Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0908DEC005757413
8 septembre 2020
8 septembre 2020
On 2 May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice partly upheld the applicant’s appeal and declared inadmissible their self-incriminating evidence because it had been obtained by means of torture.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-203742
20 juin 2020
20 juin 2020
The applicant’s subscription to the insurance scheme did not go through, however, because the insurer did not ultimately accept that, as instructed by the applicant, his same-sex partner
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-158464
6 octobre 2015
6 octobre 2015
The applicant argued that he had not been avoiding the investigation prior to his arrest, that if at liberty he would not influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation, in particular because
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0328DEC001855117
28 mars 2023
28 mars 2023
The applicants then lodged a joint constitutional complaint in which they complained that they had been denied access to court because the Supreme Court had refused to examine a part of their
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0401DEC001178921
1 avril 2025
1 avril 2025
On 10 October 2012 the Belgrade City Secretariat for Social Affairs terminated the lease for a social dwelling because of the applicant’s failure to pay rent and utility bills for several
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0315JUD003372306
15 mars 2011
15 mars 2011
On 27 February 2001 it ordered the administrative instances to resume the proceedings, because their previous decisions had approved some irregular plans.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1213JUD001442612
13 décembre 2022
13 décembre 2022
On 19 September 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal finally found the applicant guilty of the said offence but terminated the proceedings as statute barred because the offence had been committed in
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0911DEC001878921
11 septembre 2025
11 septembre 2025
At the hearing held on 20 September 2017 the Centre stated that it had failed to authorise the bringing of the civil action because neither they nor the applicant had the funds to cover possible
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-196838
17 septembre 2019
17 septembre 2019
He had done it out of desperation because he had not had “a good way to bring [her] back”.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-140690
8 janvier 2014
8 janvier 2014
However, the Regional Court found that the suspension of the applicant’s sentence had to be revoked because the applicant, as the District Court had correctly found, had committed another offence during
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2012842-2123404
31 mai 2007
31 mai 2007
She stressed that all the incidents had been racially motivated because they had involved both physical attacks and racist verbal abuse.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0516DEC005811500
16 mai 2002
16 mai 2002
At the hearing on 1 March 2001 the court stayed the proceedings because the applicants, although they received the notice of the hearing date, did not appear. 2.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2635307-2884880
19 février 2009
19 février 2009
In the case of Doronin the Court found a further violation of Article 5 § 1 because he had been detained administratively for 5 days without access to a lawyer, and because his pre-trial
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-173367
10 avril 2017
10 avril 2017
The applicant appealed, arguing that the conditions for pre-trial detention had not been fulfilled because there was no risk of his absconding or influencing witnesses.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-13228
15 avril 2021
15 avril 2021
The applicant alleged that he faced a risk on account of having sustained detention and torture in Russia because of his kinship with individuals fighting alongside the Chechen resistance, his refusal
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1986:1201DEC001206886
1 décembre 1986
1 décembre 1986
It found, however, that the restriction did not violate the freedom of movement because the person concerned was free to move within the district he was allowed to reside in.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0716DEC001159285
16 juillet 1987
16 juillet 1987
It related to the applicant's complaints concerning the discrimination which he alleged arises because of the application of the income tax laws in the United Kingdom when related to the Social
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0329DEC001769607
29 mars 2011
29 mars 2011
The victim had not died only because of timely medical intervention. The applicant was sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0329DEC001124903
29 mars 2007
29 mars 2007
His plastered hand became inflamed because of the dirt in the Detention Unit.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-153733
19 mars 2015
19 mars 2015
They allege that they fled Syria because of the military conflict there and large scale violations of public order. Applicant M.S.A. also submitted that he did not want to serve in the Syrian army.
Source officiellePage 103 sur 1499