CodexAI

par KI

Workspace

Toutes les décisions2.7M+Récentes

Judiciaires

Cour de CassationCour d'AppelTribunal JudiciaireTrib. de Commerce

Administratives

Conseil d'ÉtatCour Admin. d'AppelTrib. Administratif

Codes de loi

Code civilCode du travailCode de commerceCode pénalCode procédure civileCGICode sécu. socialeCode de l'urbanismeCode de l'enviro.Code monétaire fin.

Droit social

Prud'hommes19KConventions coll.26KDoctrine fiscale14K

IA & Outils

IA JuridiqueNEWVeille hebdoNEWMCP ServerAPICitationsStatistiquesAlertes
ConnexionS'inscrire

CodexAI

RechercheJurisprudenceCodesCitationsStatistiquesAlertes
Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
Exporter CSV

1 233 résultats pour « Claire DARY Me »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CC

civ1

ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:C100656

Cassation

3 novembre 2021

3 novembre 2021

Sur le rapport de Mme Guihal, conseiller, les observations de la SCP Fabiani, Luc-Thaler et Pinatel, avocat de la société Rasheed Bank, de la SCP Claire Leduc et Solange Vigand, avocat de la société Citibank

Page 40 sur 62

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;FRA;FRE

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1203DEC001506721

Admin. suprême

3 décembre 2024

3 décembre 2024

Lors de ces échanges, le requérant exprima clairement son intention de demander l’asile et les agents se présentèrent comme des responsables pour l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1220JUD005177208

Admin. suprême

20 décembre 2018

20 décembre 2018

It follows that the claim must be rejected. C.     Default interest 62.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1018JUD003408517

Admin. suprême

18 octobre 2022

18 octobre 2022

In contrast, the police report of the events for the relevant day does not mention the applicant’s friend; there is no record concerning him.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0512JUD003874119

Admin. suprême

12 mai 2026

12 mai 2026

  The applicant’s claim and the Government’s comments on it 2.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0119DEC002238293

Admin. suprême

19 janvier 1995

19 janvier 1995

  He was attacked in the early evening by a group of young boys and, when the police answered a telephone call he had been able to put through, he did not dare tell them that he had been attacked

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0701DEC003482697

Admin. suprême

1 juillet 1998

1 juillet 1998

The court scheduled six days for the proceedings at which the kidnapping case was to be examined first, i.e. on 18 July, 19 July and in the morning of 22 July 1996.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0303JUD002106111

Admin. suprême

3 mars 2015

3 mars 2015

The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1206DEC004705816

Admin. suprême

6 décembre 2016

6 décembre 2016

It noted that the first applicant had claimed that her husband had worked for an international company but that she had submitted no documents in support of this claim.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-177836

Admin. suprême

22 septembre 2017

22 septembre 2017

The next day, the applicant was allowed to leave the State.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:1010JUD003857897

Admin. suprême

10 octobre 2002

10 octobre 2002

The doctor concluded that the applicant would be unfit for work for five days.   10.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0113JUD002817310

Admin. suprême

13 janvier 2015

13 janvier 2015

The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1218JUD003066304

Admin. suprême

18 décembre 2008

18 décembre 2008

They drove to the place the next day and Mr   A.F. and his father waited for the applicant in the car.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1016JUD006127500

Admin. suprême

16 octobre 2008

16 octobre 2008

The injuries were noted by a medical doctor two days after his release, and were apparently visible on photographs taken one day after his release (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above).

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0116DEC002628095

Admin. suprême

16 janvier 1996

16 janvier 1996

While the applicant claims that he paid heed to this advice and took steps to register his dog, he did not have his dog muzzled, on a lead or restrained in any way when he was again stopped four days later

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0705DEC007060214

Admin. suprême

5 juillet 2016

5 juillet 2016

In support of his claim, the applicant submitted a baptism certificate dated 23   December 2007 issued by the Kores Church in Apeldoorn.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0404DEC006394509

Admin. suprême

4 avril 2017

4 avril 2017

Others had been harassed or abused by drivers or other individuals when they returned home from school after dark. 21.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1216JUD000688702

Admin. suprême

16 décembre 2010

16 décembre 2010

The court rejected his claims for compensation in respect of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1201DEC006109300

Admin. suprême

1 décembre 2005

1 décembre 2005

to the claimant company’s agricultural activity, by creating in the very heart of the farm an easement capable of rendering impossible any development of the farm, or even of seriously undermining its day-to-day

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;ADVISORYOPINIONS;PROTOCOL16;OPINIONS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-8474673-12010815

Admin. suprême

5 mars 2026

5 mars 2026

concerned an unenforceable ecclesiastical claim the domestic courts had to terminate the proceedings.

Source officielle