Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0612JUD003899905
12 juin 2008
12 juin 2008
The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, because he had failed to claim the subsidy in 1997–99.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1734977-1819108
13 juillet 2006
13 juillet 2006
The applicant also went several times to his former wife’s flat accompanied by a court bailiff, but was unable to see his son, either because his former wife refused to let him in, or because the
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1211DEC001043802
11 décembre 2003
11 décembre 2003
In this connection they submitted that the applicants did enjoy access to a court because they had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Osijek Municipal Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:1209DEC001303187
9 décembre 1987
9 décembre 1987
Leave was refused because there is no provision in the relevant Immigration Rules (Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 169, as amended) permitting a dependent husband to remain in the United
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0114DEC000006010
14 janvier 2014
14 janvier 2014
Jevtović did not contest that Mr Milomir Vidić, Mr Radomir Aleksić, and Mr Petronije Perić had died before the applications were lodged, but stated that he had been unaware of this fact at that time, because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-204529
3 août 2020
3 août 2020
The applicant and her representative lodged an appeal stating that the Hospital experts had not been impartial because they had treated Mr D. and Mr D. had been in conflict with them.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-187655
15 octobre 2018
15 octobre 2018
Each applicant was then sentenced to a fine under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) because the courts considered that, together with other volunteers, he had taken part in one and common act of
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:1202DEC001880591
2 décembre 1991
2 décembre 1991
The applicant company's objection, namely that the arbitration award was null and void because it had been given out of time, had already been raised without success before a first instance court
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-99650
3 juin 2010
3 juin 2010
; In the Court’s view, in special circumstances when an immediate response might be justified, in the form of a demonstration, to a political event, to disband the ensuing, peaceful assembly solely because
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0615DEC004889599
15 juin 2000
15 juin 2000
On 31 July 1997 the civil court of Athens decided that it could not review the refusal of the bishop to give the applicant permission to transfer because this was a “spiritual” matter.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-181084
1 février 2018
1 février 2018
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that (a) the interference with his freedom of expression was not prescribed by law because the concept of “public statement” contained
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-114374
12 octobre 2012
12 octobre 2012
Because the local authorities envisaged to give the applicants possession of the land they were entitled to, on 16 June 1994 the Râmnicu-Vâlcea Energy and Sanitation Service informed the Râmnicu-Vâlcea
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-174343
15 mai 2017
15 mai 2017
On 31 May 2010 the Zavodskiy District Court of Kemerovo ordered the applicant’s transfer to the IZ-42/1 remand centre because he was involved as a witness in criminal proceedings against a third person
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0522JUD006317600
22 mai 2007
22 mai 2007
His claim for widows' benefits was made on 6 August 2000 and was rejected on 13 August 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0831DEC004640799
31 août 2000
31 août 2000
He also claimed that DEI wished to defame him because of his “anti-Greek” and “pro-Skopje” activities. The introductory writ ran in 163 pages and contained 20 different claims.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-169596
15 novembre 2016
15 novembre 2016
He was told that on 12 April 2013 the Consumer Protection Authority (CPA) had pronounced his presence in Russia undesirable because of his medical condition (the “exclusion order”).
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0824DEC001840391
24 août 1999
24 août 1999
The applicant has been prevented from returning to her home and property because the Turkish military authorities have continuously occupied and used them.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1116DEC004749511
16 novembre 2021
16 novembre 2021
In the alternative, they did not suffer any significant disadvantage because the amount of fine imposed on the first applicant was not substantial and because the administrative conviction had no negative
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-119173
2 avril 2013
2 avril 2013
It further considered that it would not be in the child’s best interest to return to Argentina, because he was already integrated in his new environment.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-221130
25 octobre 2022
25 octobre 2022
Lastly, both applicants oppose the increased presence of game that is fed on and around their land because the game causes significant damage to their crops.
Source officiellePage 90 sur 1499