CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-145891
30 juin 2014
Surjan, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Page 2 sur 7
9 / 8 SSR
CETAT:CETATEXT000007876663
26 juin 1996
Jean X..., demeurant à Gigny-sur-Suran Saint-Julien (39320) ; M.
ECLI:CEDH:001-220362
27 septembre 2022
margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 October 2022 FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54676/17 Susanna
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0427JUD005247899
27 avril 2004
In the case of Surman-Januszewska v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1217JUD003618421
17 décembre 2024
In the case of Sultana v.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0104DEC001450304
4 janvier 2012
xa0; Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2004, Having regard to the Government’s settlement proposal made
Tribunal Administratif de la Polynésie française
ORTA_2500288_20250717
17 juillet 2025
dès l'attribution ; les offres présentées indiquaient un montant ; le procès-verbal du " comité " indique qu'une délibération à venir permettra de formaliser l'entrée en partenariat avec le groupe SURBANA
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0312JUD002298310
12 mars 2019
He made statements similar to those of his wife, the second applicant.
ECLI:CEDH:001-167633
23 septembre 2016
in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the applicants’ house in Selmentauzen and took Mr R.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0318JUD000790102
18 mars 2014
: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:0219DEC001621390
19 février 1992
Before their marriage in 1984, the first applicant's name was Susanna Maria Simone Burghartz; the second applicant's name was Albert Johann Schnyder.
ECLI:CEDH:001-142802
4 avril 2014
She confirmed that the first applicant had been served with all relevant orders the Centre had made.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1206DEC006577414
6 décembre 2022
On 14 April 2005 the applicants made additional submissions ( shpjegime per padinë ) to the court stating that their ownership title for the plot was lawful.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0706DEC004565708
6 juillet 2010
width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45657/08 by Urszula SURMAN-JANUSZEWSKA
CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-55593
21 septembre 1994
Switzerland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 January 1990 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by a married couple, Mr Albert Burghartz, a Swiss and German national, and Ms Susanna
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CEDH:001-231303
1 février 2024
CARRARA italienne Sergio PAOLINI 1977 ASCOLI PICENO italienne Claudia PAOLIZZI 1970 TERAMO italienne Mario PASQUINELLI 1955 MASSA CARRARA italienne Fabio PERILLO 1975 GROSSETO italienne Roberta POLIDORO
Cour d'Appel
6253cbf2bd3db21cbdd8eb13
30 novembre 2011
et Gérard X... ont, en leurs écritures déposées le 16 décembre 2010 auxquelles il convient de se référer pour plus ample exposé de leurs moyens et prétentions, cantonné leur appel à l'exclusion de la masse
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0105DEC001388504
5 janvier 2010
On 1 August 2002 the Minister appointed a commission to make a pre ‑ selection of the candidates.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0408DEC004249518
8 avril 2021
The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
ECLI:CEDH:001-226179
6 juillet 2023
In particular, (a) did the Supreme Court have competence under domestic law to make a different assessment of the facts than that already done by the district and appeal courts (see Sokurenko and Strygun