CtEDO 08.06.2021 RO

Arrêt Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” c. Lituanie - refus d'accorder la reconnaissance de l'État n'est pas une décision neutre et impartiale : défaut de recours effectif

HOTĂRÂRE

08.06.2021

RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2021
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro

Citează această cauză

Arrêt Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” c. Lituanie - refus d'accorder la reconnaissance de l'État n'est pas une décision neutre et impartiale : défaut de recours effectif (CtEDO, 2021)

Textul complet nu este disponibil. Consultați sursa originală.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze

CtEDO 2025-12-04

0,91

AFFAIRE ASSOCIATION « ROMUVA » DE L’ANCIENNE RELIGION BALTE CONTRE LA LITUANIE

Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée ; Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été

CtEDO 2024-09-18

0,90

ANCIENT BALTIC RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION “ROMUVA” v. LITHUANIA

in the applicant association’s initial case of Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” v. Lithuania (no. 48329/19, 8 June 2021) or does it contain relevant new information capable of giving rise to a fresh violation of the Convention?

CtEDO 2021-06-01

0,89

Association ACCEPT et autres c. Roumanie

Partiellement irrecevable (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestement mal fondé;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation de l'article 14+8 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 -

CtEDO 2025-12-04

0,89

CASE OF ANCIENT BALTIC RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION “ROMUVA” AGAINST LITHUANIA

of Human Rights Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” against Lithuania (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2025 at the 1545 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 48329/19

CtEDO 2025-04-24

0,89

ANCIENT BALTIC RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION “ROMUVA” v. LITHUANIA

Convention that it did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain against that decision. Those complaints were communicated to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”). The Government were also asked to comment on whether Article

Sursă