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 · "…"
Exporter CSV

7 489 résultats pour « Buresen »

RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-220246

Admin. suprême

30 septembre 2022

30 septembre 2022

between both expert reports, that is, an annual market rent of EUR 10,300, and the EUR   188 annual rent he was actually perceiving, it found that the applicant had been suffering a disproportionate burden

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-768

Admin. suprême

20 octobre 2010

20 octobre 2010

There was no evidence that the amount of the fines had constituted a substantial economic burden.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-225870

Admin. suprême

15 juin 2023

15 juin 2023

  1, and did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-242641

Admin. suprême

6 mars 2025

6 mars 2025

Has that interference been in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant within the meaning of Article

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-223907

Admin. suprême

2 mars 2023

2 mars 2023

Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Khoniakina v. Georgia , no. 17767/08, § 72, 19 June 2012)?   2.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-3181

Admin. suprême

26 septembre 2006

26 septembre 2006

premises had been requisitioned for almost 65 years, the restrictions on their rights as landlords and the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards, the Court held that a disproportionate and excessive burden

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-212913

Admin. suprême

5 octobre 2021

5 octobre 2021

Was the interference   reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant   (see Béláné Nagy v.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-228252

Admin. suprême

20 septembre 2023

20 septembre 2023

    Did the deprivation of property in the present case impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Muharrem Güneş and Others v.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-244395

Admin. suprême

1 juillet 2025

1 juillet 2025

If so, did the deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR   1999-V)?

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-216660

Admin. suprême

2 mars 2022

2 mars 2022

In particular, as a result of the judgments adopted, did the applicant company have to bear “an individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision (see   Lekić v.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-218012

Admin. suprême

24 mai 2022

24 mai 2022

Turkey , no. 28241/18, §§   89 et   seq. , 13 July 2021) Were the applicants subjected to “an individual and excessive burden”, within the meaning of that provision, as a result of their inability

Source officielle
CE

PRESIDENT DE LA SECTION DU CONTENTIEUX

CETAT:CETATEXT000007880733

Admin. suprême

3 mai 1995

3 mai 1995

reconduite à la frontière, l'arrêté du préfet de la Seine Saint-Denis en date du 5 novembre 1993 n'a pas porté aux droits de l'intéressé et au respect de sa vie familiale une atteinte disproportionnée aux butsen

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-235152

Admin. suprême

19 juin 2024

19 juin 2024

(b)   Did the interference in the present case impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Džinić v.   Croatia , no.   38359/13, §§   67-69, 17   May 2016)?

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-10077

Admin. suprême

30 septembre 2014

30 septembre 2014

preliminary inquiry to establish in detail the exact circumstances of the incident and to account in full for the use of force of the extent and type alleged, the Government had failed to discharge the burden

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-4116

Admin. suprême

2 novembre 2004

2 novembre 2004

of Protocol No. 1 – The quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had constituted a deprivation of property and had upset the fair balance, imposing on him an individual and excessive burden

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-200281

Admin. suprême

12 décembre 2019

12 décembre 2019

Moreover, did that interference impose an excessive and individual burden on the applicant (compare Koufaki and Adedy v. Greece (dec.), nos.   57665/12 and 57657/12, 7 May 2013)?   2.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-226296

Admin. suprême

11 juillet 2023

11 juillet 2023

Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for a summary of the relevant general principles, Broniowski v.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0507DEC006368611

Admin. suprême

7 mai 2025

7 mai 2025

  1 to the Convention that the award of compensation corresponding to 50% of the property’s market value according to Section 8 (2) of Bolzano Provincial Law no. 10/1991 imposed an excessive burden

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0412DEC002504094

Admin. suprême

12 avril 1996

12 avril 1996

  This was an unjustified and excessive burden taking into account that the distance between Altenbeken and Paderborn city was only about 12 km.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-205767

Admin. suprême

9 octobre 2020

9 octobre 2020

He argued that he was suffering a disproportionate burden given the low amount of rent being received for the commercial premises at issue when compared to the real rental value of the property.

Source officielle

Page 25 sur 375

← PrécédentSuivant →