CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0110JUD005547010
10 janvier 2017
Article 8, be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Dalia
Page 7 sur 8
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0630REP002247993
30 juin 1998
yarĸn hayali gibi üstelik nazlĸdĸr usludur ince bilgedir biz ki ustasĸyĸz vatan sevmenin umut saklĸmĸzda olumsuz bayrak kĸrmĸzĸ-kĸrmĸzĸ dalga-dalgadĸr
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0311DEC006886401
11 mars 2004
They explained that the use of intermediaries was a “form of sham”, which entailed making a person appear in a legal document to be the holder of a right that was in fact held by someone else whose identity
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0831DEC002469704
31 août 2004
In any event, he would not be forced to return to the same village in Iran where his in-laws are living but could settle somewhere else in the country.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0622DEC001786803
22 juin 2004
applicant’s new relationship with a Swedish woman, the Government submitted that, if this relationship were to be taken into account under Article 8 of the Convention, it could not be considered a weighty element
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0326JUD002179408
26 mars 2013
France , 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Dalia v. France , 19 February 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0423JUD003803012
23 avril 2015
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD000178508
26 novembre 2013
He added that the domestic authorities and the Government had given too much weight to his conviction and the criminal charges brought against him, while disregarding all other elements.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0707JUD002800512
7 juillet 2015
The court noted that the applicants had been served with a notice of the exequatur order and had exhausted pleas available in law in that respect ( hanno esperito le impugnazioni previste dalla legge )
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0303JUD003537697
3 mars 2000
The fifth applicant, Mrs Dagmar Rýdlová, born in 1932, is resident in Prague, Czech Republic. The sixth applicant, Mrs Eva Kaňoková, born in 1935, is resident in Prague, Czech Republic.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0416JUD001202009
16 avril 2013
France , 26 September 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-VI; Dalia v. France , 19 February 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-I; Boultif v. Switzerland , no.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0131JUD005025299
31 janvier 2006
be determined whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”, that is to say justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Dalia
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0221JUD002694506
21 février 2012
France , 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198; and Dalia v. France , 19 February 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I). 69.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0623JUD001975013
23 juin 2022
However, such issue was dealt with in detail in a dissenting opinion by Judge Dagmar Lastovecká, to whose opinion the applicant refers and at the same time elaborates on some of these arguments below.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD004641099
18 octobre 2006
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0410JUD006028609
10 avril 2012
However, the Court has previously held that there will be no family life between parents and adult children or between adult siblings unless they can demonstrate additional elements of dependence ( Slivenko
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0828JUD001715311
28 août 2012
11–12, § 27, and Dalia v. France , judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, pp. 87-88, § 38).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1222JUD004393618
22 décembre 2020
France (no. 52273/16 and 4 others, §§ 43-44, 25 June 2020) the Court held that nationality is an element of a person’s identity.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0603DEC003494306
3 juin 2008
A submission can only be considered to have been relied upon if a specific circumstance has been emphasised as an element in the reasoning for the party’s litigation claim.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1217DEC006304911
17 décembre 2013
By a letter dated 6 June 2011 the CCPS repeated that the relevant law did not have retrospective effect and informed them that the subject was considered closed unless they had new elements