Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 26 novembre 2024, la société CM-CIC Leasing solutions, représentée par la Selarl d’avocats inter-barreaux Cornet Vincent Ségurel, société d’

[X] [V], du contrat de financement portant sur le matériel Samsung conclu entre la société CM CIC Leasing Solutions, anciennement Ge Capital Équipement Finance et M.

Enfin le même matériel apparaît financé à la fois par la société Grenke Location et la société GE Capital désormais dénommée CM CIC Leasing Solutions.

TRIBUNAL DES ACTIVITES ECONOMIQUES DE NANTERRE JUGEMENT DU 7 avril 2026 7ème Chambre N° PCL : 2017J00206 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LEARNING N° RG: 2026L00375 Par jugement en date du 21 mars 2017, le tribunal

    On 30 June 1988 the Municipality of Voždovac, where the applicant was employed as a clerk, issued a decision leaving the applicant unassigned to a specific post, which ultimately resulted

As for costs and expenses, the applicants requested the Court to make an award for the work conducted by their lawyers in the present case, leaving the amount to be determined by the Court. 17.

As for costs and expenses, the applicant requested the Court to make an award for the work conducted by his lawyers in the present case, leaving the amount to be determined by the Court. 18.

As for costs and expenses, the applicant requested the Court to make an award for the work conducted by his lawyers in the present case, leaving the amount to be determined by the Court. 17.

As for costs and expenses, the applicants requested the Court to make an award for the work conducted by their lawyers in the present case, leaving the amount to be determined by the Court. 17.

    In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v.

    In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.

    In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v.

    In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9   November 2004 and Efimenko v.

    In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10   February 2011) and Ignatov v.

    In the leading case of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos.   20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017, and Kunić and Others v.

    In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9   November 2010), Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015) and Zayidov v.

    In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.

    In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006, for more recent case-law see Beketov v.