[L], [H] et [T] [W] avaient assigné en nullité du mariage le 7 mars 2019, soit près de dix ans après le décès de [C] [W], quand il s'était fallu partager le produit de la vente d'un bien immobilier de

en cette qualité audit siège, en cassation d'un arrêt rendu le 10 septembre 1996 par la cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence (4ème chambre, section B), au profit : 1°/ de la société civile immobilière Marina

Since S.T. was mentally disabled and permanently placed in a mental hospital, he did not actually live in the flat.

    The applicant did not invoke Article 5 § 1 before the domestic courts and has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies in respect of this complaint.

Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   November 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria

On 30 January 2025 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had died on 27 July 2020 and that his widow, Mrs Mariia Savruk wished to pursue the application.

DAVAL GUEDJ, avocat au barreau D'AIX-EN-PROVENCE, assisté de Me Philippe TEBOUL, membre de la SELARL TEBOUL PHILIPPE, avocat au barreau de NICE Appelante Mme [E] [S] Représentée par Me Clément DIAZ

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le vingt et un octobre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-sept, a rendu l'arrêt

The Government did not object to this.

X..., titulaire d'un office notarial, époux commun en biens de Mme Y..., a commis au préjudice de sa clientèle divers détournements pour lesquels il a été condamné le 29 mai 1995, pour abus de confiance

The Karlovac Municipal Court on 24 May 2001 dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that he did not fulfil the conditions for buying the flat in question.

      On 13 March 1979 she dismissed an employee whom she had engaged in October 1976, Mrs Maria Rosa Silva.

/ Mme Sophie Z..., domiciliée [...] , 22°/ Mme Bonnie S..., domiciliée [...] , 23°/ Mme Caroline I... ou I..., domiciliée [...] , 24°/ Mme Lynette DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD..., domiciliée [...] , 25°/ Mme Maria

Sur le DIF : Mme Malika X... épouse Y... fait état du préjudice résultant pour elle de l'absence d'information concernant le DIF, l'ayant privée d'accès aux formations qui auraient pu être mises en

If so, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

    Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, did the contested blanket ban also concern the applicants’ right to correspondence with their lawyers?

2014, Information Note 173 ) the Court considered the new law and found that the mechanism established offered a range of effective remedies that needed to be exhausted in certain cases but that the law did

The Court asked the applicant to comment on the Government’s submissions but did not receive any reply.