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

23 798 résultats pour « Held Sutter »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-2482645-2696229

Admin. suprême

23 septembre 2008

23 septembre 2008

It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant’s heirs EUR   7,000 to cover all heads of damage taken together.

Page 29 sur 1190

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-1274352-1334500

Admin. suprême

1 mars 2005

1 mars 2005

Finding that the applicant had been denied access to a court, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-56296

Admin. suprême

20 octobre 2003

20 octobre 2003

votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;   - held, unanimously, that there

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-1489637-1563637

Admin. suprême

27 octobre 2005

27 octobre 2005

The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-1179015-1224937

Admin. suprême

2 novembre 2004

2 novembre 2004

  The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-1742323-1833776

Admin. suprême

8 août 2006

8 août 2006

Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0213JUD007438913

Admin. suprême

13 février 2018

13 février 2018

Consequently, he had sustained an open wound to his head.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0928JUD002401502

Admin. suprême

28 septembre 2006

28 septembre 2006

s head injuries. He had not hit N.'s head against the pavement. 12.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0314JUD003621613

Admin. suprême

14 mars 2017

14 mars 2017

summer holidays with the children at his home in S.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:1020JUD001973692

Admin. suprême

20 octobre 1997

20 octobre 1997

    On 9   January 1990 the Regional Head Office refused the above application.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1106JUD004457498

Admin. suprême

6 novembre 2006

6 novembre 2006

Numerous rounds of negotiations were held. 85.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0422JUD001621990

Admin. suprême

22 avril 2008

22 avril 2008

The applicant stated that this sum had been calculated on the basis of the sum awarded by the Court in the Loizidou case (Article 50, cited above) by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, taking

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-1815779-1904883

Admin. suprême

17 octobre 2006

17 octobre 2006

The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-68324-68792

Admin. suprême

11 juillet 2000

11 juillet 2000

On 4 March 1992 the first hearing was held before the Katowice Regional Court. Subsequently, as the judge rapporteur fell ill, the case was assigned to a new panel of judges.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-482639-483840

Admin. suprême

31 janvier 2002

31 janvier 2002

  The applicant has also been awarded a global sum of 100,000 French francs for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-972307-1004841

Admin. suprême

6 avril 2004

6 avril 2004

The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0325JUD008109912

Admin. suprême

25 mars 2014

25 mars 2014

The District Court held a hearing and dismissed the case, accepting the applicant’s argument.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1213JUD002774495

Admin. suprême

13 décembre 2005

13 décembre 2005

The Court does not, however, find it established that the whole sum claimed under this head can be attributed to the delay in respect of which a violation has been found.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-68197-68665

Admin. suprême

31 juillet 2000

31 juillet 2000

A hearing was held on 30 November 1999.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-3254457-3633943

Admin. suprême

9 septembre 2010

9 septembre 2010

He still suffers from various consequences of the explosion, including an amputated hand and serious problems affecting his sight, hearing and movements.

Source officielle