Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERT AND LE COMPTE v. BELGIUM

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 11, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 11, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Satisfaction équitable réservée (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
• juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 04.12.1979 - 7299/75
• EGMR, 28.05.1982 - 7299/75
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75, 7496/76
• EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 7299/75

Wird zitiert von ... (151)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  Belgian legislation on the Ordre des médecins, particularly on the organs of the Ordre and the procedure followed in disciplinary matters, is described in the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981 (Series A no. 43, pp. 11-17, paras. 20-34).

  Noting that Dr. Le Compte's allegations regarding Article 11 (art. 11) were similar to those he had made in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, the Commission referred back to its report of 14 December 1979 (paras. 61-65) and to the Court's judgment of 23 June 1981 (Series A no. 43, p. 17, para. 36, and pp. 26-27, paras. 62-66).

  1 (art. 6-1) (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 19, para. 41, and the references therein to previous case law).

  1 (art. 6-1): a right must be the object - or one of the objects - of the "contestation" (dispute) (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 21, para. 47).

  1 (art. 6-1) was applicable (Series A no. 27, p. 32, para. 95, and Series A no. 43, p. 22, para. 48).

  1 (art. 6-1) is applicable, conferring powers in this manner does not in itself infringe the Convention (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 23, first sub-paragraph).

  96; and the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, pp.

  In point of fact, paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1), violation of which was alleged by the two applicants, applies in civil matters as well as in the criminal sphere (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, pp. 23-24, para. 53).

  No issue can be taken as to the impartiality of the Court of Cassation (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 58).

  In particular, the manner of appointment of the medical practitioners sitting on the Appeals Councils provides no cause for treating those individuals as biased: although elected by the Provincial Councils (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 14, para. 26), they act not as representatives of the Ordre des médecins but - like the legal members nominated by the Crown - in a personal capacity.

  Subject to the exceptions permitted by the second sentence, the defendant medical practitioner is entitled to such publicity if, during the course of disciplinary proceedings brought against him, there arises a contestation (dispute) over civil rights and obligations (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and de Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 59).

  1 (art. 6-1) if the domestic law so permits and this is in accordance with the will of the person concerned (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and de Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 59).

  The Court of Cassation does not take cognisance of the merits of the case, which means that many aspects of "contestations" (disputes) concerning "civil rights and obligations", including review of the facts and assessment of the proportionality between the fault and the sanction, fall outside its jurisdiction (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 16, para. 33).

  In the submission of Dr. Le Compte, the obligation to join the Ordre des médecins (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 12, para. 21) inhibited freedom of association - which implied freedom not to associate - and went beyond the limits of the restrictions permitted under paragraph 2 of Article 11 (art. 11-2); furthermore, so he contended, the very existence of the Ordre had the effect of eliminating freedom of association.

  6878/75 75 and 7238/75 of Doctors Le Compte, Van Leuven and de Meyere (see the above-mentioned judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 26, para. 63), the Commission considered it pointless in the instant case to hear fresh argument on observance of Article 11 (art. 11).

  In my partly dissenting opinion in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere (judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 34-38), I amply expounded the reasons that, to my regret, have led me to dissociate myself from the conclusions of the majority of my colleagues as regards the applicability of Article 6 para.

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  1 (art. 6-1) (see notably, mutatis mutandis, the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 19, para. 39).

  1 (art. 6-1) (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36).

  On the other hand, the Court must satisfy itself that before the Appeals Council or, failing that, before the Court of Cassation Dr. Albert and Dr. Le Compte had the benefit of the "right to a court" (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36) and of a determination by a tribunal of the matters in dispute (see the above-mentioned König judgment, Series A no. 27, p. 34, para. 98 in fine), both for questions of fact and for questions of law.

• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  1 (art. 6-1) was applicable (Series A no. 27, p. 32, para. 95, and Series A no. 43, p. 22, para. 48).

