PRECITE, SUR LE FONDEMENT DE L'ARTICLE 326 DU CODE CIVIL, UNE ACTION EN DESAVEU PREVENTIF, EN SE REFERANT AUX DISPOSITIONS CONTENUES AUX ARTICLES 313-1 ET 313-2 DU MEME CODE ; QU'A LA DEMANDE DE LA MERE-QUI

(Moselle), défendeur à la cassation ; Le demandeur invoque, à l'appui de son pourvoi, les quatre moyens de cassation annexés au présent arrêt ; LA COUR, composée selon l'article L. 131-6, alinéa

    Scope of the case before the Court 25.

  [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑

chronological order of cases, such as the nature of a case and its importance in political and social terms.

VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT ; SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 437 DE LA LOI DU 24 JUILLET 1966, 201, 593 ET 575 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE

SA MERE SES DROITS INDIVIS DANS L'IMMEUBLE DE CHARLEVAL ; QUE M. D...

The circumstances of the case 2.

  The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's submissions did not disclose any fundamental importance of the issues underlying the case.

Thereby, the impact of the order had not been limited to what was indispensable in the circumstances of the case.

  Particular circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

    The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.

LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Statuant sur le pourvoi formé par : - M.

In April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the latest decision by the Milan Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration, whilst making clear that E.E.’s father

  In the case of Riela v.

et Andrei Dorin MERCE contre la Roumanie introduite le 25 mai 2012 EXPOSÉ DES FAITS Les requérants, M.

On 14 December 2015 the Government made a request to restore the application to the Court’s list of cases.

    The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.

They also argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the six ‑ month rule as the cassation appeal had not been an effective remedy in the instant case.