GREFFIER, RG 2025001358 07/03/2025 ENTRE : SAS MAESTIS, dont le siège social est [Adresse 1] RCS B 823296041 Partie demanderesse : comparant par Me Clémence LEPINE Avocat, substituant Me Frédéric WIZMANE

In the case of Witmajer v. Slovenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Hedigan , President ,   Mr   B.M.

SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Attendu, selon l'arrêt attaqué, que Mme X... a été engagée le 17 mai 1993 par la société Paul Regad, aux droits de laquelle se trouve aujourd'hui la société Wittmann

Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

#Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie, Gußstahlwerk Carl Bönnhoff, Gußstahlwerk Witten, Ruhrstahl et Eisenwerk Annahütte Alfred Zeller contre Haute Autorité de la Communauté européenne du charbon

Willman of Pierce Glynn Solicitors, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A.

    The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

ECONOMIQUES DE NANTERRE ORDONNANCE DE REFERE prononcée par mise à disposition au greffe le 22 mai 2026 référé numéro : 2026R00482 DEMANDEURS SA [R] ASSURANCES [Adresse 1] comparant par HOLMAN FENWICK WILLAN

The investigation was conducted within the above ‑ described proceedings until 14   November 2005.

#Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/5/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period.#Case C-304/95.

Those present shall be granted the opportunity to examine – within the limits set forth in section 186 – the evidence ...

Wizemann, a lawyer practising in Stuttgart. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by two of their Agents, Mr H.-J. Behrens and Mrs K.

#Association of Sorbitol Producers within the EC (ASPEC), Cerestar Holding BV, Roquette Frères SA in Merck oHG proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti.#Državne pomoči - Dopustnost.#Zadeva T-435/93.

on 24 October 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 26   July 1991 by Mr Venanzio Angelone and Ms Wilma

LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE COMMERCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Statuant tant sur le pourvoi principal formé par la société Widmann, que sur le pourvoi incident relevé par la société Rubie's

Art. 5 para. 3 violated;Violation Art. 6 para. 1 hearing within a reasonable time;Art. 6 no violation - proceedings regarding the applicant's release from detention;No violation Art. 5 para. 4 proceedings

. # State aid - Acquisition of a holding in an undertaking's capital - Decision not contested within the prescribed period. # Case 52/84.

Violation Art. 6 para. 1 access to court;No violation Art. 6 para. 1 is not qualified by the requirement "within a reasonable time", which applies only to the conduct of proceedings already instituted

. # Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 1999/20/EC - Failure to implement within the period prescribed. # Case C-173/01.

. # Failure to fulfil obligations - Directives 90/490/EEC and 90/506/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. # Case C-31/93.