CtEDO 06.04.2017 AI

CASE OF A.P., GARÇON AND NICOT v. FRANCE - [Romanian Translation] by the European Institute of Romania

RESPONDENT
FRA
HOTĂRÂRE
06.04.2017
Pe scurt
Instanță
CtEDO
Concluzie
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2017
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
CASE OF A.P., GARÇON AND NICOT v. FRANCE - [Romanian Translation] by the European Institute of Romania (CtEDO, 2017)
HUDOC · oficial

Restul inadmisibil (Art. 35) Criterii de admisibilitate; Încălcarea articolului 8 - Dreptul la respectarea vieții private și familiale (Articolul 8 - Obligații pozitive; Articolul 8-1 - Respectarea vieții private); Nicio încălcare a articolului 8 - Dreptul la respectarea vieții private și familiale (Articolul 8 - Obligații pozitive; Articolul 8-1 - Respectarea vieții private); Nicio încălcare a articolului 8 - Dreptul la respectarea vieții private și familiale (Articolul 8 - Obligații pozitive; Articolul 8-1 - Respectarea vieții private); Daune materiale - constatarea încălcării suficientă (Articolul 41 - Daune materiale; Satisfacție echitabilă)

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2017-04-06
0,98
CASE OF A.P., GARÇON AND NICOT v. FRANCE - [Romanian Translation] legal summary by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
CtEDO 2017-04-06
0,98
CASE OF A.P., GARÇON AND NICOT v. FRANCE
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
CtEDO 2017-04-06
0,97
A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
CtEDO 2025-01-16
0,96
CASE OF A.C. v. FRANCE
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1
CtEDO 2025-01-16
0,96
A.C. v. France
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1
Sursă