CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-5496
4 septembre 2001
Article 6 inapplicable In December 1995 the Catania Court of First Instance made an order for the confiscation of various property belonging to the applicants, including land, buildings, vehicles, and shares
Page 51 sur 238
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-145849
30 juin 2014
The parents however continued to share custody. On 18 June 2003 I.M. applied for sole custody over B.M.
ECLI:CEDH:002-11736
31 octobre 2017
In order to determine whether the “right” claimed by the applicant was “civil” within the autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1 the Court applied the Vilho Eskelinen test.
ECLI:CEDH:001-158621
14 octobre 2015
Someone who does not share these views is the president of the IM, A.S., who has assured O Independente that “the project does not face any risk” and denigrated Carlos Câmara, whom he does not recognise
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1221JUD004453705
21 décembre 2010
The Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0608DEC003817997
8 juin 1999
She is a doctor and resides in Larnaca. The third applicant is a British citizen born in 1947. She is retired and resides in Larnaca. The fourth applicant is a British citizen born in 1944.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0328DEC003839403
28 mars 2006
On 31 May 2002 the District Court confirmed the inheritance and the distribution of the applicants’ shares.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0123DEC002501997
23 janvier 2001
Following the unlawful felling of the forest, the applicant had used the land as a sheep-run. On 4 July 1991 Vorarlberg Regional Government ( Landeshauptmann ) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
ECLI:CEDH:001-171718
3 février 2017
The open area outside (локальный участок) was fenced off with three-metre-high metal sheets and was so small that one hundred detainees could barely move about.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0204DEC002148721
4 février 2025
They sought the annulment of an agreement according to which their shares had been transferred to the State in 2010.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0703DEC004205804
3 juillet 2008
It had been justified because the investigation had needed more time to finalise the charge sheet.
ECLI:CEDH:002-12183
8 novembre 2018
They all applied to the social-security contributions collection agency (“the URSSAF”) for reimbursement of the employer’s share of the contributions paid in respect of their employees, arguing that they
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0703DEC000140913
3 juillet 2018
shareholders (hereinafter “plaintiffs”) of the joint-stock company “Mašinopromet rezervni djelovi” from Podgorica brought proceedings before the Podgorica First Instance Court, seeking the annulment of a shares-related
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0317JUD006524511
17 mars 2015
On 17 August 2009 the applicant was appointed as deputy general manager of a State-owned company limited by shares. 7.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0131DEC002443110
31 janvier 2012
On 23 March 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his former wife E.B. in the Ljubljana Basic Court requesting the court to identify the items of common property and determine the share
ECLI:CEDH:002-3909
26 juin 2012
The German hunting legislation could be said to constitute a means of controlling the use of property in accordance with the general interest within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.
ECLI:CEDH:001-116061
18 décembre 2012
She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Cibulka, a lawyer practising in Trnava. A.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0216DEC006279517
16 février 2021
She was represented before the Court by the applicant in the first case. 3. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs J. Morela and Mrs B.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0529JUD006440609
29 mai 2018
The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0608JUD005849700
8 juin 2006
The party getting two coins was to pay the other party an amount of money equalling the difference in value between the shares.