Judgments Jankauskas and Lekaviciene v. Lithuania - exclusions from the Bar did not violate Convention

CtEDO 2023-10-12 0,88

missed the applicant’s request for legal costs. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the prohibition for him to enter statutory service was not prescribed by law, and that it was disproportionate. The applicant fur

CtEDO 2011-12-02 0,88

ation and Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights aimed in particular at Lithuanian judges and civil servants. Finally, the relevant national authorities, including the Chancellor of the Government, the President of the Pa

CtEDO 2022-03-25 0,88

s on points of law on 8 January 2020 impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the participation of Judge D.Š. in that panel (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited ther

CtEDO 2017-06-27 0,88

the disciplinary proceedings. It would also have been irrelevant to summon A.P. as she had not sat in the Court of Honour when it had decided on the applicant’s case on 23 November 2007. 28. As to the merits of the complaint, the Vilnius Re

CtEDO 2003-03-20 0,88

laws in Lithuania. Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court detects no interest warranting it to continue the examination of the application. By reference to Articl