CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0915DEC001068203
15 septembre 2009
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0825DEC002324218
25 août 2022
{ margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s10950C61 { margin-top
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0322DEC003077396
22 mars 2001
{ margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0705DEC006261900
5 juillet 2005
:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-182703
6 avril 2018
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28
ECLI:CEDH:001-188053
8 novembre 2018
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1125JUD003481302
25 novembre 2008
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1114DEC004279417
14 novembre 2019
{ margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9793A85B { margin-top
CASELAW;CLIN;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:002-1490
23 juin 2009
:super } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom
ECLI:CEDH:001-113530
26 août 2010
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9AB72ABC { width:297.83pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0504DEC006261900
4 mai 2004
:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom
civ3
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2012:C300658
31 mai 2012
TROISIÈME CHAMBRE CIVILE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le moyen unique : Attendu, selon l'arrêt attaqué (Versailles, 3 mars 2011), que la SCI La Pierre de l'Ile de France (la SCI) et la SARL Sogil
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1129DEC001695703
29 novembre 2005
ECLI:CEDH:002-4019
3 février 2005
ECLI:CEDH:001-116882
28 janvier 2013
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1218DEC005817510
18 décembre 2018
The Government of Turkey declare that they offer to pay jointly to the applicants İhsan Şeker, Sürya Şeker, Şahide Akyıldız, Maide Orbay, Hamdullah Şeker, Mustafa Şeker, Songül   Şeker, Naide Şeker
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-1489
.s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt;
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0623JUD001708903
:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1004DEC007329601
4 octobre 2005
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-110620
8 mars 2012
Referring to the Court’s case-law in cases concerning the positive obligation to protect the right to life, the first applicant asked the Assize Court to quash the prosecutor’s decision.
Page 2 sur 9