CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0326JUD003183220
26 mars 2024
In accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office of the Posavina Canton and the Orašje Municipal Court submitted their observations.
Page 60 sur 2215
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1108DEC004556117
8 novembre 2022
Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court (Friendly settlement) “In accordance with Article 39 § 2 of the Convention, the friendly-settlement negotiations shall be confidential and without prejudice to the parties
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0325JUD004364998
25 mars 2003
The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:1214JUD002758095
14 décembre 2000
It was thereupon assigned to the Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0127DEC000816823
27 janvier 2026
44 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0119DEC002566194
19 janvier 1995
to Rule 34 para. 3 and Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, for observations on admissibility and merits.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0902JUD002321794
2 septembre 1997
designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 31).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0121DEC003495397
21 janvier 2003
THE LAW Rule 36 of the Rules of Court reads, in relevant part: “1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0902JUD002584094
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 35 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court B, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0902JUD002584194
the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 31).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0902JUD002584294
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 35 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court B, the applicant stated that she wished to take part in the proceedings
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0728JUD003344096
28 juillet 1999
Abbate as the lawyer who would represent her (Rule 31 of former Rules of Court B [3] ). 3.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1975:0221JUD000445170
21 février 1975
48 of the Rules of Court and composed of the following judges: Mr.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC003101306
11 décembre 2007
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr J.B., is an Iranian
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0122DEC001056707
22 janvier 2008
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1002JUD002802503
2 octobre 2008
or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0711DEC001753290
11 juillet 1991
On 4 December 1990 the Commission rejected the applicants' request for a ruling under Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and decided to invite
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0119DEC003823309
19 janvier 2010
39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115DEC003584414
15 novembre 2016
Application of Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides: “When an application has been struck out, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. .
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD000638710
29 novembre 2016
They accordingly requested revision of the original judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.