Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-219078
18 juillet 2022
18 juillet 2022
The applicants appealed against the above judgment submitting that: (1) the penalty in the form of the removal of the online article was not prescribed by law because it was not included in the
Source officielleTribunal Administratif de Toulouse
ORTA_2204462_20230818
18 août 2023
18 août 2023
A B, représenté par Me Béchard, demande au tribunal : 1°) d'enjoindre à l'Etat de lui verser la somme de 169,94 euros portant intérêts au taux légal à compter du 10 avril 2020, majorée de 5 points à
Source officielleETRANGERS
6892e311bf535a2d228f958a
31 juillet 2025
31 juillet 2025
maintien au centre de rétention de : [Y] [B] né le 04 Juillet 2000 à [Localité 1] (ALGERIE) de nationalité Algérienne Vu l'appel formé le 31 juillet 2025 à 10 h 08 par courriel, par Me Aurore BECHARD
Source officielleTribunal Administratif de Toulouse
ORTA_2603597_20260424
24 avril 2026
24 avril 2026
A..., représenté par Me Béchard, demande au juge des référés, sur le fondement des dispositions de l’article L. 521-1 du code de justice administrative : 1°) de l’admettre au bénéfice de l’aide juridictionnelle
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-229059
2 novembre 2023
2 novembre 2023
the search warrants did not include any relevant reasons and were formulated in extremely broad terms which gave unfettered discretion to the investigator to search for anything he wanted, and also because
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-14281
23 novembre 2023
23 novembre 2023
On 11 July 2014 the applicant NGO lodged a defamation claim against a local media company and its journalist because of an article published in the newspaper run by the company.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-171237
17 janvier 2017
17 janvier 2017
On 17 September 2015 the applicant’s grandson complained to the district prosecutor once again because the Ministry still owed the 240 nappies.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-120859
13 mai 2013
13 mai 2013
The court found that the applicant was absconding because he failed to appear when summoned before the court.
Source officielleSécurité sociale
60354f5872c138784c30ee4d
10 mai 2016
10 mai 2016
BIDAL de la SCP JOSEPH AGUERA & ASSOCIES, à la Cour substituée par Me Matteo CRISPINO, avocat au barreau de LYON DÉBATS EN AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE DU : 15 Mars 2016 Composée de Jean -Louis BERNAUD
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-235442
9 juillet 2024
9 juillet 2024
In particular, the acts for which the applicants were convicted did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when they were committed because they did not meet the required elements of the offence
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1114JUD001833805
14 novembre 2008
14 novembre 2008
As to the non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 May 2004, the judgment could not have been enforced because the judgment had been unclear, and because the applicant had retained the enforcement papers
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0113DEC001015213
13 janvier 2015
13 janvier 2015
to an oral hearing had been violated because the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal on points of law without oral hearing.
Source officiellecomm
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2011:CO00519
24 mai 2011
24 mai 2011
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
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1025JUD006505101
25 octobre 2007
25 octobre 2007
had to be appointed by the court, and also because Mr G.'
Source officiellePRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-423076-423439
20 octobre 2005
20 octobre 2005
Some of the applicants had previously received an order to leave Italian territory because they did not have valid residence permits; the other applicants received a deportation order on 3 March 2000 itself
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-193841
9 avril 2019
9 avril 2019
The authorities refused the visa because the applicant’s income was insufficient to sponsor the children for residency and because the applicant did not qualify for an exemption.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-242628
3 mars 2025
3 mars 2025
The Regional Court held that the applicant had created a dangerous situation, because the demonstration had taken place during lunch time and the steps had to be cordoned off because they had become slippery
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-222488
16 décembre 2022
16 décembre 2022
Whereas the Amsterdam Regional Court acquitted the applicant of complicity in manslaughter because there was no conclusive technical evidence available and it therefore mainly came down to witness X’s
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-208506
12 février 2021
12 février 2021
the prison courtyard; that he did not benefit from conjugal visits; that the prison did not test for sexually transmitted diseases; and that he could not work because of his sexual orientation.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-243803
21 mai 2025
21 mai 2025
s placement under guardianship, the Federal Constitutional Court found that the Bayreuth Regional Court’s decision in the appeal proceedings had violated the applicant’s personality rights, notably because
Source officiellePage 10 sur 1499