Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre

[W] 1 ce à [11] 1 ccc à Me Defaye 1 ccc à Sté 1 ccc au dossier JUGEMENT DU 07 OCTOBRE 2025 DEMANDEUR: Monsieur [N] [W], demeurant [Adresse 2] présent assisté de Me Alexandre BAREGE, avocat

MAAF ASSURANCES RCS de Niort n° 542073580, sise [Adresse 4] N'ayant pas constitué avocat LA MAISON POUR TOUS sise [Adresse 3] Représentée par Me Alexandre MAILLOT de la SELARL MAILLOT - VIGNERON

L'ASA du canal de Ventavon - Saint-Tropez ne saurait davantage invoquer l'absence de justification par la SA EDF de la baisse de production d'électricité résultant de l'ouverture décalée des vannes.

légal en exercice domicilié ès qualités audit siège [Adresse 6] [Localité 6] représenté et assisté de Me Rémy GARCIA, avocat au barreau de NARBONNE, avocat postulant et plaidant substitué par Me Alexandre

Par ailleurs, alors même que la dévalorisation sur le marché du travail ne peut pas être retenue, compte-tenu de son âge, il y a lieu d'indemniser son préjudice moral lié à l'abandon de sa profession d'infirmière

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs   11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraph 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

Grèce, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (première section), siégeant en une chambre composée de :   Kristina Pardalos, présidente,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek