Caamaño Valle v. Spain
Document contents
omitted):
“Seven out of the 28 EU Member States – Austria, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, the
Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom – guarantee the right to
Judgment
Strøbye & Rosenlind v. Denmark
Document contents
alia, paragraph 115 of the judgment delivered on
16 March 2006 in Ždanoka v. Latvia (application no. 58278/00) and paragraphs 57
and 62 of the judgment delivered on
Judgment
Alajos Kiss v. Hungary
Document contents
Labita v. Italy [GC], no.
26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33,
ECHR 2002-II). ...
62. It is, however, for the
Judgment
Election Dispute Resolution Report 2020
Document contents
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway
- Preview
Resources
Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia
Document contents
(see Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 25, ECHR 2004-V,
and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-IV) or
“subjective rights” (see Melnychenko
- Preview
Resources
Grosaru v. Romania
Document contents
Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Georgia (Tbilisi Court and Court of Appeal), Hungary, Latvia (Department
of Administrative Affairs of the Senate of the Supreme Court), Spain
- Preview
Resources
Communist Party of Russia v. Russia
Document contents
Contracting State to
mould into its own democratic vision (see Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no.
58278/00, § 103, ECHR 2006-IV). The States “enjoy considerable latitude
- Preview
Resources
Atakishi v. Azerbaijan
Document contents
and the general objectives of the Convention (see, for example,
Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-IV). The Court
accepts the Government’s
- Preview
Resources
Kerimova v. Azerbaijan
Document contents
procedure
contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions (see Podkolzina
v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 35, ECHR 2002-II). Although originally stated in
connection
- Preview
Resources
Hajili v. Azerbaijan
Document contents
procedure
contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions
(see Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 35, ECHR 2002-II). Although
originally stated in connection
- Preview
Resources
Aliyev v. Azerbaijan
Document contents
Greece, no. 33554/03, § 56, ECHR 2006-VIII). In the case of
Podkolzina v. Latvia, the Court stated that the right to stand as a candidate
in an
- Preview
Resources
Tanase v. Moldova
Document contents
in Lithuania. No figures are
available for Latvia. Around a quarter of the population of Estonia and
Latvia is ethnically Russian.
92. In the States of
- Preview
Resources
Early Election of Deputies of Ukraine 2019: A Guide for Judges
Document contents
УКРАЇНИ 2019
ПОСІБНИК ДЛЯ СУДДІВ
СПРАВА «ПОДКОЛЗІНА ПРОТИ ЛАТВІЇ»
(PODKOLZINA V. LATVIA)
(ЗАЯВА № 46726/99)
9 КВІТНЯ 2002 РОКУ
п. 35
Право висувати свою
- Preview
Resources
Guide to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Document contents
1987, § 54; Podkolzina
v. Latvia, 2002, § 33; Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 2006, § 106).
56. In Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], 2006, the applicant had been
- Preview
Resources
Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors, and Lawyers
Document contents
Nations Compilation of General Comments, p. 141, para. 14.
170 As to Latvia, see UN doc. GAOR, A/50/40, p. 63, para. 344.
171 As to
- Preview
Resources
Yumak & Sadak v. Turkey
Document contents
July 1997, § 44, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1997-IV, and Briķe v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47135/99, 29 June 2000).
18
YUMAK AND SADAK v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
- Preview
Resources
Sitaropoulos v. Greece
Document contents
Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Moldova,
Monaco, the Netherlands
- Preview
Resources
Obradovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Document contents
6 April, Reports
of Judgements and Decisions 2000-IV). In the Podkolzina v. Latvia case (Eur. Court HR, judgement of
9 April 2002), the European Court considered
Judgment
GUARDE: Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections
Document contents
Partija “Jaunie Demokrāti”
v. Latvia, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. Nos. 10547/07 and 34049/07, Judgment of 29 Nov. 2007)); see
also Zdanoka v. Latvia, Eur. Ct. H.R., App
- Preview
Resources
GUARDE: Directrices para la comprension y resolucion de conflictos electorales
Document contents
vs Latvia, Corte Europea de Derechos Humanos, casos 10547/07 y 34049/07, juicio del 29 de noviembre de
2007); ver también Zdanoka vs Latvia, Corte
- Preview
Resources
Electoral Justice Regulations Around the World: Key findings from International IDEA's global research on electoral dispute-resolution systems
Document contents
includes various types of
institution, such as the anti-corruption agencies in Latvia and Serbia,
the Chairman of the Knesset in Israel and the Party Transparency
- Preview
Resources
23 shown of 23 entities