CtEDO 18.07.2023 RO

Judgment Manole v. Republic of Moldova - Judge penalized for disclosing prematurely the reasons for her dissenting opinion : breach of freedom of expression provision

HOTĂRÂRE
18.07.2023
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2023
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
Judgment Manole v. Republic of Moldova - Judge penalized for disclosing prematurely the reasons for her dissenting opinion : breach of freedom of expression provision (CtEDO, 2023)

Textul complet nu este disponibil. Consultați sursa originală.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2025-12-04
0,89
CASE OF MANOLE AND OTHERS AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
; Having examined the action report and the communication provided by the government, indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction
CtEDO 2023-07-12
0,88
CASE OF MANOLE AGAINST ROMANIA
Resolution CM/ResDH(2023)195 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Manole against Romania (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 July 2023 at the 1472 nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) Application No. Ca
CtEDO 2022-05-02
0,88
BALACCI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 2. Has there been an interference with the applicant
CtEDO 2022-10-19
0,87
CASE OF PANCENCO AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)266 Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights Igor Pancenco against Republic of Moldova (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 2022 at the 1446 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputi
CtEDO 2019-01-15
0,87
CASE OF MĂTĂSARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
not conduct a proper balancing exercise of the different interests involved and imposed a very heavy sanction on the applicant in the form of a suspended prison sentence. In the Court’s view, the circumstances of the instant case present no
Sursă