CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0214JUD005535000
14 février 2008
Other relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 47 . Article 217a of the Code, added in July 1999, created a “complaint about delays”.
Page 4 sur 80
Référé
69d9829dcdc6046d47d287eb
8 avril 2026
[J] en référé devant le président du tribunal judiciaire de Dijon aux fins de voir, au visa de l'article 145 du code de procédure civile et de l'article 1641 du code civil, ordonner une mesure d'expertise
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:0227JUD001313087
27 février 1992
_______________ * Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 to 13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338; 16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341; 20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345; 24/1991/276/347; 25/1991/277/348; 33/1991/285
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0720JUD004794099
20 juillet 2004
Section 3 § 5 of Act no. 3 of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides: “Unless the law provides otherwise, in the civil procedure, the court shall not be bound, when taking
civ1
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2019:C100331
3 avril 2019
700 du code de procédure civile, rejette sa demande et le condamne à payer à M.
CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-141111
11 septembre 2013
330 and Article 330 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-221939
30 novembre 2022
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Code of Civil Procedure (in force from 9 April 2018) Under Article 337 § 1, parties can challenge before the court the decision of the Financial System Mediator which
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2014:C100578
13 mai 2014
; PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE les pourvois ; Condamne la société Optenet aux dépens ; Vu l'article 700 du code de procédure civile, rejette les demandes des sociétés France Télécom et Optenet et
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0513JUD003330702
13 mai 2008
Article 333 of the Civil Code (“The Reduction of the Penalty”), insofar as relevant, stipulates as follows: “If a penalty due [for a violation of a contractual obligation] is obviously out
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0712JUD002558002
12 juillet 2007
The District Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0426JUD005075613
26 avril 2016
The applicant was charged with a number of offences: (a) circulating forged documents contrary to sections 331, 332, 333, 335 and 339 of the Criminal Code; (b) unlawful entry into the Republic contrary
Pôle 6 - Chambre 2
5fdd84159d221c2f4fce0cda
6 septembre 2018
450 du code de procédure civile
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0925DEC004875899
25 septembre 2001
Relevant domestic law Execution of a judgment Under Articles 13, 209 and 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court judgment which has become effective is binding and
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0719JUD006953301
19 juillet 2007
The Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 (“CCivP”), in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 333.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0703JUD000443607
3 juillet 2014
the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 29 below).
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0528DEC002688510
28 mai 2013
On 29 December 2000 the applicants lodged actions with the Patras First Instance Administrative Court against the State, asking for compensation under Statute 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code
ECLI:CEDH:001-92195
19 mars 2009
, criminal and administrative proceedings in Italy; Recalling the major reforms undertaken in respect of civil and criminal proceedings as well as proceedings before the Court of Audit which led
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0514DEC006719901
14 mai 2002
5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
REFERE
69b1b234cdc6046d4750b591
9 janvier 2025
DU NETTOYAGE demandant de : Au principal, renvoyer les parties à se pourvoir, Cependant, Dès à présent, Par provision, vu l'urgence, Vu l'article 873 du CPC, Vu les articles 1103 et 1240 du Code Civil
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0118JUD006952401
18 janvier 2007
On 16 January 2001, the district court granted the agency's request and reopened the judgment under Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure.