CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:1016DEC002589994
16 octobre 1996
In the High Court, the Rules of the Supreme Court govern procedural matters.
Page 18 sur 1366
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0318JUD005527617
18 mars 2021
The matter was considered by the High Court.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0627JUD004842709
27 juin 2017
Laws and other acts concerning “high moral character” 21 .
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1207JUD001073405
7 décembre 2010
Instead, following the High Court of Justiciary's ruling in Galbraith v. H.M.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-160665
12 janvier 2016
The applicant’s complaint against this extension was rejected by the High Court on 21 February 2013.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0929DEC004298602
29 septembre 2005
On 10 September 2001 the High Court scheduled the trial for 19 and 20 March 2002.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0911DEC003028796
11 septembre 2001
He requested the Supreme Court to quash the High Court’s decision.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0307DEC003740097
7 mars 2000
On 3 September 1996 the applicant was granted leave to appeal by a judge of the High Court of Justiciary.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1102JUD004436015
2 novembre 2017
The case duly came before the High Court in January 2013.
CJUE
ECLI:EU:C:2002:161
12 mars 2002
#Peticiones de decisión prejudicial: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) - Reino Unido y High Court - Irlanda.
ECLI:CEDH:001-175318
16 juin 2017
In particular: (a) Was the principle of equality of arms and the principle of adversarial hearing respected in the proceedings before the High Administrative Court?
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-9452
22 novembre 1995
Review by High Court Appeal on "points of law" not capable of embracing all aspects of inspector's decision.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:1211DEC004540712
11 décembre 2012
The loan having been disbursed at a rate higher than 180, the applicant was not eligible for the early repayment scheme.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:1016DEC002898195
They also submit that the High Court judge did not take any notice of their evidence during the High Court hearing.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1023DEC003271296
23 octobre 1997
The judgment of the High Court The High Court delivered its judgment on 10 March 1995.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0315JUD002184604
15 mars 2007
In reply, on 11 December 2003 the President of the High Court found no reason to grant the applicant compensation inter alia because the High Court had offered that the trial could
Tribunal Administratif de Paris
ORTA_2214780_20220715
15 juillet 2022
Considérant ce qui suit : Sur l'intervention de la société Uniprotect High Sec : 1.
TRIBUNAL_UE
ECLI:EU:T:2026:72
4 février 2026
#Radical-Consulting UG and Others v European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0114JUD003647008
14 janvier 2014
The High Court of Cassation and Justice held two hearings.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0626DEC001196804
26 juin 2006
An appeal against the judgment was lodged with the High Court of Western Denmark ( Vestre Landsret ).