Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
civ1
ésiste de son pourvoi en tant que dirigéc/Mme X
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2013:C101301
14 novembre 2013
14 novembre 2013
comportement de l'hélice au regard des phénomènes vibratoires et surtout en omettant d'informer ses clients des restrictions d'usage et de la nécessité de procéder à la vérification annuelle de l'hélice
Source officielleCour d'Appel
6253cd06bd3db21cbdd920f8
4 mars 2015
4 mars 2015
En 1999, il a été procédé au remplacement du moteur ainsi que de l'hélice, cette dernière, de marque ARPLAST type 4 TG, ayant été fournie par le fabriquant, la SARL HELICE.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1858493-1962768
7 décembre 2006
7 décembre 2006
It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-184365
7 juin 2018
7 juin 2018
It further held that the requirement to meet the child only in the presence of her mother was not in line with family legislation and was against the interests of the child.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-171808
9 février 2017
9 février 2017
K.P.’s parents also moved in with them to help out with the baby.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-860129-882212
7 septembre 2003
7 septembre 2003
On 9 July 1996 he was arrested and held in custody. On 2 August he was accused of belonging to the PKK.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2178506-2328493
20 novembre 2007
20 novembre 2007
It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1195794-1253564
30 novembre 2004
30 novembre 2004
Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1048095-1088013
13 juillet 2004
13 juillet 2004
It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of that provision on that account.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0202DEC003190896
2 février 1999
2 février 1999
As to the question whether the applicant company could be held liable for the payment of these contributions, the Regional Court held that the applicant company had failed to report that
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1855768-1960202
5 décembre 2006
5 décembre 2006
It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1989:1013DEC001296387
13 octobre 1989
13 octobre 1989
The Court held a hearing in the case.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1121DEC001282202
21 novembre 2006
21 novembre 2006
The court held that the presence of the interpreter was necessary during all forthcoming hearings.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1605406-1688327
9 mars 2006
9 mars 2006
It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the applicant’s detention during those two periods.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68332-68800
31 mai 2001
31 mai 2001
They were held at Kepir by security forces for a period of at least a week, following which they had disappeared.
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-68368-68836
10 juillet 2001
10 juillet 2001
Friendly settlements In the following cases, the applicants complained about the length of time they were held in police custody, relying on Article 5 § 3.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-656194-662139
28 novembre 2002
28 novembre 2002
The Court, therefore, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 § 1 and awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1523013-1605359
8 décembre 2005
8 décembre 2005
In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 had been breached.
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1408309-1470425
28 juillet 2005
28 juillet 2005
The decision of the Frontier Rivers Commission could not be held to be contrary either to Article 6 of the European Convention or of the Constitution.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-184565
14 juin 2018
14 juin 2018
The courts held that, in line with the Civil Code, the State could be ordered to compensate for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage only where it had acted unlawfully.
Source officiellePage 62 sur 2440