CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-68470
23 février 2005
The passage of time remains an influencing factor in that it can inevitably affect the availability of witnesses, exhibits and documentation, but it cannot be used in itself as a bar to reinvestigation
Page 12 sur 22
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0515DEC002136393
15 mai 1995
is rejected, also if the request would aim at the hearing of these witnesses in disguise, since recognition of the witnesses at the public hearing cannot
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1124DEC003818002
24 novembre 2009
display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s92A1A400 { width:0.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38180/02 by Stefan
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1971:0524DEC000447570
24 mai 1971
The subsequent events cannot in any way justify a different conclusion.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0216JUD001973217
16 février 2021
Since 19 May 1987 the association has been operating under a permit granted by the Provincial Executive ( Gedeputeerde Staten ) of the Province of Gelderland which allows the motocross track to operate
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1976:0206JUD000561472
6 février 1976
In the sphere of work and employment conditions, the Convention cannot impose upon the State obligations that are not incumbent upon private employers.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0116DEC001991213
16 janvier 2018
inline-block } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 19912/13 Adam Stefan
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0129DEC004560099
29 janvier 2002
Members of the Netherlands Parliament ( Staten-Generaal ) have shown doubts as to the legitimacy of that unequal treatment.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:1216DEC002513094
16 décembre 1999
It cannot therefore be maintained that they have obtained "redress" for the violation of the Convention.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1102JUD004172306
2 novembre 2010
[The applicant’s] objection that his action was excusable in the light of the Convention cannot therefore be accepted.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1015JUD002565022
15 octobre 2024
For that reason, your client cannot appeal against the decision. This follows from section 1018e(3) of the Administration of Justice Act.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0403JUD004172306
3 avril 2012
[The applicant’s] objection that his conduct was excusable in the light of the Convention cannot, therefore, be accepted.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0129DEC004561899
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0330DEC005940300
30 mars 2004
Pursuant to section 50 of the Security Protection Ordinance, decisions made in accordance with the Ordinance cannot be appealed against.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0405DEC001611590
5 avril 1995
She considers that in particular having regard to what was at stake and to her advanced age such a period of time cannot be considered to be reasonable.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0329JUD003404402
29 mars 2010
Stoven , Research Officer for the economic and tourist development of beaches, and Litigation Officer, Natural Maritime Public Property Litigation Department,
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0416DEC003204796
16 avril 1998
that on 21 May 1992 the applicant and other property owners, on whose properties a pump unit was to be placed, contested the municipality's intention before the National Board for Water and Sewage (Statens
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1022DEC003090496
22 octobre 1997
He is retired and resides in Staten Island, USA. Before the Commission the applicant is represented by H. Bognerová, a lawyer practising in Trencín.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-111073
10 avril 2012
sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION Application no. 50157/06 Stefan
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0223DEC004592499
23 février 1999
On 5 September 1994 the National Immigration Board ( Statens invandrarverk ) rejected the applicant’s request and ordered his deportation to Croatia.