CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
soc
613721becd580146773f6cab
1 octobre 1992
Philippe Y..., ayant demeuré ... (13e) et actuellement ... (7e), 3°) de M. William X..., ayant demeuré ... (6e) et actuellement sans domicile ni résidence connus, 4°) de M.
61372243cd580146773fb8d8
7 juillet 1994
Philippe Z..., demeurant à Servières-le-Château (Corrèze), en cassation d'un jugement rendu le 8 octobre 1991 par le tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Tulle, au profit de la Caisse primaire
61372227cd580146773faad0
24 mars 1994
Philippe D..., demeurant à Saint-Priest (Rhône), ..., et actuellement sans domicile ni résidence connus, 8 ) de Mme Catherine E..., demeurant à Evry (Essonne), ..., et actuellement sans domicile ni
613721a4cd580146773f5858
20 février 1992
Philippe X..., demeurant ..., 6°) de Mlle Murielle X..., demeurant ... à Bourg Saint-Maurice (Savoie), 7°) de Mlle Valérie X..., demeurant ... à Bourg Saint-Maurice (Savoie), 8°) de Mlle Corinne
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0705JUD004108798
5 juillet 2001
Just as the jury did not believe Mr Phillips, neither do I.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1031DEC000846010
31 octobre 2017
differed from the applicant’s situation which could have brought the courts to a different conclusion. 26.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0907DEC003816204
7 septembre 2010
Jaeger, President ,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ganna Yudkivska, judges , and Stephen Phillips
1ère chambre civile A
60370374d4334f9e48529295
25 juin 2015
SEMERIVA, conseiller assistés pendant les débats de Joëlle POITOUX, greffier A l'audience, Philippe SEMERIVA a fait le rapport, conformément à l'article 785 du code de procédure civile.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-116865
30 janvier 2013
You should have just said you were going.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0526DEC003504407
26 mai 2015
[would have been prohibited] ... by any of the rules ... or the Court’s precedents?
Chambre 1-7
68e899f460ca52a2831c023e
9 octobre 2025
IMMOBILIER [Adresse 7] C/ [L] [X] [P] épouse [D] [S] [D] [M] [B] [W] [B] Syndicat des copropriétaires de l'ensemble immobilier [Adresse 7] Copie exécutoire délivrée le : à : Me Philippe
Cour d'Appel
6253ca38bd3db21cbdd8a622
17 mars 2008
Philippe Henri X... Valérie Anne X... épouse A... Laurence Michelle X... C / Michel B...
ECLI:CEDH:001-228199
18 septembre 2023
On the same grounds, they further complain of the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, submitting that they have been compelled to assume liability
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0418JUD004436204
18 avril 2006
been shortly released, he would not have needed to make the request. 24.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0918JUD002511909
18 septembre 2012
Whilst in custody you have accumulated a number of adjudications both for drug taking and for bad behaviour. You have not undertaken any offence-focussed work.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-4220
16 septembre 2004
Article 7-1 Nullum crimen sine lege Foreseeability of rules on warnings on cigarette packets: inadmissible The applicants were production managers or the chief executive of companies belonging to the Philip
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0926DEC006358700
26 septembre 2006
died and who have attempted to claim equivalent benefits to those which female widows were entitled at the relevant time in the United Kingdom (see attached table).
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0917DEC000168307
17 septembre 2013
Zupančič,   Helena Jäderblom, judges and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0531DEC003622109
31 mai 2016
The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of those sums within three months of the Court’s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0519JUD001729510
19 mai 2015
a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment. ...” 8.
Page 27 sur 139