#Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Legal effects of an unfair term - Power of and obligation on the national court to examine of its own motion the unfairness of a term conferring

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête, enregistrée le 31 janvier 2024, la SARL Vivana hygiène, représentée par Me Monpion, demande au tribunal : 1°) de condamner la commune de Saint-Hilaire-les-Places

A hearing scheduled for 15 April 1998 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s motion for bias, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6   July 1998.

Under section 16(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a motion for bias may be filed by a party if the judge concerned does not recuse himself voluntarily.

    Proceedings for the annulment of the expropriation decision On 1   June 2007 the applicant lodged a motion to have the decision of 23   October 1948 quashed.

    On 29 March 1999 the President of the Vienna Juvenile Court dismissed her motion as being unfounded. 24.

X..., détenu à la maison d'arrêt des Baumettes, chemin de Morgion à Marseille (13009), et tendant à ce que le Conseil d'Etat : 1°- annule le jugement du 24 avril 1986 par lequel le tribunal administratif

Mme Montion est domiciliée à Salleboeuf, dans le département de la Gironde, où elle exerce la profession de secrétaire.

Lawyer U. : I support [the motion].

On 16 December 2014 the Regional Court examined the above motion and granted it.

(c)     On 11 August 1989 the applicant filed a motion for enforcement seeking execution of the 1989 judgment.

Momin en tant que témoin.

Par deux mémoires en défense, enregistrés les 5 mai et 6 juin 2025, la société publique locale Sages, représentée par Me Mollion conclut à titre principal au non-lieu à statuer et à titre subsidiaire au

    On 18 October 1994 the court held a sitting concerning the applicant’s motion for a new expert opinion. 24.

On 20 December 2002 the applicant issued a motion for additional time to serve a further expert report to which the defendants responded with a motion that the action be struck out for non-compliance with

The Supreme Court refused the applicants’ motion.

, and a motion for disqualification of judge K.

On 14 March 2008 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the applicant’s objection and her motion to postpone the enforcement.

According to the applicant, the Southern Criminal Court never examined the above motion.