poursuites et diligences de son représentant légal en exercice, dont le siège est sis [Adresse 3] représentée par la SCP MJ DE SAINT FERREOL ET COLETTE TOUBOUL, avoués à la Cour, assistée de Me Marc RINGLE

Ainsi, la possession légale utile pour prescrire un bien immobilier ne peut s'établir à l'origine que par des actes maté-riels continus d'occupation réelle.

Elle a pour activité l'achat, la vente, la location de mate riel de bureautique informatique et consommable ainsi que le conseil en gestion et le traitement du document copie.

Le preneur fera assurer auprès de compagnies d'assurance pour des sommes suffisantes, les agencements, embellissements et impenses, son mobilier, ses marchandises et son mat riel, notamment contre le risque

  31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v.   Germany (dec.), no.   48662/99, 22   January   2002; and Babinsky v.   Slovakia (dec.), no.

Procédure devant la Cour : Par une requête, enregistrée le 10 septembre 2021, et un mémoire enregistré le 11 mai 2023, la société Eiffage Génie Civil, représentée par la SELARL Ringlé, Roy et Associés

  31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v.   Germany (dec.), no.   48662/99, 22   January   2002; and Babinsky v.   Slovakia (dec.), no.

She was represented before the Court by Ms M.L. van Riel, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A.

according to its established case-law, a   request for the reopening of proceedings does not, as a rule, constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Riedl-Riedenstein

according to its established case-law, a request for the reopening of proceedings does not, as a rule, constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see   Riedl-Riedenstein

  31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v.   Germany (dec.), no.   48662/99, 22   January   2002; and Babinsky v.   Slovakia (dec.), no.

  31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v.   Germany (dec.), no.   48662/99, 22   January   2002; and Babinsky v.   Slovakia (dec.), no.

  Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002). 70.

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Albanian nationals, Mr   Hyqmet Myslihaka, Mr Imer Ruko, Mr Mehmet Rrapaj, Mr   Fatmir   Bakalli, Mr Rigels

reopening of a case concluded by means of a final court decision cannot usually be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many others, Josseline Riedl-Riedenstein

that according to its established case-law, a petition for the reopening of proceedings does not, as a rule, constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Riedl-Riedenstein

K rieger ,   Counsel , Ms   S. Weinkauff , Mr   S. Sohm , Ms   M . Wittenberg , Ms   J . Drohla , Mr   C . Ritscher , Ms   D . Gmel , Ms   S .