Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0704DEC004310016
4 juillet 2024
4 juillet 2024
The case concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because of the sanction imposed
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-171808
9 février 2017
9 février 2017
The applicant could not care for the baby alone because he worked seven hours per day and he could not count on help from his elderly mother or sister, who had two jobs.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-156497
23 mars 2015
23 mars 2015
It concluded that there was no difference in treatment of unmarried same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples, especially because Austrian law foresaw special rules of custody only for married
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1208DEC004469008
8 décembre 2009
8 décembre 2009
S decided to hire another candidate, inter alia because of the latter’s proven interest in navigation. 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0429DEC001548205
29 avril 2008
29 avril 2008
, any judges shall be ineligible ( kizárt ) who participated in the adoption of the decision to quash or in the adoption of the decision which has been quashed because of ill-foundedness.”
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:1212DEC002702718
12 décembre 2023
12 décembre 2023
Accordingly, the lower courts rightfully concluded that the decision [in the misdemeanour proceedings] had been quashed because of the discontinuance of the misdemeanour proceedings as time-barred and
Source officielleCASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0520REP003285796
20 mai 1998
20 mai 1998
On 21 November 1994 the same court decided that the case could not be heard because the applicant had not been summoned in accordance with the law.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0208DEC000275805
8 février 2007
8 février 2007
The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that he was convicted because he had criticised the President in his Parliament speech in 1993. THE LAW 1.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-122223
3 juin 2013
3 juin 2013
Personal contacts to his mother had been prevented because they ran counter to therapeutic progress.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-111018
27 mars 2012
27 mars 2012
The court declared that the Director of Public Registry could not refuse to issue the applicant’s marriage banns just because she had undergone gender reassignment surgery.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0503DEC002632716
3 mai 2022
3 mai 2022
required a higher degree of education, the period of the applicant’s employment as a stenographer at the Supetar Municipal Court could not be taken into account as relevant professional experience because
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0929JUD005803216
29 septembre 2022
29 septembre 2022
Because the applicant had at his disposal adequate remedies but did not use them, no facts substantiating his claims of illegal secret surveillance could be established. 9.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:1214DEC000836912
14 décembre 2023
14 décembre 2023
Statement 6 “... indeed this link is dubious because not all the people are poor. Especially those whose companies, as it is fashionable to say, ‘cooperate’ with the railway.” 9.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0909DEC003455302
9 septembre 2004
9 septembre 2004
They also allege that the detention order was unlawful and fabricated, because there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed a crime. 3.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-123811
10 juillet 2013
10 juillet 2013
These grounds did not cease to exist at present, because they seem real, well ‑ grounded and are confirmed by credible information.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0510DEC003399207
10 mai 2012
10 mai 2012
On 9 June 1993 the applicant asked the Regional Court to postpone the hearing because of his poor state of health.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1203DEC003239796
3 décembre 1997
3 décembre 1997
The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies because he never applied for compensation for his detention on remand.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0317DEC006072300
17 mars 2005
17 mars 2005
On 6 October 1993 the applicant lodged an objection with the appellate authority of the enterprise, claiming that the enterprise could not dismiss him because he was a disabled worker with the right to
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1994:0111DEC001737190
11 janvier 1994
11 janvier 1994
The application was refused by the Linz Labour Office (Arbeitsamt) and the Upper Austrian Regional Labour Office (Landsarbeitsamt) because the applicant failed to
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1213JUD005576200
13 décembre 2005
13 décembre 2005
The court pointed out that the burden of proof was on the applicant, who had failed to show that he had been denied entry because of his Chechen origin. 17.
Source officiellePage 66 sur 1499