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

32 résultats pour « Barbara WAGER »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0629JUD003855002

Admin. suprême

29 juin 2006

29 juin 2006

The compensation was to be obtained through a special fund that was to be established by subsequent legislation. 20.

Source officielle

Page 2 sur 2

← Précédent
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1006JUD003074203

Admin. suprême

6 octobre 2009

6 octobre 2009

The remaining EUR 650 was claimed in respect of postal and telephone expenses. 57.     The Government were of the opinion that the amount claimed was excessive and unsupported. 58.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0208JUD007561701

Admin. suprême

8 février 2007

8 février 2007

At the time, Mrs Dragica Wedam-Lukić was a work colleague of Mr Ude. On 6 January 1993 WA lodged preliminary written submissions arguing that the case was not within the court's jurisdiction.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0605JUD005099608

Admin. suprême

5 juin 2014

5 juin 2014

The remainder of N.N.’s claim was dismissed. 20.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:1003DEC004613399

Admin. suprême

3 octobre 2002

3 octobre 2002

As she was unable to produce the passport, she was taken to a police station and had to pay an administrative fine.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;FRA;FRE

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0427JUD001631807

Admin. suprême

27 avril 2010

27 avril 2010

étroit et que les requérants se comportaient à tous égards comme ses parents de sorte que des «   liens familiaux   » existaient «   de facto   » entre eux (voir, mutatis mutandis , Wagner

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0705JUD004155002

Admin. suprême

5 juillet 2011

5 juillet 2011

On 18   September 1999 the first applicant was hospitalised in the city hospital with a diagnosis of “acute gangrenous perforated appendicitis”, on which an operation was performed immediately. 14

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0211JUD007720916

Admin. suprême

11 février 2020

11 février 2020

He submitted that at the relevant time he was employed by the State and that in February 1984 he was suspended from work and was reinstated again on half pay in March 1987 purely because he was undergoing

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0710JUD001955411

Admin. suprême

10 juillet 2012

10 juillet 2012

    On 12 September 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1003JUD002161307

Admin. suprême

3 octobre 2013

3 octobre 2013

and lives in Moscow; (3)     Mr Kharlamov was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow; (4)     Mr Kalashnikov was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow; (5)     Mr Toropov was born in

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0420JUD001003603

Admin. suprême

20 avril 2010

20 avril 2010

    The first applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Adana. The second applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Hatay.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0612JUD004708106

Admin. suprême

12 juin 2018

12 juin 2018

that a witness or an expert who testified under oath gave false evidence or voted against the convicted person in a way that affected the judgment; c)     one of the judges who [was on the bench

Source officielle