in respect of their claims.

sur les procédures ouvertes en application des articles L.342-7, L. 342-12, L. 743-11 et L. 743-21 du code d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France et du droit d'asile, Assistée de Charlotte COMBAL

.342-7, L. 342-12, L. 743-11 et L. 743-21 du code d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France et du droit d'asile, Assistée de Céline DESPLANCHES, greffière lors des des débats et de Charlotte COMBAL

    On 28 April 2010 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 13 May 2014.

Since the applicant’s wife did not fall into either of these categories, the claim had to be rejected. The first applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the courts.

Inadmissible under Article 3: Concerning the alleged risk of persecution, the applicants had submitted no evidence to substantiate their claims about past threats and harassment.

On 31 March 2023 the first instance court rejected her claim on the grounds that secondary school teachers and technical teachers belonged to different job categories and that even if their functions were

By a final judgment dated 11 April 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.

release: contributed to a general debate on political morals between two rival Austrian parties - mentioned only incidentally an old traffic accident for which a politician had been convicted and compared

They placed claimants whose claims had not been determined by a final decision at the time of the entry into force of the 1993 amendment at an unfair disadvantage compared with claimants whose claims had

. / Les nouvelles clôtures doivent comporter un dispositif à claire-voie.

Sur le rapport de Mme le conseiller référendaire MENOTTI, les observations de la société civile professionnelle BORE, XAVIER et BORE, avocat en la Cour, et les conclusions de Mme l'avocat général COMMARET

The first applicant then brought a claim against Islington in the Employment Tribunal. b. The domestic proceedings The first applicant lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal in London.

From 6 October to 16 October 1995, the District Court held a hearing ( pääkäsittely ) concerning a claim made by the defendants challenging the claimant’s right to raise its claims, and concerning the

sur les procédures ouvertes en application des articles L.342-7, L. 342-12, L. 743-11 et L. 743-21 du code d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France et du droit d'asile, Assistée de Charlotte COMBAL

articles L.342-7, L. 342-12, L. 743-11 et L. 743-21 du code d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France et du droit d'asile, Assistée de Manon CHINCHOLE, greffier lors des débats et de Charlotte COMBAL

articles L.342-7, L. 342-12, L. 743-11 et L. 743-21 du code d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France et du droit d'asile, Assistée de Manon CHINCHOLE, greffier lors des débats et de Charlotte COMBAL

articles L.342-7, L. 342-12, L. 743-11 et L. 743-21 du code d'entrée et de séjour des étrangers en France et du droit d'asile, Assistée de Manon CHINCHOLE, greffier lors des débats et de Charlotte COMBAL

On 19 December 2001 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim. The defendant appealed.