CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1119JUD002417918
19 novembre 2024
In view of the violations found above, the Court rejects the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage, but awards her compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 5,000, plus
Page 46 sur 101
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0528JUD001079204
28 mai 2009
On 18 March 1998 the Kyiv City Court (since June 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal), noting the lower court’s failure to examine the important pieces of evidence, quashed the judgment
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-178994
2 novembre 2017
There, next to the entrance, she found a large bloodstain, measuring about 60 by 60 centimetres; a small piece of roof had been cut out and taken away.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0707JUD004088516
7 juillet 2020
Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court accepts the entirety of the applicant’s claim and awards him EUR 7,000 under this head. Costs and expenses 38.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0708JUD006508719
8 juillet 2025
approximately 85 km away from it. 7.
ECLI:CEDH:001-110096
10 février 2012
March 2010 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court ( hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen ), claiming, inter alia , that he could no longer live peacefully in Iran because the police were aware
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0117DEC004947307
17 janvier 2017
None of the witnesses had been present at the incident of 4 March 2006 and consequently they stated that they were not aware of any physical altercation between the applicant and B.C. 12.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1211JUD004504914
11 décembre 2025
The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to examine a piece of evidence in his favour.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1209DEC001488103
9 décembre 2004
On 17 July 2002 the applicant privately sent a complaint to a deputy Governor of the Moscow Region where he reported the usurpation of a piece of communal land, adjacent to a public street in Iksha, by
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-14279
5 décembre 2023
The applicant underscored that, in 2016, the Seimas had tailored another piece of legislation in order to exclude her specifically from the potential recipients of the President’s survivor’s annuity by
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0111JUD005189612
11 janvier 2018
However, that piece of evidence had not been brought to the attention of the parties and they had not been able to comment on whether it even existed or was authentic. 15.
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2307522-2486304
1 avril 2008
As the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the required time-limit, the Court made no such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0202DEC008052412
2 février 2023
There was therefore no legal basis to award any damages in civil proceedings.
comm
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:CO00725
20 octobre 2021
société MMA IARD ne seraient pas rédigées en caractères très apparents, que "la première exclusion dont il est fait état concerne la responsabilité civile après livraison ou achèvement des travaux (pièce
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0104DEC004048508
4 janvier 2012
Pieces of broken glass had been found between the panes of the window and on the windowsill. The window was nine metres from the ground.
Cour d'Appel
6253c9f8bd3db21cbdd89af4
23 octobre 2007
Christian X... a été convoqué à un entretien préalable fixé au 19 mars 2004, avec mise à pied conservatoire. Le 26 mars 2004, M.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0731JUD003551997
31 juillet 2003
The Court, deciding on an equitable basis, awards EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. B. Costs and expenses 109.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1217JUD001510210
17 décembre 2015
The applicant further contended that his confession was a decisive piece of evidence on which his conviction was based. 47.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0902JUD000153708
2 septembre 2010
However, these limitations can by no means justify doing away with remedies altogether whenever the executive has chosen to invoke the term “national security”.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1218JUD002543506
18 décembre 2014
The Court considers unexplained loss of a central piece of evidence sufficient in itself to compromise the findings of an investigation (see, mutatis mutandis , Maslova and Nalbandov v.