CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;REPORTS;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0114REP001235186
14 janvier 1991
D.H. arrêt Barbera et autres du 6.12.1988, série A n° 146, p. 31 par. 68). 48.
Page 10 sur 11
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0521DEC004519909
21 mai 2013
In particular, the European Court may require a new examination of the case, as it did in the case of Barbera, Messeque and Jabardo v. Spain of 6 December 1998.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1021DEC004767599
21 octobre 2003
; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application nos. 47675/99 and others by Barbara
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0624JUD004427798
24 juin 2003
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; 2.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0628JUD007094511
28 juin 2016
In appropriate cases, this may include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0401JUD003746304
1 avril 2010
Holds by five votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; 3.
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:0504REP001673790
4 mai 1993
Court H.R., Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, para. 67).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0108DEC003564097
8 janvier 2002
Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports 1999-1, § 28 and the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:0504REP001486189
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1994:1209JUD001342787
9 décembre 1994
The Division refuses to apply unconstitutional provisions and, pursuant to Article 563 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holds that it is bound to refer the case to the Court of Cassation sitting
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0909DEC005332999
9 septembre 2004
29, § 46; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain , judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0603JUD005281207
3 juin 2010
Turning to the present case, the Court, firstly, finds it established that the first applicant does not hold Russian nationality.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0214DEC005343499
14 février 2006
(b) he had not had access to court as the Tax Rectification Committee and the County Administrative Court of Uusimaa were not independent and impartial tribunals as they did not hold
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0616JUD004862107
16 juin 2015
§ 93, ECHR 2013), viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia , the burden of proof (see Barberà
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0112JUD005777413
12 janvier 2016
With respect to the allocation of cases, the Venice Commission - in line with Council of Europe standards [9] - holds that “the allocation of cases to individual judges should be based on objective and
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1014JUD004063102
14 octobre 2008
adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained, in particular, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 – “to defend himself in person” (see, among others, Barberà
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:1003DEC004613399
3 octobre 2002
Consequently, the Court, being required to give a ruling in the light of the case as it now stands, holds that it has jurisdiction to settle this issue. b) The Government further submit that
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0504DEC003864297
4 mai 2000
Holds that this irregularity, seeing that the offenders were not caught in the act, had the effect of infringing the rights of those against whom proceedings have been brought, and that at the same
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0307REP001423488
7 mars 1991
The applicants in the second application were represented by Mmes Barbara Hussey and Co., solicitors, Dublin. 4.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0314JUD004728715
14 mars 2017
The applicants were represented by Ms Barbara Pohárnok, a lawyer practising in Budapest.