CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2703066-2962990
21 avril 2009
The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because of the failure to inform the applicant of the opinion of the Principal State Prosecutor of the
Page 88 sur 1499
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0119JUD004844418
19 janvier 2023
Because the medical staff could not enter the flat, police were called in, and they forced the door.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0918JUD003278604
18 septembre 2008
According to the applicants, the judgment was not enforced fully, because the cost-of-living adjustment had been incomplete.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0515DEC001110121
15 mai 2025
However, because of the media attention given to his case, his distress lasted about a year and a half.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:1209DEC001288187
9 décembre 1987
According to the statement of a psychiatrist, the first applicant's husband is extremely depressed and has suicidal tendencies because of the impending
PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3270987-3667739
30 septembre 2010
Mr Farcaş said that he was unable to travel further than 600 metres around his house because of the height of the pavements and claimed that his situation had worsened in 2007, as it had become
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1213DEC002051308
13 décembre 2011
The court noted that the hearings were often postponed because of the failure by the applicant and the other party to attend them, and that the claim had been left unexamined twice because the applicant
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-166716
22 août 2016
On 1 June 2009 the inquiry was suspended again because the main case file had been lost.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0328DEC007948217
28 mars 2023
He was unable to see Y, either because X and Y were not at home or because Y refused to see him (for the latter, see the bailiff’s report of 5 June 2011). 4 .
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1204JUD001175606
4 décembre 2008
The Government argued that the application was inadmissible, because it had been lodged more than six months after the dates of the judgments. 11.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0903DEC003599911
3 septembre 2013
A previous application of the applicant (no. 19313/08) was struck out of the list of cases on 8 September 2009, because the applicant had withdrawn it. A.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0305DEC005063115
5 mars 2026
Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained that the suspension of his pension had been unlawful because Law no. 213-VIII had been contrary to the Constitution.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0510DEC003310415
10 mai 2022
On 19 May 2015 the applicant company re-sent its letter of 30 October 2014 to AMA, because it had gone missing. No reply has been given. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-14138
29 juin 2023
The applicant had submitted, however, that a life sentence with eligibility for parole would in his case amount to a de facto life sentence without parole because he would have to serve a minimum term
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0503JUD003243896
3 mai 2001
The court decided that the sentence should not be suspended because its effective serving by the applicant could help him understand his constitutional duties and have a positive impact on his personal
ECLI:CEDH:001-158420
8 octobre 2015
At about that time, the two applicants moved from Burgas to Sinemorets, allegedly because they were no longer able to afford living in Burgas.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0315DEC000882108
15 mars 2016
He explained that he had missed the statutory five-day time-limit for lodging his appeal because he had received the decision of 17 September 2007 only on 26 September 2007.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0117JUD000678311
17 janvier 2017
On 12 July 2001 the applicant company lodged an application for transfer of jurisdiction, because the DAA had not rendered a decision within the statutory six-month time-limit. 7.
ECLI:CEDH:001-157802
14 septembre 2015
Also “a week or two ago the defendant was saying in one of the recordings that people should remain calm because the criminal file will be transferred, and please note that it was transferred” and “A.S
ECLI:CEDH:001-127126
17 septembre 2013
The applicant refused to sign the report because it stated incorrectly the circumstances in which he had been apprehended.