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

12 110 résultats pour « Favot »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0925DEC001791516

Admin. suprême

25 septembre 2018

25 septembre 2018

    On 17 January 1992 X requested the enforcement of the judgment of 7   June 1991 issued in his favour by the Leskovac Municipality Court (Serbia). 6 .

Source officielle

Page 68 sur 606

← PrécédentSuivant →
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0925JUD001012018

Admin. suprême

25 septembre 2025

25 septembre 2025

    The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in their favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1108JUD002209802

Admin. suprême

8 novembre 2005

8 novembre 2005

    The non-enforcement of the court judgments given in the applicant’s favour 16.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0901DEC003750603

Admin. suprême

1 septembre 2009

1 septembre 2009

    The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0201JUD003372805

Admin. suprême

1 février 2007

1 février 2007

    The Court notes that the delay in executing the judgment in the applicant's favour exceeded five years.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1129JUD001288402

Admin. suprême

29 novembre 2005

29 novembre 2005

    The applicant complains about the State authorities’ failure to execute the judgment of the Shostka City Court of 8   December 1998 given in her favour.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0713JUD002144704

Admin. suprême

13 juillet 2006

13 juillet 2006

    On 9 March 2005 the Government informed the Court that the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been executed on 2 March 2005. 18.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0215JUD000289021

Admin. suprême

15 février 2024

15 février 2024

    Between 18 May 2018 and 11 July 2019 the first-instance courts ruled in favour of four other claimants and awarded them the compensation in question, even though they had already obtained

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1011DEC001594804

Admin. suprême

11 octobre 2016

11 octobre 2016

Accordingly, the judgments in the applicants’ favour should be regarded as issued against private companies.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0417JUD002621607

Admin. suprême

17 avril 2014

17 avril 2014

    The applicant’s subsequent complaints about improper enforcement of the judgment in her favour 37.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-6934

Admin. suprême

27 avril 2000

27 avril 2000

The civil courts found in their favour and the applicant was ordered to apologise and to pay 100,000 Slovak korunas to each plaintiff. Admissible under Article 10.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-194924

Admin. suprême

2 juillet 2019

2 juillet 2019

By contrast, in the case of his siblings, who according to the applicant were in exactly the same situation and followed the same line of appeals, the Audiencia Nacional ruled in their favour and declared

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-203211

Admin. suprême

27 mai 2020

27 mai 2020

He complains that he could not participate in those proceedings, eventually leading to the quashing of a final judgment in his favour, which had a direct impact on his civil rights and obligations.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-198860

Admin. suprême

5 novembre 2019

5 novembre 2019

At the same time, the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided similar cases both in favour and against the legal counsellors.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-179771

Admin. suprême

8 décembre 2017

8 décembre 2017

The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of Türkiye Komünist Emek Partisi/Leninist (TKEP/L) (Turkish Communist Labour Party

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-179945

Admin. suprême

8 décembre 2017

8 décembre 2017

According to the amendment, if the auction took place because the debtor (the original owner) had had a mortgage in foreign currency which he could not honour, then such eviction could not take place in favour

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-179766

Admin. suprême

11 décembre 2017

11 décembre 2017

The application concerns the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-205931

Admin. suprême

14 octobre 2020

14 octobre 2020

After the second-instance court ruled in the applicants’ favour and awarded them compensation, the Supreme Court, following the local authorities’ appeal on points of law, reversed the lower courts’ judgments

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-202676

Admin. suprême

26 mars 2020

26 mars 2020

    Did the quashing of the judgment of 7 September 2011 in the applicant’s favour constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-214866

Admin. suprême

7 décembre 2021

7 décembre 2021

Domestic courts at two instances of jurisdiction ruled in favour of the plaintiff and held that the applicant had failed to appear despite having been duly summoned to the hearing of 18 December 2017.

Source officielle