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

492 résultats pour « Edouard Devilder »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0701REP002345294

Admin. suprême

1 juillet 1997

1 juillet 1997

He denied that on earlier occasions he had damaged the windows but admitted that he had let down his tyres as a prank.

Page 12 sur 25

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0506DEC002763112

Admin. suprême

6 mai 2014

6 mai 2014

The nurse acknowledged that the applicant had refused to drink the saline solution and denied that he had been forced to do so.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0604DEC003890815

Admin. suprême

4 juin 2024

4 juin 2024

prohibition of retrospective application of criminal law to the applicant’s disadvantage, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1211JUD004290618

Admin. suprême

11 décembre 2025

11 décembre 2025

principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1003DEC003985703

Admin. suprême

3 octobre 2006

3 octobre 2006

On 13 July 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, when he denied the charges against him. On the same day he was examined by a medical expert at the Forensic Medicine Institute.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0929DEC005409108

Admin. suprême

29 septembre 2009

29 septembre 2009

xa0; Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2008, Having deliberated, decides

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0122DEC004201198

Admin. suprême

22 janvier 2002

22 janvier 2002

the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0730JUD003004902

Admin. suprême

30 juillet 2009

30 juillet 2009

The police officers Ch., M. and K. ... denied that they had put any pressure on [the applicant].

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0517DEC002345294

Admin. suprême

17 mai 1996

17 mai 1996

Paget-Lewis denied that he was responsible.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0722JUD003964798

Admin. suprême

22 juillet 2003

22 juillet 2003

In the case of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:1027JUD003964798

Admin. suprême

27 octobre 2004

27 octobre 2004

; display:inline-block } .s5D40ED98 { width:28.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block }                   CASE OF EDWARDS

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-2324009-2505401

Admin. suprême

18 avril 2008

18 avril 2008

Its route ultimately diverged from the original plan but the applicants’ request to recover the land was denied.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0522DEC006738501

Admin. suprême

22 mai 2003

22 mai 2003

In relation to these prisoners, the Secretary of State decides the length of the tariff.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0920DEC005085306

Admin. suprême

20 septembre 2011

20 septembre 2011

The applicants use portable electric devices instead.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0521DEC000127811

Admin. suprême

21 mai 2013

21 mai 2013

Edwards and Mr M. Ford, barristers practising in London. 2.     The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr D. Walton and Ms R.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0207JUD004701706

Admin. suprême

7 février 2017

7 février 2017

    The Government denied that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1114JUD003476407

Admin. suprême

14 novembre 2017

14 novembre 2017

They denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building. 7.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:1127DEC002423894

Admin. suprême

27 novembre 1996

27 novembre 1996

xa0;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0829DEC002724009

Admin. suprême

29 août 2017

29 août 2017

U.S., however, denied that he had incited any other person to carry out the killing. 16.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0511DEC003966198

Admin. suprême

11 mai 1999

11 mai 1999

There was clear medical evidence that someone had penetrated K on a number of occasions, but the applicant denied that it had been him.

Source officielle