terrorists will have to that extent