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
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes

8 791 résultats pour « Mery CASES »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-106895

Admin. suprême

14 septembre 2011

14 septembre 2011

and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Source officielle

Page 64 sur 440

← PrécédentSuivant →
CE

PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-68485-68953

Admin. suprême

13 juillet 2000

13 juillet 2000

It referred the case to the Court on 21 January 1999.   On 3 February 1999 the panel of the Grand Chamber determined that the case should be decided by the Grand Chamber.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1216DEC003826707

Admin. suprême

16 décembre 2008

16 décembre 2008

    The circumstances of the cases The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. M.H.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0519JUD000281505

Admin. suprême

19 mai 2009

19 mai 2009

The Court is aware that under the case-law of the Supreme Court the mere refusal of a legal ‑ aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal did not constitute a sufficient ground for a new lawyer to

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-1988

Admin. suprême

8 juillet 2008

8 juillet 2008

When – as in the applicant’s case – freedom of expression was exercised as political speech, limitations were only justified if there was a clear, pressing and specific social need.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-772

Admin. suprême

14 octobre 2010

14 octobre 2010

The Court of Cassation dismissed his further appeals. Law – Article 6 §§ 1 and   3: The applicant had been in police custody when he was made to swear an oath.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-5633

Admin. suprême

7 juin 2001

7 juin 2001

He is now 90   years old and has been serving his sentence since October 1999, when the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal he had lodged on points of law.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-6256

Admin. suprême

6 novembre 2001

6 novembre 2001

In February 1998 the Diyarbakır Administrative Council found that there was no case to answer, a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court in March   2000.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1202JUD003170610

Admin. suprême

2 décembre 2014

2 décembre 2014

In the case of Güler and Uğur v.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0310DEC002095806

Admin. suprême

10 mars 2009

10 mars 2009

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-3235

Admin. suprême

29 juin 2006

29 juin 2006

Article   8 – Restating earlier case-law, the Court notes that the mere existence of legislation which allows a system for the secret monitoring of communications entails a threat of surveillance

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-210448

Admin. suprême

20 mai 2021

20 mai 2021

The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     All applicants are residents of Kangal, Sivas.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0526DEC002894595

Admin. suprême

26 mai 1998

26 mai 1998

Concern was expressed regarding the first applicant's care of her daughter and a case conference was held to which the first applicant was not invited.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-2213

Admin. suprême

22 mai 2008

22 mai 2008

The case was sent before the full Court of Cassation to rule on the conformity of Law no. 496/1974 with the Constitution and the Convention.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-11459

Admin. suprême

29 novembre 2016

29 novembre 2016

(b)     Whether an individual application to the Constitutional Court stood a chance of success – It was true that in four recent leading cases the Constitutional Court, reversing previous case-law

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-9311

Admin. suprême

25 mars 2014

25 mars 2014

The Grand Chamber took note of three decisions the Constitutional Court had taken in comparable cases.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-228810

Admin. suprême

9 octobre 2023

9 octobre 2023

The final decision was issued by the Court of Cassation on 16 November 2018.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0921DEC007055501

Admin. suprême

21 septembre 2004

21 septembre 2004

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0710JUD006053300

Admin. suprême

10 juillet 2003

10 juillet 2003

    The case originated in an application (no.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-110642

Admin. suprême

16 mars 2012

16 mars 2012

    The background of the case On 21 and 22 June 2004 the town of Nazran came under attack by a organised group of armed insurgents, which left 78 persons dead and 113 wounded. B.

Source officielle