Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-199351
20 novembre 2019
20 novembre 2019
sent to that lawyer an extrajudicial document to which he had referred to her behaviour as “unprofessional and contrary to the ethics” (“αντιεπαγγελματική και αντιδεοντολογική”) and had criticised her because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-189309
10 décembre 2018
10 décembre 2018
The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without hearing anew the witnesses.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-202144
4 mars 2020
4 mars 2020
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of that the court proceedings were not fair because he did not have sufficient time to prepare and under Article 11 of the Convention that his right to freedom
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-179950
7 décembre 2017
7 décembre 2017
against Hungary lodged on 2 February 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two actions in damages brought by the applicant in which his appeals were not accepted by the higher courts because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-202145
4 mars 2020
4 mars 2020
The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without hearing anew the witnesses.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-215685
18 janvier 2022
18 janvier 2022
The applicant complains that the proceedings were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted him without hearing anew the statements relied upon for the purposes of the conviction.
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-113984
26 septembre 2012
26 septembre 2012
Individual measures: - The Government considers no further individual measures are required because the violation of Article 8 was held to be in procedural aspects only.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0430DEC007587201
30 avril 2002
30 avril 2002
The first hearing was set down for 21 December 1993 but was later adjourned because the presiding judge was ill.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0627DEC006354300
27 juin 2002
27 juin 2002
On 3 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenant left the premises spontaneously.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0119DEC003560802
19 janvier 2006
19 janvier 2006
He claimed that his conviction had been unsubstantiated, because the first-instance court had based its findings solely on A.T.’s testimony, which could not be considered as trustworthy evidence.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0522DEC002810502
22 mai 2007
22 mai 2007
His formal claim for widows’ benefits was made in October 2000 and was rejected on 12 October 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-6228
22 novembre 2001
22 novembre 2001
In June 1994 the Berlin Regional Labour Court set that judgment aside, holding that the dismissal was justified both in substance and in form because even if there had been procedural flaws in the proceedings
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0914DEC003192703
14 septembre 2004
14 septembre 2004
On 11 February 2003, the Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and rejected the applicant's claim because the crucial factual circumstance of repression against his father had not been proven.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0126DEC003454297
26 janvier 1999
26 janvier 1999
He alleged that he was eligible for the auction because he worked as a driver and was a member of the İzmir Drivers’ and Automobilists’ Association.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1120DEC002366403
20 novembre 2007
20 novembre 2007
The judgment at issue was not enforced in due time because of the lack of debtor’s funds. During June 1999 – July 2001 the major part of the debt was transferred to the applicant’s bank account.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-7685
9 juillet 2013
9 juillet 2013
Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (a) Differential treatment in access to university because of the application of different coefficients
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-7470
18 avril 2013
18 avril 2013
The following day the town court found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of unlawful residence in Russia, ordered his expulsion and placed him in detention pending expulsion because of
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-12860
23 juin 2020
23 juin 2020
Russia - 20159/15 Judgment 23.6.2020 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Freedom to receive information Access blocked to entire website because of one piece of prohibited
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0402DEC002897306
2 avril 2019
2 avril 2019
COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the domestic courts did not order an expert evaluation of his wife’s participation in
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-11795
5 décembre 2017
5 décembre 2017
This is because the 2006 Act does not purport to sanction or lustrate staff members and collaborators of the former security services, but simply to reveal the available information about all publicly
Source officiellePage 70 sur 1499