CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0909REP002804895
9 septembre 1998
Court HR, Quinn v. France judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 18, para. 47). 50.
Page 87 sur 101
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0408JUD003854497
8 avril 2004
20, § 39 and Quinn v. Ireland , no. 36887/97, §§ 43-46, 21 December 2000, unreported; see also, mutatis mutandis , Heaney and McGuinness , cited above, §§ 43-46). 2.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0526DEC004509704
26 mai 2005
stressed that these circumstances must be given a narrow interpretation having regard to the fact that they constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom (see, mutatis mutandis , Quinn
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0423REP002836995
23 avril 1999
Furthermore, on 3 November 1992, she requested Her Majesty the Queen to grant letters of legitimation ( brieven van wettiging ) in respect of the child she was carrying. 19.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0605JUD002852303
5 juin 2012
It does not therefore apply to detention with a view to extradition within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see Quinn v. France , 22 March 1995, § 53, Series A no. 311).
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1973:1012DEC000517871
12 octobre 1973
Government" for the purpose of Articles 1 and 2 of the Act for Appeal from Administrative Decrees (Wet Beroep Administratieve Beschikkingen), lodged an appeal in conformity with the above Appeals act to the Queen
CASELAW;REPORTS;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:1022REP001858091
22 octobre 1993
Requête N° 18580/91 Thomas Quinn
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0507DEC001204586
7 mai 1987
The Queen <1952> A.C. 480, 486: 'The rule against admission of hearsay evidence is fundamental.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1209JUD001591108
9 décembre 2014
The list of exceptions to the right to liberty secured in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Quinn v. France , 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311, and Labita v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0206DEC002138705
6 février 2007
The applicants state that three other internal inquiries (referred to as the Hind, Clark and Quinn inquiries) had been conducted.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0325DEC004430113
25 mars 2014
Liverpool Claire HARRISON 07/12/1980 Liverpool EAD Solicitors LLP 44379/13 12/06/2013 Gordon BARON 10/08/1951 Preston Winifred BARON 10/10/1958 Preston Margaret QUINN
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1833863-1932564
9 novembre 2006
In one of its issues in 1997 the applicant company published a one-page article about the alleged harassment of two beauty queens, one of whom alleged that she had been raped.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1218JUD003066304
18 décembre 2008
After her husband had been murdered, Mr N.L. had advised her to be quiet about the matter; - Mrs A.L.’s (the applicant’s mother’s) testimony that on 12 November 1995 her son had bought gloves, tennis
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0115DEC004819899
15 janvier 2004
female harp seal which was protecting her pup”; “Seals skinned alive”; the applicant was “being beaten up by furious hunters, who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff if he did not keep quiet
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0120DEC003956198
20 janvier 2004
There is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, but where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1206JUD002508807
6 décembre 2012
In the light of this, it would have been particularly risky directly to confront the anonymous witness with the defence counsel, given that the counsel was under no legal obligation to keep quiet about
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0402DEC002530710
2 avril 2013
A second interview would disturb R.’s balance whereas peace and quiet and the building up of trust and stability in the family situation were of more importance for R.’s further general development.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0529DEC005996809
29 mai 2012
On an unspecified date in October 2003, following an argument, [A.] threatened to hit the [first applicant] with a grinding machine if she didn’t be quiet.” 3.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0910JUD004631108
10 septembre 2020
The individual has a right to respect for his home, meaning not just the right to the actual physical area, but also to the quiet enjoyment of that area within reasonable limits.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0228JUD001846906
28 février 2012
They noted that the applicant’s supporters had disrupted M.I.’s meeting and subsequently “made for the streets and attempted to disrupt the peace and quiet of the town’s population”. 14.