CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-13496
30 novembre 2021
of political protest: violation Facts – The applicants were convicted of hooliganism and fined for spray-painting a monument to “partisans” on the anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, in the
Page 65 sur 2501
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0913DEC000031908
13 septembre 2011
They were fined EUR 120 each. The Paderborn District Court upheld the fines by a judgment of 27 May 2008.
ECLI:CEDH:002-10855
5 janvier 2016
It was not based on restrictions specific to the press and the applicant was not fined for overstepping his journalistic duties and responsibilities.
ECLI:CEDH:002-3819
7 juin 2005
Before that, the applicants had been fined under the criminal-law provisions prohibiting the organisation of religious meetings in premises not intended for such purpose.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1109DEC000375908
9 novembre 2010
On 2 June 2006 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order whereby V.P. was given three additional days to comply with the applicant’s access rights or be fined.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-243896
28 mai 2025
Following M.M.’s private criminal action the applicant was found guilty of insult and fined approximately 430 euros (EUR).
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0406JUD006699713
6 avril 2017
On 26 April and 31 May 2013 the bailiff fined him for his failure to take the child to the appointments scheduled on those two days. One of those fines was subsequently quashed in court. 40.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:1019DEC002613895
19 octobre 1995
The applicant was fined 300 Slovak crowns and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings of 150 Slovak crowns.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0527DEC005932916
27 mai 2021
He stated that it had been G.G. and the applicant who had become aggressive after the police officers had informed them about the fine.
ECLI:CEDH:001-233072
17 mars 2024
communicated on 17 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a traffic accident and the fairness of the ensuing misdemeanour proceedings in which the applicant was convicted and fined
ECLI:CEDH:002-7846
20 octobre 1997
Applicability of Article 6 § 1 Applicant could be considered the subject of a “charge” within autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1 when he had been summoned to appear as a witness and fined for refusing
ECLI:CEDH:001-220732
11 octobre 2022
SECTION Application no. 22266/22 Lasha ZURABIANI against Georgia lodged on 28 April 2022 communicated on 11 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of a fine
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1205JUD005779215
5 décembre 2017
As noted in the appeal, BAM 10,000 is the maximum fine for contempt of court. The maximum fine should be imposed in the most serious cases.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0110DEC005030316
10 janvier 2023
The court therefore fined the applicant RON 5,000 (EUR 1,126). 7.
ECLI:CEDH:001-172193
21 février 2017
and second-instance misdemeanor courts (in the first case, the competent bodies of the Ministry of Finance (see annex)) have found the applicants guilty of having committed administrative offences, fined
ECLI:CEDH:001-150738
18 décembre 2014
The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation, claiming among other things, that he had already paid an administrative fine in connection with the same facts.
ECLI:CEDH:001-186589
7 septembre 2018
(v) Is the amount of the fine for violation of the Foreign Agents Act sufficiently foreseeable? (b) Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”?
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1102DEC001221805
2 novembre 2010
The money was confiscated and the applicant was fined 60 Moldovan lei (MDL).
cr
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:CR01177
24 mai 2018
Y..., âgé de 50 ans au moment des faits, avait noué une relation très ambiguë avec une fillette de 11 ans, rencontrée par hasard lors de ses déplacements à Moorea et avec laquelle il n'avait aucun lien
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:CR02207
23 août 2017
, multiples, auraient été commis entre 1989 et 1995 sur la personne de sa fille mineure, âgée alors de 4 à 10 ans sur la période concernée, le mis en examen profitant de l'absence de la mère de la fillette