Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0126DEC000366904
26 janvier 2010
26 janvier 2010
by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 8 August 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0316DEC000577305
16 mars 2010
16 mars 2010
Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1207DEC000774005
7 décembre 2010
7 décembre 2010
sent to the applicant’s address by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired on 1 June 2010 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0505DEC000060605
5 mai 2009
5 mai 2009
The applicant originally complained of a violation of his property rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that he had been deprived of property without an adequate compensation.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0622DEC003416704
22 juin 2010
22 juin 2010
January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of the their observations had expired on 22 December 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1122DEC002677407
22 novembre 2011
22 novembre 2011
August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 June 2011 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1117DEC001630504
17 novembre 2009
17 novembre 2009
26 August 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 20 May 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1117DEC003408107
17 novembre 2009
17 novembre 2009
By a letter of 6 May 2009, sent by registered mail, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0331DEC001315704
31 mars 2009
31 mars 2009
The applicants originally complained about a violation of their property rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that they had been obliged to surrender certain agricultural land in the
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1117DEC003335907
17 novembre 2009
17 novembre 2009
By a letter of 6 May 2009, sent by registered mail, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0316DEC000898707
16 mars 2010
16 mars 2010
September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 30 March 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1117DEC003409207
17 novembre 2009
17 novembre 2009
By a letter of 6 May 2009, sent by registered mail, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0622DEC001663904
22 juin 2010
22 juin 2010
January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of the their observations had expired on 1 December 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1117DEC002267805
17 novembre 2009
17 novembre 2009
By a letter of 6 May 2009, sent by registered mail, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0516DEC002364412
16 mai 2017
16 mai 2017
Stojanović, a lawyer practising in Berane. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Pavličić.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0316DEC000061707
16 mars 2010
16 mars 2010
October 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 15 July 2009 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1216DEC000111603
16 décembre 2008
16 décembre 2008
and sent by registered post, his attention was drawn to the fact that the time ‑ limit for submitting such observations and claims had expired on 24 July 2008, and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1103DEC000566906
3 novembre 2011
3 novembre 2011
letter dated 5 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 March 2010 and that no extension of time had been
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-55950
26 février 2001
26 février 2001
that the case originated in an application (No. 22771/93) against Sweden, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 August 1993 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Christina, Bernt
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0906DEC002220693
6 septembre 1995
6 septembre 1995
There was further a risk that X., who would have been a single child, would grow up overly protected and spoiled.
Source officiellePage 59 sur 4750