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 · "…"
Exporter CSV

12 110 résultats pour « Favot »

RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0405DEC001886103

Admin. suprême

5 avril 2005

5 avril 2005

COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0913DEC001937709

Admin. suprême

13 septembre 2016

13 septembre 2016

    The case concerned the non-enforcement of a judgment debt in the applicant’s favour against a State agency. 4.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0918DEC001141903

Admin. suprême

18 septembre 2006

18 septembre 2006

The court judgment in the applicants’ favour became final and was enforced without delay.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1011DEC003494703

Admin. suprême

11 octobre 2007

11 octobre 2007

The judgment in his favour became final and enforceable. However, it appears that for a certain period of time the judgment remained unenforced.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0830DEC003305007

Admin. suprême

30 août 2016

30 août 2016

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court decision in his favour, and about the lack of an effective remedy

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0113DEC004841313

Admin. suprême

13 janvier 2015

13 janvier 2015

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0930DEC000355208

Admin. suprême

30 septembre 2010

30 septembre 2010

On 3 May 2007 the Promyshlennyy District Court of Vladikavkaz of the Republic of North Ossetia ordered the authorities to make monetary payments in favour of each applicant.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0110DEC001137307

Admin. suprême

10 janvier 2012

10 janvier 2012

    The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1011DEC001293105

Admin. suprême

11 octobre 2011

11 octobre 2011

Further to the remittal of the case, the Ljubljana District Court delivered a judgment in favour of the applicant on 22   May 2003, which became final and enforceable on 16 September 2004.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0110DEC004764308

Admin. suprême

10 janvier 2012

10 janvier 2012

    The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the Republika Srpska by the Banja Luka First

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0917DEC003805511

Admin. suprême

17 septembre 2013

17 septembre 2013

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in her favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-222860

Admin. suprême

3 janvier 2023

3 janvier 2023

  38665/20) and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about the non-enforcement of the final judgments and decisions in their favour and about the lack of an effective remedy

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-244436

Admin. suprême

3 juillet 2025

3 juillet 2025

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they also complain that the binding and enforceable court judgment in their favour has not been fully executed

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-249598

Admin. suprême

12 mars 2026

12 mars 2026

The courts ruled in Y’s favour, finding, inter alia , that Y had indeed bought part of the land from X in 1990 and had been registered as its owner in 1993, but that when the new Real Estate Registry had

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0917DEC006684411

Admin. suprême

17 septembre 2013

17 septembre 2013

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in her favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0114DEC003628511

Admin. suprême

14 janvier 2014

14 janvier 2014

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-171244

Admin. suprême

18 janvier 2017

18 janvier 2017

On 5 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 27   April 2006, holding that the applicant and his co-accused should have been convicted of disseminating propaganda in favour of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0629DEC003780604

Admin. suprême

29 juin 2006

29 juin 2006

On 20 February 2001 the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s action with legal costs in favour of the applicant and her co-defendant.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0114DEC002014712

Admin. suprême

14 janvier 2014

14 janvier 2014

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0114DEC000370112

Admin. suprême

14 janvier 2014

14 janvier 2014

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of

Source officielle

Page 43 sur 606

← PrécédentSuivant →

Annonces BODACC178 résultats

Journal officiel
Créations

WURTZ, Francoise, Simone, FAVOT

SIREN 106987274Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce d'Evry

07/07/2026

Voir →

Créations

FAVOT, Michelle, Léone

SIREN 421496027Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce de Douai

30/06/2026

Voir →

Créations

FAVOTTO, Angélique, Maryse, Laetitia, MOMMAYOU

SIREN 105257414Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce de Montauban

09/06/2026

Voir →

Dépôts des comptes

FAVOTTE

SIREN 522500347Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce de tours

28/05/2026

Voir →

Créations

FAVOT LIVERA MAGENTA

SIREN 105231492Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce de Nice

26/05/2026

Voir →