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

142 749 résultats pour « More CE »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-5474

Admin. suprême

6 décembre 2001

6 décembre 2001

The State appealed against that decision, once more raising the same objection.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-201745

Admin. suprême

6 février 2020

6 février 2020

impartiality of the condition in Article 7 § 3 of Rules No. 463/2000 (see above), then in force, that a serving judge was required to seek permission from the Committee on Judicial Functions to own more

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0108DEC004349598

Admin. suprême

8 janvier 2002

8 janvier 2002

from the respondent Government and the applicants’ reply dated 23 November 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Terence Connell, Craig Turner, Mark Love, Jonathan Moore

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-14336

Admin. suprême

21 mai 2024

21 mai 2024

The central issue in the present case was whether the Constitutional Court’s application of that rule to the applicant’s case, in particular its new practice, had been proportionate to that aim and, more

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-126930

Admin. suprême

13 septembre 2013

13 septembre 2013

From 1997 the applicant cohabited more uxorio with Mr R., a film director.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-1198091-1244762

Admin. suprême

23 novembre 2004

23 novembre 2004

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and more particularly to the remoteness in time and subject-matter of both sets of proceedings and to the fact that P.L.'

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-219407

Admin. suprême

29 août 2022

29 août 2022

In the same vein, the applications also concern the domestic courts’ alleged failure to substantiate their preference to attach more weight to witness statements which were later repudiated (see, mutatis

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-68275-68743

Admin. suprême

21 mars 2000

21 mars 2000

The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as the proceedings, which lasted more than four years and two months, had not been excessive.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0220JUD001776016

Admin. suprême

20 février 2020

20 février 2020

than 10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)   pending More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)   1,000     57495/17 25/07/2017 Rabija MALKOČ 14/05/1960     Bihać

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0211JUD001563420

Admin. suprême

11 février 2021

11 février 2021

than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)   pending More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 7 day(s)   1,000 250     15641/20 11/03/2020 Tarik ĆOSIĆ 1972 Sarajevo Municipal Court,

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0520JUD004806320

Admin. suprême

20 mai 2021

20 mai 2021

than 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)   1,000 250     48104/20 15/10/2020 Emir ISENOVIĆ 1981 Zenica Municipal Court, 21/03/2014   14/07/2014   pending More than 6 year(s

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1129DEC001081517

Admin. suprême

29 novembre 2018

29 novembre 2018

than 10 years and 5 months and   21   days   pending More than 10 years and 5 months and   21   days     pending More than 5 years and 10 months and 9   days &#

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0516JUD001926723

Admin. suprême

16 mai 2024

16 mai 2024

and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     19267/23 21/04/2023 Pál BANYA 1984 Karsai Dániel András Budapest 03/09/2016   pending   More

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0626DEC001171305

Admin. suprême

26 juin 2006

26 juin 2006

Several requests made by the applicant to release him from detention and to apply a more lenient preventive measure were refused by the County Court in 2004.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1212JUD000640317

Admin. suprême

12 décembre 2024

12 décembre 2024

  day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     31434/18 05/06/2018 Eduard Mykolayovych GREBENYUK 1970   Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 18/11/2014   pending   More

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1028JUD002711720

Admin. suprême

28 octobre 2021

28 octobre 2021

  month and 14 days   1 level of jurisdiction 4,200     45324/20 09/10/2020 Andriy Igorovych VYNOKUROV 1987 Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges 03/04/2017   pending   More

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0507DEC004587322

Admin. suprême

7 mai 2025

7 mai 2025

and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances     45873/22 21/09/2022 Aníbal Sérgio BAPTISTA FERNANDES 1978   Vítor Carreto Torres Vedras Izeda Prison 12/07/2018 pending More

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1006DEC001468303

Admin. suprême

6 octobre 2005

6 octobre 2005

At the time of filing the complaints at issue, the [applicant] had already been staying in the EBI for more than two years.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1017JUD007125016

Admin. suprême

17 octobre 2024

17 octobre 2024

  341 of 2000 was unconstitutional (for more details, see paragraphs 35 et seq. below). 16.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0129DEC004561899

Admin. suprême

29 janvier 2002

29 janvier 2002

In the determination of this question, the distance between the home and place of work – whether or not it was more than 30 kms – would be irrelevant.

Source officielle

Page 27 sur 7138

← PrécédentSuivant →