  On the other hand, the Court must satisfy itself that before the Appeals Council or, failing that, before the Court of Cassation Dr. Albert and Dr. Le Compte had the benefit of the "right to a court" (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36) and of a determination by a tribunal of the matters in dispute (see the above-mentioned König judgment, Series A no. 27, p. 34, para. 98 in fine), both for questions of fact and for questions of law.

  87; the above-mentioned König judgment, Series A no. 27, pp.

• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  In addition, it must be shown that the "contestation" (dispute) related to "civil rights and obligations", in other words that the "result of the proceedings" was "decisive" for such a right (see the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, para. 94).

  In point of fact, in that judgment the Court stated that "the French expression 'contestations sur (des) droits et obligations de caractère civil' covers all proceedings the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations" and that "the English text, 'determination of... civil rights and obligations', confirms this interpretation" (Series A no. 13).

• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  As for impartiality judged from an objective and organisational point of view (see, mutatis mutandis, the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, para. 30), there is nothing in the material submitted to prompt the Court to call the matter into question.
• EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  1 (art. 6-1) would prevent a medical practitioner from waiving, of his own free will and in an unequivocal manner (see the Neumeister judgment of 7 May 1974, Series A no. 17, p. 16, para. 36), the entitlement to have his case heard in public; conducting disciplinary proceedings of this kind in private does not contravene Article 6 para.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …

  Furthermore, in considering whether a punishment or treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium , judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 13, § 22).
• EuGH, 29.10.2015 - C-174/14

  Saudaçor - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Mehrwertsteuer - Richtlinie …

  Eine gleichlautende Bestimmung findet sich in Art. 9 Abs. 2 der Regionalen Gesetzgebenden Verordnung Nr. 7/2008/A über Rechtsvorschriften für den Sektor der öffentlichen Unternehmen der Autonomen Region Azoren (Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 7/2008/A, Regime do sector público empresarial da Região Autónoma dos Açores) vom 5. März 2008 (Diário da República I, Serie A, Nr. 58 vom 24. März 2008, S. 1649) in Bezug auf regionale öffentliche Unternehmen.
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83
  Außerdem wäre es missbräuchlich, den Text 15 Jahre nach seiner Formulierung als allgemein und unbestimmt zu werten und sich dabei hauptsächlich auf spätere Rechtsprechung der Konventionsorgane zu stützen, insbesondere das Urteil Albert und Le Compte vom 10. Februar 1983 (Série A Nr. 58, EGMR-E 2, 208).

  Der Gerichtshof hatte zu jenem Zeitpunkt noch nicht klargestellt, dass Art. 6 Abs. 1 auch das "Recht auf Zugang zum Gericht" garantiere und eine gerichtliche Entscheidung des Rechtsstreites sowohl in tatsächlicher als auch in rechtlicher Hinsicht erfordere (siehe das vorzitierte Urteil Albert und Le Compte, Série A Nr. 58, S. 16, Ziff. 29, EGMR-E 2, 216).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  According to the Court's case-law, even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58, and Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 42, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
  1 (art. 6-1) de la Convention - comme c'est le cas en l'espèce de l'administration du district et du gouvernement du Land (paragraphes 9 et 10 ci-dessus) - subisse le contrôle ultérieur d'un "organe judiciaire de pleine juridiction" (voir notamment, mutatis mutandis, les arrêts Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique du 10 février 1983, série A n° 58, p. 16, par. 29, Öztürk précité, pp. 21-22, par. 56, et Fischer c. Autriche du 26 avril 1995, série A n° 312, p. 17, par. 28).

  53, et l'arrêt Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique du 10 février 1983, série A n° 58, p. 17, par.

• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
  In both of these judgments, the Court held that proceedings instituted against the applicants before the disciplinary organs of the Ordre des médecins (Medical Association) gave rise to a "contestation" (dispute) over "civil rights and obligations" (Series A no. 43, pp. 20-22, paras. 44-49, and Series A no. 58, pp. 14-16, paras. 27-28).

  1 (art. 6-1)." (Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29).

