(Application no. 11712/04)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     15 January 2008       FINAL     15/04/2008       This judgment will become

The decision to discontinue the proceedings became final on 21   November 2000. 15.

That decision became final on 6 June 2012. As a result thereof, the writ of execution of 18 February 2003 (see paragraph 13 above) also became final on the same day. 33.

It became final on 15 February 2002. D.     Action for outstanding rent (Bratislava III District Court file no. 18Cb 268/98) 39.

The judgment became final on 5 October 1998 and was fully enforced in 2006. 5.     Application no.

The Berlin Regional Court dismissed the heir’s request and granted the counter-claim on the grounds that the holding had become the owner by virtue of the decision that had administratively assigned the

No appeal was lodged within the statutory time-limit, and on 10 April 2007 the judgment became final and enforceable. 8.

The leases were to expire three months after the month in which the ruling became final and binding.

In this regard, when a decision became res judicata according to the rules of national law would be decisive.

The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 10.     However, it was not enforced.

In any event, he could not bring another claim as his claim had become time-barred. 2.     The Court’s assessment 28.

  the acquisition has the consequence that land already belonging to the legal person becomes more suitable for its purpose,   3.

The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final seven days later. 7.

Par lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception en date du 4 mars 2021, la BECM a maintenu l'intégralité de sa créance déclarée.

Par actes en date des 27 avril et 7 mai 2021, la BECM a assigné les emprunteurs devant le tribunal judiciaire de Paris.

/, sous le n° 193468, la requête, enregistrée le 22 janvier 1998 au secrétariat du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, présentée par l'ASSOCIATION DE DEFENSE DE LA QUALITE DE LA VIE DE SAINT-MARTIAL, LA BECADE

X... a réservé deux lots dans un immeuble à construire par la société Bécarré Lebas Choron et a versé un dépôt de garantie ; que la date de signature de l'acte de vente en l'état futur d'achèvement a été

LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE COMMERCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Statuant tant sur le pourvoi principal formé par la société Sandoz que sur le pourvoi incident relevé par les sociétés Beecham

  2577), and it thereby became final. 14.

Hence, such installations were not to be considered part of the applicants’ property and were to become the property of the defendant company.