Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-176188
12 juillet 2017
12 juillet 2017
He also alleges that his detention was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention because the court judgments ordering and extending it were not sufficiently reasoned and did not rely on relevant and sufficient
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-208734
19 février 2021
19 février 2021
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention because of the refusal of the Moldovan courts to order the return of the child to his habitual residence and to the applicant grant
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-207425
16 décembre 2020
16 décembre 2020
The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal had not been a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because one of the judges on the bench which ruled
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-7036
6 juin 2000
6 juin 2000
The Court noted that while the applicant had lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation against a decision of the Indictments Chamber, the appeal had been rejected as inadmissible because of its novelty
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-195100
12 juillet 2019
12 juillet 2019
The applicant complains under Article 3 that if expelled to Kabul she will be at risk of ill ‑ treatment because she is a westernised woman who used to work for a foreign NGO.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-201486
31 janvier 2020
31 janvier 2020
The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the benches of judges which convicted him both at first and last-instance level allegedly failed to examine
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-239142
4 décembre 2024
4 décembre 2024
complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was subjected to violence and humiliating treatment by various prison officers on 31 August 2023 when she commenced serving a prison sentence, notably because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-238058
15 octobre 2024
15 octobre 2024
Minerva KOTHERJA against Albania lodged on 18 October 2022 communicated on 15 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the principle of legal certainty because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217835
18 mai 2022
18 mai 2022
In particular, the applicant was initially granted parental allowance but was subsequently obliged to return the received payments and divested of further benefits because he was working part-time and
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-218039
24 mai 2022
24 mai 2022
October 2020 the Supreme Court of Justice finally upheld the appellate judgment, which had reversed the first-instance court judgment in the applicant’s favour and had withdrawn his parental authority because
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-217554
3 mai 2022
3 mai 2022
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 3 because he was held in inhuman conditions of detention.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-1439
23 juillet 2009
23 juillet 2009
Their appeal had concerned a formal defect in the proceedings because the authorities at the origin of the supplementary tax demand had acted outside their powers and the applicants had been unable to
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0624DEC002800102
24 juin 2008
24 juin 2008
On 9 March 2001 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in United Kingdom law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
Source officiellePRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-957039-986455
12 mars 2004
12 mars 2004
Act of 1994 and the leading judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 2000 infringed their property right, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, because
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0315DEC004417398
15 mars 2001
15 mars 2001
The first hearing was adjourned because the applicant was ill.
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1434817-1498293
31 janvier 2002
31 janvier 2002
The applicant contends that her husband had received several death threats because of his articles and political opinions.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-6928
6 avril 2000
6 avril 2000
Greece [GC] - 34369/97 Judgment 6.4.2000 [GC] Article 14 Discrimination Obligation of State to treat differently persons convicted of offences committed because of their religious beliefs: violation Facts
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-5114
26 novembre 2002
26 novembre 2002
.) - 3314/02 Decision 26.11.2002 [Section II] Article 3 Extradition Staying of extradition because of refusal of authorities of requesting State to accept conditions stipulated: struck out The applicant
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2827
15 mars 2007
15 mars 2007
Conclusions : no violation in two applications because there had been abuse by the applicants in obtaining the property in questionand, in any case, they had obtained adequate compensation (unanimously
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-172644
10 mars 2017
10 mars 2017
They stated that the contracts had never been brought into effect and that no payments had been made between the parties because the real reason for them had been money laundering.
Source officiellePage 92 sur 1499