CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4976
20 février 2003
The Federal Court of Justice had held that the applicant had not lost his title by usucapio .
Page 83 sur 3715
ECLI:CEDH:002-13676
7 juin 2022
In sum, the domestic courts had not taken sufficient account of the context in which the applicant had published the cartoons on his blog.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0107JUD001578321
7 janvier 2025
He added, in this connection, that the lawyer had had a telephone conversation with the complainant’s brother, who had not been able to testify because he had left Greece, where he had initially come to
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1971:0202DEC000434069
2 février 1971
had been accelerated.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0402DEC000438009
2 avril 2013
Furthermore, R.A.’s brother had explained over the phone that R.A. had undergone surgery and had to remain in hospital for further treatment.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD001574115
10 novembre 2022
police officers that she had been recognised as disabled and had had her medication with her.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0408JUD003754205
8 avril 2010
had not been found. 42.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625JUD006831713
25 juin 2020
Thus, he had had a legitimate reason to defend himself. His intention had not been to defame I.P., but he had had justified concerns over I.P.’s involvement in his case.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0429JUD003881297
29 avril 2003
The allegations had not been proved and had been found unsubstantiated.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0116DEC002110816
16 janvier 2018
had expired.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1216JUD002523602
16 décembre 2008
P. had kicked the attacker and had been shot three times. He died shortly afterwards.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-173210
28 mars 2017
S.M. further stated that he had not seen who had taken the gun since he had left the room.
ECLI:CEDH:001-181093
29 janvier 2018
The first applicant had also had been a member of the USSR Communist party.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1105JUD003681406
5 novembre 2015
On 5 June 2004 they had met because B. had brought some money he had owed him and had wanted to arrange another purchase of fish from him with Sh.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0601JUD005671708
1 juin 2017
They had possessed none of this equipment and had had to use a small table as a protective shield.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1011DEC000314814
11 octobre 2016
into what had caused the cardiac arrest.
ECLI:CEDH:002-13397
14 septembre 2021
had reported to the police.
ECLI:CEDH:002-13206
6 avril 2021
– The domestic courts had expressly acknowledged a breach of the Convention in respect of all the applicants and had found that the State had committed a fault within the meaning of Article 1382 of the
ECLI:CEDH:002-3031
20 novembre 2006
He had therefore had a “possession”, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the deprivation thereof by the decisions of 2000 and 2001 had constituted interference with his right to the
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2408375-2607488
3 juillet 2008
It referred, in particular, to the fact that all the servicemen of the applicant’s company had been questioned and had stated that Private Chember had not been harassed and his superiors had never been