CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0502JUD002195115
2 mai 2017
In the case of Golubar v.
Page 123 sur 819
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0409JUD004906820
9 avril 2026
In the case of Bayramaliyev v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1216JUD004261904
16 décembre 2008
In the case of Vlahović v.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-152551
28 janvier 2015
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.
Tribunal Administratif de Limoges
ORTA_2600187_20260218
18 février 2026
procédure suivante : Par une requête et un mémoire, enregistrés les 26 janvier 2026 et 12 février 2026, la société par actions simplifiées (SAS) Centre express logistique 03, représentée par Me Camière
6ème chambre - formation à 3
DCA_22LY00840_20251030
30 octobre 2025
Toutefois il n’établit pas que ces sommes, facturées à la caisse d'assurance maladie des industries électriques et gazières (CAMIEG), seraient restées à sa charge.
ECLI:CEDH:001-175712
28 juin 2017
The substance of the case as submitted by the applicant can be summarised as follows. The circumstances of the case 1. Suspension of the applicant’s parental authority 2.
ECLI:CEDH:001-163132
27 avril 2016
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0302DEC002389621
2 mars 2023
Salellas I Vilar, a lawyer practising in Girona; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0326DEC003658822
26 mars 2024
The child welfare services appointed a psychologist to examine the case.
ECLI:CEDH:001-175527
19 juin 2017
In February and March 2007 the Dagestan Supreme Court examined the criminal case against the applicant.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0326DEC003808221
Norway , no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway , no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway , no.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1205DEC000394524
5 décembre 2024
Gonzalez Acuña, a lawyer practising in Valencia; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0422JUD004866513
22 avril 2025
In the case of Sadigov v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0329JUD004287418
29 mars 2022
In the case of Buriyev v.
ECLI:CEDH:001-113378
3 septembre 2012
In March 1996 the applicant became a judge in a District Court in Donetsk.
ECLI:CEDH:001-161761
2 mars 2016
On 12 and 13 March 2014, in the applicant’s criminal case, the Moscow City Court examined Mr L. as a witness. On 18 March 2014 the Moscow City Court examined police officer A.M. as a witness.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0928JUD001852113
28 septembre 2021
However, on 16 March 2012, the investigating judge allowed his complaint and ordered the prosecutor’s office to identify the caller ID and the person who had called the applicant on 13 September
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0524DEC006091509
24 mai 2011
The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. The first asylum request 3.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0201DEC003822805
1 février 2007