  As confirmation of this, the Government cited the Oztürk judgment of 21 February 1984 (Series A no. 73, pp. 21-22, para. 56) in addition to the above-mentioned judgments of 23 June 1981 and 10 February 1983 (Series A no. 43, pp. 23-24, para. 53, and Series A no. 58, pp. 16-17, para. 30).

  In the present case, on the other hand, what was involved was a trial which not only the Convention but also Belgian law classified as criminal; the Oudenaarde criminal court was neither an administrative or professional authority, nor a jurisdictional organ of a professional association (see the above-mentioned judgments, Series A no. 43, p. 23, para. 51, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29, and Series A no. 73, pp. 21-22, para. 56), but a proper court in both the formal and the substantive meaning of the term (Decisions and Reports, no. 15, p. 78, paras. 59-60, and p. 87: opinion of the Commission and decision of the Committee of Ministers on application no. 7360/76, Zand v. Austria).

• EGMR, 12.03.2003 - 46221/99

  Freiheit der Person (rechtmäßige Freiheitsentziehung; effektives …

  Furthermore, in considering whether a punishment or treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 ( Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium , 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 13, § 22).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 55391/13

  RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

  Bearing in mind that the two aspects, civil and criminal, of Article 6 of the Convention are not necessarily mutually exclusive (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 30, Series A no. 58), and given the scope of the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b), the Grand Chamber considers, unlike the Chamber, that it should assess whether the above-mentioned Article is also applicable under its criminal head.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.09.2025 - C-474/24

  Die Veröffentlichung des Namens jedes Berufssportlers, der gegen …

  {FN:70} Vgl. EGMR, 10. Februar 1983, Albert und Le Compte/Belgien (CE:ECHR:1983:0210JUD000729975, § 30 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), EGMR, 6. November 2018, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá/Portugal (CE:ECHR:2018:1106JUD005539113, § 121), und EGMR, 1. Juni 2023, Grosam/Tschechische Republik (CE:ECHR:2023:0601JUD001975013, § 112).
• EGMR - 3073/25 (anhängig)

  VALIEVA v. SWITZERLAND and 7 other applications

  3.2 La présomption d'innocence s'applique-t-elle en l'espèce en tant que principe inhérent à la notion de procès équitable au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ? (voir Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 30, série A no 58).

  2.2 La présomption d'innocence s'applique-t-elle en l'espèce en tant que principe inhérent à la notion de procès équitable au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ? (voir Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 30, série A no 58).

  2.2 La présomption d'innocence s'applique-t-elle en l'espèce en tant que principe inhérent à la notion de procès équitable au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ? (voir Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 30, série A no 58).

  1.2 La présomption d'innocence s'applique-t-elle en l'espèce en tant que principe inhérent à la notion de procès équitable au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ? (voir Albert et Le Compte c. Belgique, 10 février 1983, § 30, série A no 58).

• EGMR, 12.02.1985 - 9024/80
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
• EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88

  KRASKA c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 40378/10

  ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15227/19

  Albanien: erfolglose Klage vor dem EGMR gegen Entlassung als Verfassungsrichterin …
• EuG, 11.03.1999 - T-156/94

  Aristrain / Kommission
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.02.2011 - C-272/09

  KME Germany u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartell zur …
• EGMR, 15.12.2025 - 16915/21

  Rumänischer Richter, der sich online äußert: Disziplinarstrafe wegen …
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16841/90
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38455/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16713/90
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20

  JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 19600/15

  R.S. v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 7299/75
• EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 26602/25
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

  EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 56665/09

  KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.02.2011 - C-521/09

  Elf Aquitaine / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Kartelle - Europäischer Markt für …
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 22493/93

  BERKTAY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16718/90
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.09.2002 - C-199/99

  Corus UK / Kommission
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 51160/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69742/01

  GUBLER c. FRANCE
• EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  GINIKANWA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.06.2015 - C-174/14

  Saudaçor - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Mehrwertsteuer - Richtlinie …
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03

  GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 7610/15

  VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09
• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 16.09.2015 - 2 A 1871/15

  Vertretung einer Privatperson durch einen zugelassenen Rechtsanwalt i.R.d. …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.04.1994 - C-404/92

