CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:1215DEC001080284
15 décembre 1988
invoked by the applicant because he had prior to the trial expressly renounced challenging these judges.
Page 88 sur 1597
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0314JUD003621613
14 mars 2017
He expresses fear of the father because he does not know how the father would behave. He stated that he likes it in I. because before he was afraid and had to listen to the parents fighting.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1127JUD003670109
27 novembre 2014
On 11 April 2005 the applicant union held the strike as planned because under the domestic law its appeal prevented the County Court’s judgment from becoming final.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0710DEC006211010
10 juillet 2012
The second assessment, made by the Goodman Team, was also unreliable because it relied heavily upon the earlier flawed Abbeyfield assessment and because the Team were geared from the outset towards the
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0406DEC006841601
6 avril 2004
The charge that McDonald's food is very unhealthy because it is high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, and because eating it more than just occasionally
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1113DEC004323198
13 novembre 2003
A second hearing was scheduled for 30 June 1998 because Ms M.V. and two other witnesses failed to show up.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0530JUD004506617
30 mai 2023
The Finnish court obviously did not prove that, nor did it try to prove it at all, because it does not concern them – and it does not concern them because they did not even put Mesić on trial, and therefore
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0301JUD002312616
1 mars 2022
the offence in question to exist, and because such an analysis would have given the impression that the act, that was classified as an offence by the law, was less dangerous.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1024JUD003294917
24 octobre 2019
It may be that it is because applications are being refused. Or it may be because claimants are bridging the gap in other ways.” 20 .
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:1023DEC005072099
23 octobre 2001
He also complained that he had been denied effective access to an amparo appeal to the Constitutional Court because of the shortcomings of the legal assistance provided to him.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1022DEC003671210
22 octobre 2019
As to the third defendant, who was the mayor of the village, she stated that she had included him in the action because his signature was on the letter. 11.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0410DEC005040815
10 avril 2018
The decision in respect of Mr Vereš became final on 17 October 2012, and the decision in respect of Mr Kocjančič became final on 29 September 2012. 7.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-174309
16 mai 2017
The shower could be used only once a week for twenty minutes, while the detainees also had to wash their clothes because there was no hot water in the cells. There was no privacy during the shower.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1102JUD001596902
2 novembre 2006
However, that hearing was adjourned because the parties defaulted.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0710DEC001172323
10 juillet 2025
He was housed in a single room, which he needed because it allowed him to control electronic devices using his voice and gave him the privacy needed for personal hygiene. 4 .
ECLI:CEDH:001-115570
10 décembre 2012
The decision became final as the guardian ad litem , Prague 4 Municipal Office, waived its right of appeal.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:1107DEC006123700
7 novembre 2002
On 31 December 1998 the statutory limitation for payment of the court fees expired and the issue thus became irrelevant.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0920DEC002235010
20 septembre 2011
He further complained that he had been discriminated against based on his employment status because had he not been employed his pension would be higher.
ECLI:CEDH:001-123803
11 juillet 2013
She says that she did not tell about the incidents sooner because she was afraid, because her safety and the safety of her family members were threatened.”
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0708DEC001413903
8 juillet 2004
The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 10 November 2003.