Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4260
8 juillet 2004
8 juillet 2004
Another car was offered to her, which she refused because it was cheaper than the one to which she was entitled. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Government in February 2001.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-200419
17 décembre 2019
17 décembre 2019
Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant contends that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and that her private behaviour was considered inappropriate by the national authorities because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187652
16 octobre 2018
16 octobre 2018
In addition, it concerns the cancelation of the applicant’s pension rights granted for his participation in the popular revolt which overthrew the communist regime in Romania because he was declared a
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-213186
18 octobre 2021
18 octobre 2021
The Deputy Minister of Justice and Security, relying on the applicant’s criminal record that included convictions of theft, insult, and destruction of property, made the impugned decision because she considered
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-210143
28 avril 2021
28 avril 2021
and the manner in which the domestic courts examined their claim against the NTRC challenging the results of the tender, had not been compliance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention, because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-209023
3 mars 2021
3 mars 2021
They also complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a reasoned decision was breached because in the course of ensuing proceedings the domestic courts failed to address their serious
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-218701
1 juillet 2022
1 juillet 2022
Ion PĂCALĂ against Romania lodged on 13 May 2021 communicated on 1 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in an administrative fine imposed on the applicant on 15 April 2019 because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-235928
30 août 2024
30 août 2024
Without prejudice to Question 1, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the judgment awarding compensation to the applicant has not been enforced (see Burdov
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-223416
8 février 2023
8 février 2023
The applicant alleged under Article 6 §§ 1and 2 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings opened against him (i) were unfair because the domestic courts had failed to examine all the essential arguments
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-209227
15 mars 2021
15 mars 2021
November 2014 the Bar Association’s administrative board dismissed the aforementioned application finding that the applicant was not a person considered worthy of public trust under the Attorneys Act because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-244133
12 juin 2025
12 juin 2025
On 18 May 2016 the children’s judge issued a supervision order ( ondertoezichtstelling) in respect of the applicant’s children born in 2013 and 2015 because of the unsafe and unstable parenting
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4505
5 février 2004
5 février 2004
The constructions of the buildings in which apartments had been offered to them were never started because of financial difficulties of the municipalities (or were never finished for the same reasons).
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-182188
15 mars 2018
15 mars 2018
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because the courts failed to apply the statute of
Source officielle5ème sous-section jugeant seule
CETAT:CETATEXT000023429715
12 janvier 2011
12 janvier 2011
l'exécution d'un jugement du tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny du 16 mars 2000 prononçant en tant que de besoin l'expulsion de Mme et de tout occupant de son chef d'un logement situé 4 rue du Four-Bécard
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-242187
5 février 2025
5 février 2025
The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had to bear an excessive burden because the customs authorities refunded the customs duties paid by it after a considerable period
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-216417
21 février 2022
21 février 2022
October 2020 communicated on 21 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the domestic courts to declare the applicant’s civil action for defamation inadmissible because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-122678
19 juin 2013
19 juin 2013
He lodged several complaints in this respect claiming that he had health problems because of the smoke he had inhaled from his inmates.
Source officielleTribunal Administratif de Lyon
ORTA_2403819_20260128
28 janvier 2026
28 janvier 2026
A..., représenté par Me Béchaux, demande au tribunal : 1°) d’annuler la décision implicite de rejet de sa demande de titre de séjour ; 2°) d’enjoindre à la préfète du Rhône, à titre principal,
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-244309
23 juin 2025
23 juin 2025
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair, because the Constitutional Court departed from its plenary judgment and because the domestic courts did
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-3811
2 juin 2005
2 juin 2005
They were unable to file a joint declaration of paternity because G. had been placed in detention in June 1997, following which the applicant had been unable to see him.
Source officiellePage 30 sur 1499