CodexAI

par KI

Workspace

Toutes les décisions2.7M+Récentes

Judiciaires

Cour de CassationCour d'AppelTribunal JudiciaireTrib. de Commerce

Administratives

Conseil d'ÉtatCour Admin. d'AppelTrib. Administratif

Codes de loi

Code civilCode du travailCode de commerceCode pénalCode procédure civileCGICode sécu. socialeCode de l'urbanismeCode de l'enviro.Code monétaire fin.

Droit social

Prud'hommes19KConventions coll.26KDoctrine fiscale14K

IA & Outils

IA JuridiqueNEWVeille hebdoNEWMCP ServerAPICitationsStatistiquesAlertes
ConnexionS'inscrire

CodexAI

RechercheJurisprudenceCodesCitationsStatistiquesAlertes
Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
Exporter CSV

12 110 résultats pour « Favot »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0516DEC000239422

Admin. suprême

16 mai 2023

16 mai 2023

    In all those cases, the competent district court issued two separate assignment orders – one in favour of the first applicant and one in favour of his clients – each awarding the first applicant

Page 113 sur 606

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0706JUD007030610

Admin. suprême

6 juillet 2021

6 juillet 2021

    The applicant replied that the quashing of a final judgment in her favour constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. 45.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0331JUD005034607

Admin. suprême

31 mars 2016

31 mars 2016

    The applicant complained about the failure of the regional governor of Sofia region to implement a final judgment in his favour. 4.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1019JUD006555001

Admin. suprême

19 octobre 2006

19 octobre 2006

Koval in the amount of UAH 500,000 to be forfeited in favour of the State.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0730JUD003967803

Admin. suprême

30 juillet 2015

30 juillet 2015

In the Court’s view, it should have become apparent to him that the debtor company was no longer in a position to honour the relevant judgments in his favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0922DEC000568708

Admin. suprême

22 septembre 2009

22 septembre 2009

  1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in her favour by the Torez Town Court on 21   August and 13   September 2004.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-2855

Admin. suprême

1 février 2007

1 février 2007

The applicant did not favour the compromise that was finally reached and had reacted by saying that the teachers were applying intolerable pressure on the pupils that amounted to an abuse of their authority

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-3839

Admin. suprême

16 juin 2005

16 juin 2005

They allege to have continued being frequently subjected to verbal assaults, and that the first applicant, who was involved in work in favour of Roma rights, suffered constant discriminatory practices

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-4180

Admin. suprême

26 octobre 2004

26 octobre 2004

[The Chamber proposed to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.]   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-4282

Admin. suprême

20 juillet 2004

20 juillet 2004

enjoyment of possessions Virtual extinction of guarantor’s claim as a result of court-approved debt adjustment: no violation   Facts : The applicant agreed by contract to guarantee a bank loan in favour

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0124DEC004410005

Admin. suprême

24 janvier 2008

24 janvier 2008

COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement by the State of the final judgment in her favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0125DEC002313706

Admin. suprême

25 janvier 2011

25 janvier 2011

He also alleged a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given on 28 November 2001 in his favour against

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0619DEC002141404

Admin. suprême

19 juin 2006

19 juin 2006

COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-execution of the judgment in her favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0603DEC000105905

Admin. suprême

3 juin 2010

3 juin 2010

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the authorities' failure to comply with the final judgment in his favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0329DEC003082908

Admin. suprême

29 mars 2011

29 mars 2011

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment rendered in his favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0524DEC003082808

Admin. suprême

24 mai 2011

24 mai 2011

Carić The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the prolonged non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment rendered in his favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0126DEC001109607

Admin. suprême

26 janvier 2010

26 janvier 2010

The applicant complained under Articles 1, 4 § 2, 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the judgment given in her favour had not been enforced in full.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1016DEC004107508

Admin. suprême

16 octobre 2012

16 octobre 2012

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgment delivered in her favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1021DEC002469906

Admin. suprême

21 octobre 2014

21 octobre 2014

  1 of the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in her favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0906DEC001373813

Admin. suprême

6 septembre 2016

6 septembre 2016

The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a judgment rendered in her favour against a socially-owned

Source officielle