Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-158455
6 octobre 2015
6 octobre 2015
With respect to other actions filed by the applicants after the adoption of the High Court’s decision, seeking to obtain recognition of their right confirmed by the High Court, the courts of appeal held
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0930DEC001434913
30 septembre 2014
30 septembre 2014
The action was dismissed by the High Court in 1995. In July 1997, the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for the assessment of damages.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1216DEC000070813
16 décembre 2014
16 décembre 2014
By final decision of 3 July 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“High Court”) reduced the applicants’ prison sentences to either 1 year and 2 months or 1 year and 6 months with a stay
Source officiellesoc
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2012:SO00644
6 mars 2012
6 mars 2012
X..., engagé le 2 juillet 2002, par la société High Co Communication devenue la société High Co Avenue (la société), en qualité de manager, a été licencié, le 8 février 2007, pour faute grave ; qu'il a
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0916DEC002301202
16 septembre 2004
16 septembre 2004
Since then the applicant appeared before the High Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-233138
18 mars 2024
18 mars 2024
Court judgment of 25 March 2015 the applicant, who suffers from schizophrenia, was sentenced to placement in a high security psychiatric facility ( Sikringsafdelingen ).
Source officielleChambre commerciale
64a50d15b8594705dbfccd34
3 juillet 2023
3 juillet 2023
HIGH TECH CONSULTANT (HTC) Représentant : Me Laetitia RIGAULT de la SELARL PRAGMA, Plaidant/Postulant, avocat au barreau de SAINT-DENIS-DE-LA-REUNION APPELANT S.A.S. VINDEMIA SERVICES S.A.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1122JUD002260302
22 novembre 2007
22 novembre 2007
Court or his deputy and a judge of the Higher Arbitration Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0306DEC006321400
6 mars 2003
6 mars 2003
On 14 February 2001 the High Court scheduled the case for trial to commence on 30 May 2001.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-212593
20 septembre 2021
20 septembre 2021
17 Codruţa Mariana TRANDAFIR against Romania lodged on 22 March 2017 communicated on 20 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in disciplinary proceedings opened by the Higher
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-249485
5 mars 2026
5 mars 2026
On appeal, on 5 March 2024 the Valencian Community High Court of Justice declared the dismissal null and void. On 19 March 2024 the High Court notified the applicant company of the judgment.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-206781
27 novembre 2020
27 novembre 2020
In their appeal the applicants argued that the High Court had incorrectly applied the statutory seven-year limitation period for planning enforcement actions.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0906JUD000282216
6 septembre 2018
6 septembre 2018
The High Court 26.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:1214DEC003096696
14 décembre 1999
14 décembre 1999
pollution level was significantly higher before 1990.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:1212DEC002718221
12 décembre 2023
12 décembre 2023
On 5 January 2021 the High Court upheld the City Court’s judgment. 9.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-213757
3 novembre 2021
3 novembre 2021
Ukraine 11/08/2014 Irina Leonidovna LUPASHKU 1956 Berezivka Ukrainian - 19 February 2014, Higher Administrative Court 64284/14 Vest Ist Grup, TOV v.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0513DEC001252386
13 mai 1987
13 mai 1987
The applicant was aware that this was in breach of the High Court order, but feared that if he expressed his concerns to the High Court, it might put the child into care.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-114184
1 octobre 2012
1 octobre 2012
The High Court In February 2007 the Tribunal sought High Court orders, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)(Amendment) Act 1997, compelling the applicants to comply with its order and
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0529DEC002619403
29 mai 2006
29 mai 2006
The latter was granted free legal aid during the proceedings before the High Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-5216
18 mars 2003
18 mars 2003
As for the High Court’s refusal to rule on the legality of the treatment administered, this was understandable in view of the factual dispute over David’s precise condition at the relevant time.
Source officiellePage 19 sur 1366