CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
cr
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:CR01579
28 juin 2017
personnes prétendument abusées ayant notamment réitéré leur soutien par bulletins séparés, ainsi que le relevaient les premiers juges ; "2°) alors que, si l'intention d'éclairer les électeurs sur les mérites
Page 70 sur 145
613725dbcd58014677421093
10 décembre 2002
il précise expressément que les faits postérieurs au 14 octobre 1994 n'ont pas fait l'objet de poursuites pénales dans le cadre de la présente procédure, qu'il vise précisément les procès-verbaux adressés
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:1209DEC001131184
9 décembre 1987
The applicant was free, under Rule 24 para. 3, to continue to address the Commission in Italian.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0702DEC002804895
2 juillet 1997
On 2 December 1992, when the applicant was not present, the Magistrates' Court merely decided to execute the warrant of commitment to prison.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0713JUD001767102
13 juillet 2006
Also as far as the judgment “as to the merits” is concerned, I am not convinced by the reasoning of the majority. Indeed, as the Court ruled in the case Ziegler v. Switzerland (cited above): “39.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0416DEC003086796
16 avril 2002
In his letter to the Board of the Circle, the applicant also demanded to be informed in advance by registered mail of all the activities of the Circle and to be provided with the home addresses of all
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0611DEC003866597
11 juin 2002
In his opinion, that complaint is merely a petition devoid of legal effect as the only result that a claimant may obtain is a declaration obliging an administrative authority to issue a decision.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0716JUD004832212
16 juillet 2015
Merits 15.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0906DEC005121116
6 septembre 2022
The Court has already had an opportunity to address the issue of its temporal jurisdiction in cases similar to the present one.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0705DEC002881112
5 juillet 2016
The Court reiterates that the standards of Article 13 require a party to the Convention to guarantee a domestic remedy allowing the competent domestic authority to address the substance of
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0909DEC003370696
9 septembre 1998
The Regional Court established that since 1987 the applicant's former husband had his permanent address in the cottage in question where he lived together with his new wife, and that the cottage
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0920JUD000976510
20 septembre 2018
The leaflets stated, inter alia , that the abortions performed by Dr St. in his practice, for which he gave the address, were unlawful according to the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0608DEC003877115
8 juin 2021
Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 286(6) of the Road Traffic Safety Act was not a penalty imposed on the applicant but merely
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:0908DEC001246386
8 septembre 1988
The proceedings were then adjourned, inter alia, in order to obtain the address of A.Sö.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0219JUD001180485
19 février 1991
The Court heard addresses by the above-mentioned representatives, as well as their replies to its questions. 9.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0923JUD001828306
23 septembre 2010
It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0621JUD000561304
21 juin 2011
While it is true that his claims were rejected, the Russian courts merely suggested that they were outside their jurisdiction.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0502JUD001790615
2 mai 2017
Merits 1. The parties’ submissions 28.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1023DEC003047096
23 octobre 1997
However, it does not require merely that applications should be made to the appropriate domestic courts and that use should be made of remedies designed to challenge decisions already given.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1201DEC005577908
1 décembre 2009
The court did not address the applicant’s request for a supplementary expert examination.