Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187150
28 septembre 2018
28 septembre 2018
Did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their property rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-226035
27 juin 2023
27 juin 2023
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-222941
13 janvier 2023
13 janvier 2023
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, specifically his right to impart information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-208733
19 février 2021
19 février 2021
However, the courts rejected the request and the applicant complains that the rejection was contrary to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-186750
10 septembre 2018
10 septembre 2018
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention on account of the retention of his personal data
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-230908
11 janvier 2024
11 janvier 2024
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the taking and retention of his fingerprints and
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-197149
3 octobre 2019
3 octobre 2019
the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-228914
18 octobre 2023
18 octobre 2023
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-222228
9 décembre 2022
9 décembre 2022
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-222481
15 décembre 2022
15 décembre 2022
Do the relevant facts of the application give rise to a violation of the applicant’s right to his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Milka v.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-223218
24 janvier 2023
24 janvier 2023
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, in particular, her personal honour and reputation, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-221883
25 novembre 2022
25 novembre 2022
Was a stricter criminal law on statute of limitation applied to the applicant at the time of his sentencing, contrary to Article 7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Koprivnikar
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-242811
18 mars 2025
18 mars 2025
GAICIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 May 2018 communicated on 18 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court contrary
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-237728
25 septembre 2024
25 septembre 2024
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the refusal by the administrative authorities of the applicant’s request for a paid maternity leave contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-228188
19 septembre 2023
19 septembre 2023
Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 or 13 of the Convention, compared to other psychiatric patients
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217179
6 avril 2022
6 avril 2022
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the refusal of parental leave on account of the applicant’s sex amounted to discrimination against him, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-229068
30 octobre 2023
30 octobre 2023
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on account of his alleged ill-treatment by the police
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-229358
8 novembre 2023
8 novembre 2023
The Deputy Minister of Justice and Security rejected her application, finding that her claim that she would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, if removed to Eritrea, had
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-245848
7 octobre 2025
7 octobre 2025
The applicants complain that their constitutional complaints were declared inadmissible as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, contrary to the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-202815
7 mai 2020
7 mai 2020
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? 3.
Source officiellePage 48 sur 1005