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 · "…"
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
Exporter CSV

32 683 résultats pour « Trorial »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-192740

Admin. suprême

28 mars 2019

28 mars 2019

stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer (see Salduz v.

Source officielle

Page 96 sur 1635

← PrécédentSuivant →
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-234287

Admin. suprême

17 mai 2024

17 mai 2024

the dates of the trial.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-152674

Admin. suprême

5 février 2015

5 février 2015

It found that the trial court had correctly established the facts of the case on the basis of M.M., Sa.L. and St.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-2232948-2378941

Admin. suprême

8 janvier 2008

8 janvier 2008

It was also stated that the trial judge had given the jury explicit directions on how to treat the statement in question. Further leave to appeal was refused.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:1202DEC001980492

Admin. suprême

2 décembre 1992

2 décembre 1992

state with the trial judge.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-111731

Admin. suprême

21 mai 2012

21 mai 2012

at the trial stage.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0323DEC001514103

Admin. suprême

23 mars 2004

23 mars 2004

Therefore, they cannot justify release from pre-trial detention.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-11189

Admin. suprême

13 septembre 2016

13 septembre 2016

In his ensuing interviews, he consistently referred to his written statement, which was admitted as evidence at his trial.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0527JUD002179003

Admin. suprême

27 mai 2010

27 mai 2010

The applicant contested the Government's argument, arguing that the trial judge had had the principal responsibility for the conduct of the trial. 34.

Source officielle
TA

1ère Chambre

DTA_2400048_20250127

Administratif

27 janvier 2025

27 janvier 2025

Elle soutient que : - elle a pris un abonnement mensuel de transport de 90 euros auprès du service des Vedettes Tropicales, qui assure une liaison en navettes maritimes entre son domicile, situé aux

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0626DEC003277196

Admin. suprême

26 juin 2001

26 juin 2001

trial proceedings and appreciate the consequences of his plea of guilty.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1006JUD007643812

Admin. suprême

6 octobre 2016

6 octobre 2016

The reasons given by the trial and appeal courts had been exhaustive and sufficient.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0509JUD003665805

Admin. suprême

9 mai 2017

9 mai 2017

    The applicant’s testimony during the trial 18 .     At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0428JUD003600106

Admin. suprême

28 avril 2015

28 avril 2015

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable

Résumé IA — à vérifier
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-11368

Admin. suprême

6 octobre 2016

6 octobre 2016

At the trial hearing the incriminating report was discussed by the applicant’s expert, who defended his own findings.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0207JUD004701706

Admin. suprême

7 février 2017

7 février 2017

Mr Marov also alleged a violation of the fair trial guarantees, referring to findings made in separate proceedings and the use of those findings in his trial.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-11676

Admin. suprême

9 mai 2017

9 mai 2017

As regards the two attesting witnesses, the overall fairness of the trial had not been prejudiced and the applicant had been able to effectively present her case and the arguments in her defence.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:1114JUD004817318

Admin. suprême

14 novembre 2023

14 novembre 2023

Parties may ask questions on the report for clarification before the matter comes to trial. 77.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0301JUD003204311

Admin. suprême

1 mars 2022

1 mars 2022

    While it is true that the third applicant did not ask the trial court to hear S.T. in person, this failure cannot be held against him, given that the trial court, in requesting copies of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1211JUD000720312

Admin. suprême

11 décembre 2018

11 décembre 2018

The trial court dismissed the application.

Source officielle