Examples of using Ecthr in English and their translations into Chinese
{-}
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Programming
ECtHR= European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants were paid the financial compensation awarded by the ECtHR.
Article 2 Protocol 1 of the ECtHR deals with the right to education and reads as follows.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 37571/97, Veeber v. Estonia, judgement of 7 November 2002.
Bosphorus then lodged a complaint at the ECtHR claiming a violation of its right to property.
However, the ECtHR recognizes that the remedy has an administrative rather than a judicial character.
In determining what constitutes a civil right or obligation, the ECtHR has been less straightforward.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 71614/01, Crnojevic v. Croatia, admissibility decision of 29 April 2003.
Of the 346 cases brought before the ECtHR, as of 31 December 2011, 282 were closed, whereas 64 are still pending.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 29392/95, Z and others v. United Kingdom, judgement of 10 May 2001, par. 73.
As to the legality of Ahmed's detention, the ECtHR held that there had been no violation of Article 5 or 34(judge Sicilianos partially dissenting).
ECtHR Appl. No. 57836/00, Mellors v. United Kingdom, inadmissibility decision of 19 June 2001.
Similarly in the case of N.B. against Slovakia, the ECtHR did not accept the applicant' s allegation on ineffective investigation of her sterilization.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 214/56, De Becker v. Belgium, Series A, Vol. 4, judgement of 27 March 1962.
For example ECtHR, Appl. No. 21987/93, Aksoy v. Turkey, judgement of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 8978/80, X and Y v. The Netherlands, judgement of 26 March 1985, Series A, Vol. 91, par. 23.
For example, ECtHR, Appl. No. 13057/87, Demicoli v. Malta, judgement of 27 August 1991, Series A, Vol. 210, par. 45.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 71549/01, Cvijetic v. Croatia, decision declaring an application partly admissible, 3 April 2003.
However, ECtHR involvement would be considered a first instance case, not an appeal of the French court's ruling.
The ECtHR provides more specific guidelines as to what this right may entail in practice, as is set out below.
ECtHR, Appl. No. 8919/80, Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgement of 23 November 1983, Series A, No. 70, par. 29.
The ECtHR stated that the manner in which national authorities had been acting was not in compliance with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition.
The ECtHR ruled that the concept of criminal charge bears an" autonomous meaning," which is independent of the characterization of a measure pursuant to national law.
In March, the ECtHR combined and communicated the complaints of 61 Russian NGOs against the“foreign agents” law; and Russian authorities filed their comments in September.
The ECtHR evaluated this domestic mechanism as an efficient remedy and it formally issued an evaluation asking applicants to apply to the domestic mechanism created by the Turkish Government.