CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4507
15 janvier 2004
eyewitnesses to the alleged incidents or to the remand in custody of the applicant’s husband, it could not be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that he had been abducted and killed by persons acting on behalf
Page 85 sur 556
ECLI:CEDH:002-3450
2 mars 2006
In 1994 the applicants allowed some members of the association to travel overseas on the association’s behalf.
ECLI:CEDH:002-5861
30 novembre 2000
obligations Request for additional financial assistance: Article 6 inapplicable The first two applicants were the parents of the third applicant, a minor who had been disabled since birth, on whose behalf
PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68183-68651
31 mai 2001
fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated in that he could not cross-examine the witnesses whose statements served as the basis for his conviction or have witnesses on his behalf
ECLI:CEDH:002-4392
18 mai 2004
Four witnesses present at the scene, who were called by the applicant, gave evidence on his behalf to the court of first instance.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0110DEC001133906
10 janvier 2012
By letter of 28 July 2011, Mr Florin Frăţeanu informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the application on behalf of the applicant company, adding that he had not been aware of the fact that the company
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0307DEC002840511
7 mars 2017
The Government’s submissions were transmitted to the representative, who was invited to submit, on behalf of her clients and as appropriate, comments on the unilateral declaration and observations
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-168271
3 octobre 2016
23380/09, § 55, ECHR 2015) and having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the first applicant, Mr Osman İşçi (see, in particular, paragraphs 20 and 21 of the application form
ECLI:CEDH:001-174689
31 mai 2017
The agreement had authorised the Company to act on behalf of the State and conclude contracts with individuals upon the termination of their property rights in respect of real estate expropriated for State
ECLI:CEDH:002-2171
10 avril 2012
After communicating the application in 2005, the applicant’s lawyer did not submit any observations on his behalf despite being granted extensions of time for doing so.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1015DEC005437610
15 octobre 2013
Mr Srećko Pejović and Mr Milan Pejović, both Serbian nationals, born in 1958 and 1961 respectively and living in Guča and Čačak, wished to pursue the application and that he would continue to act on behalf
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625DEC001288019
25 juin 2020
The Government’s observations, received on 9 September 2019, were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit any comments on behalf of the applicant.
ECLI:CEDH:001-205030
7 septembre 2020
failed to establish all parties to the dispute and, in particular, to involve as co-defendant the relevant territorial department of the State Treasury which was the body in charge of making payments of behalf
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1210DEC003816115
10 décembre 2019
By a letter of 6 June 2019 the applicant’s representative was invited to submit by 18 July 2019 at the latest any written observations he might wish to make in reply on behalf of the applicant, together
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0626DEC003140514
26 juin 2018
The applicant’s lawyer failed to file observations and just satisfaction claims on behalf of the applicant.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1010DEC004972512
10 octobre 2017
No heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0923DEC002651212
23 septembre 2021
applicant’s representative, through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms), who was invited to submit by 4 January 2021 any written observations he wished to make in reply on behalf
ECLI:CEDH:001-206180
20 octobre 2020
Moreover, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal lodged by the first applicant on behalf of his son (concerning the alleged domestic violence) as incompatible ratione personae since he did not have
ECLI:CEDH:001-188249
15 novembre 2018
The General Prosecutor’s Office and the Sebastopol prosecutor’s office intervened on behalf of the State company in both sets of proceedings, which allegedly gave the latter an unfair advantage vis-à-vis
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0522DEC003996707
22 mai 2012
The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.