CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
cr
édure suiviec/MM. Y
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:CR03424
6 septembre 2016
GUÉRIN président, R É P U B L I Q U E F R A N Ç A I S E ________________________________________ AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS _________________________ LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE
Page 29 sur 5384
Chambre 10 cab 10 H
6a0f4fe9cdc6046d477b851f
21 mai 2026
Sur ce, le contrat de bail de sous-location de courte durée mentionnait que : “De plus, des travaux sont en cours de réalisation par la société CLIMB UP ARKOSE qui gênent l'exploitation de Monsieur [A
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-192526
21 mars 2019
He is represented before the Court by Ms P. Stoilova, a lawyer practising in Kazanlak.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0512JUD004839516
12 mai 2020
That complaint was sent to the prosecutor’s office by the Maramureş County Court. 14 .
civ1
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2010:C101090
1 décembre 2010
of California - County of Alameda du 26 février 2003 contrevient à l'ordre public international de fond, la cour d'appel a violé par fausse application les articles 25 et 74 de la Convention de Vienne
ECLI:CEDH:001-160393
7 janvier 2016
The outcome of that hearing was that the court finds the prosecutor’s arguments particularly convincing and also considers that the court is currently unable to determine the fate of the indicated piece
ECLI:CEDH:001-172644
10 mars 2017
On 26 February 2008 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and the lower court’s findings in full.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0907DEC003698397
7 septembre 2004
However, the Court finds that the Forensic Laboratory’s report, which was established after the Court’s judgment, is not a fact which “was unknown to the Court", which has since
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:CR03427
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0716JUD001493403
16 juillet 2009
The Court’s assessment 21.
PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-2900690-3190071
21 octobre 2009
In January 2004, he was sentenced by the Assize court of Lieges to 20 years’ imprisonment. His appeal against his conviction was rejected by the Court of Cassation in June 2004.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1211DEC001043002
11 décembre 2007
The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.” In the cases of Wolkenberg and Others v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0210DEC003405296
10 février 2000
The court pointed out that several pieces of evidence remained to be taken, including the psychiatric examination of the applicant.
613726a3cd5801467742745c
21 septembre 2005
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 septembre deux mille cinq, a rendu l'arrêt suivant :
61372636cd58014677423d3c
4 novembre 2003
, en date du 15 dudit mois, ne permet pas de s'assurer de l'identité de l'auteur du courrier ; qu'ainsi, la cour d'appel n'a pas mis la Cour de Cassation en mesure d'exercer son contrôle sur l'accomplissement
comm
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:CO00434
29 juin 2022
[W] [F] avait fait l'objet d'une procédure de liquidation judiciaire par jugement du 14 mai 2019 du tribunal mixte de commerce de Saint-Pierre, confirmé par arrêt du 9 décembre 2019 de la cour d'appel
ECLI:CEDH:001-174140
10 mai 2017
On 2 February 2015 the applicant’s mother challenged the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Constitutional Court by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, alleging a violation
ECLI:CEDH:001-192837
3 avril 2019
The first-instance court’s decision was upheld by the Baku Appeal Court and the Supreme Court on 4 July 2012 and 16 October 2012 respectively. 3.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0611JUD004790919
11 juin 2024
The Court finds Officer G.’s course of action problematic not only because under domestic law the use of pepper spray is explicitly excluded in cases of so ‑ called “passive resistance” by
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD004124806
26 novembre 2013
It also noted that such a conclusion was supported by the practice of the Lithuanian courts, namely, the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling no.