  X gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Rechtsmittel - Bediensteter …
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 53541/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 37575/04

  BOULOIS v. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 29889/04

  VANJAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  OVCHARENKO v. UKRAINE and 1 other application
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 53025/99

  FRANKOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 35811/97

  KOLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 13278/20

  BILI?ƒSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 53980/10

  KUTLUK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 72437/11

  DONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14

  BIAGIOLI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 33268/03

  ASHUGHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 26297/95

  G.S. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 45512/11

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2003 - 29010/95

  CREDIT INDUSTRIEL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  STURUA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2324/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 42509/05

  CROMPTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.06.1997 - 19773/92
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13839/88
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  PERIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 27473/02

  ERDOGAN YAGIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  A. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 15814/02

  PORTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 43237/13

  CATANA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 40444/17

  KOOPERATIV NEPTUN SERVIS c. RUSSIE et 2 autres affaires
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 10212/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 1855/02

  KÖK c. TURQUIE
• EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 18778/91

  S. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 24695/09

  GÜDER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.08.1997 - 22839/93

  DE HAAN c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32197/09

  KARABULUT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 9078/06

  TARHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 15869/09

  OZKAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.08.2010 - 4523/04

  ALAVERDYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 48107/99

  PAROISSE GRECO-CATHOLIQUE SAMBATA BIHOR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 37829/05

  MELEK SIMA YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 37330/02

  DEFALQUE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 43874/98

  LINNEKOGEL c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 09.01.2001 - 39996/98

  OUENDENO contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 32813/96

  LINDNER v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 08.03.1994 - 20490/92

  ISKCON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 47453/17

  GJURASIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 79089/13

  LOQUIFER c. BELGIQUE et 2 autres affaires
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 32216/15

  BONNEMAISON c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 14139/09

  SA PATRONALE HYPOTHÉCAIRE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 7984/06

  SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 14317/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 8615/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 67086/01

  KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 18363/02

  PUOLAKKA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 61302/00

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 73804/01

  STORCK contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 48057/99

  YORGIYADIS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.11.2001 - 59244/00

  ÖZTÜRK contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 41221/98

  TROIANI contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 35019/97

  LUDESCHER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 42268/98

  J.-M. F. contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.01.1999 - 30937/96

  ZOON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 12.01.1994 - 18874/91

  X. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 76985/12

  FUMAL c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 39664/12

  DE LAENDER ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 52691/13

  DEPRAETERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.12.2017 - 42758/05

  FELDMAN AND SLOVYANSKYY BANK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 44887/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.10.2009 - 49037/06

  CHAUDET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 18527/08

  GAMALEDDYN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 13729/03

  LAFONT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 40305/98

  INSAN HAKLARI DERNEGI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 72098/01

  MALAVIOLLE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63916/00

  KROKSTÄDE v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 06.07.2000 - 41957/98

  BARRY v. IRELAND
• EKMR, 15.01.1998 - 30552/96

  A.P.B LTD., A.P.P AND E.A. B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 28502/95

  R.C. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25993/94

  SCHREPFFER v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 23378/94

  P.S. V. v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 22206/93

  LANG-LÜSSI v. SWITZERLAND
• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 20619/92

  BIRNLEITNER v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 30.11.1994 - 19798/92

  AUGUSTIN S.A. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 31.03.1993 - 18975/91

  M.F. contre la FRANCE
• EKMR, 12.10.1992 - 16534/90

  O. v. ICELAND
• EKMR, 12.12.1988 - 12645/87

  R. v. the NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 80237/13

  HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 18450/07

  BINGOL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 32976/04

  MERIGAUD c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.03.2002 - 2352/02
• EKMR, 27.10.1998 - 18902/91

  H.N. c. ITALIE
• EKMR, 19.01.1998 - 28530/95

  X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.08.2016 - 64953/14

  KHOLODOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02

  HAMALAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 16.10.1996 - 21073/92

  S.J., B.J. AND G.J. v. SWEDEN
• EKMR, 28.02.1994 - 19130/91

  DEMMER v. AUSTRIA