CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0704JUD002105110
4 juillet 2024
It stated that the court-appointed expert had made a mistake while measuring the plot. 16.
Page 37 sur 918
civ3
60794c339ba5988459c44ef6
5 juillet 1989
que le syndicat des copropriétaires fait grief à l'arrêt d'avoir dit qu'il n'y avait pas lieu à référé, alors, selon le moyen, " que, 1°) saisi d'un problème de qualification concernant le dallage sur plots
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1212JUD004580611
12 décembre 2019
The applicants’ complaints concern some of these plots only. 40.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1122JUD000222610
22 novembre 2011
The said plots were numbered Plot 2 (16,544 sq.m), Plot 3 (405 sq.m), Plot 41 (6,841 sq.m) and Plot 53 (12,538 sq.m). 8.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0216JUD004376807
16 février 2017
It noted that the disputed plot had been allocated to the applicant mistakenly on the basis of the decision of 17 January 2003, without due regard to the fact that in 1999 this very plot had already been
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0629DEC004858007
29 juin 2010
During the proceedings, the Commissioner of Lands declared under oath that two of the said plots were within the Freeport Zone, two other plots were partly in the zone and the third was outside it.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1117JUD000147105
17 novembre 2015
The expert report estimated the market value of the plot of land in question by referring to the market price of other plots which were similar in terms of size, location, purpose and other relevant characteristics
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0930JUD000610604
30 septembre 2008
another plot. 9.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0317JUD000520710
17 mars 2016
On 14 April 2008 the applicants requested that unoccupied plots measuring 3,142 sq. m, situated within the plot measuring 10,600 sq. m, be restored to them.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1116JUD002756514
16 novembre 2021
As a matter of fact, however, in 1986 a sports complex had been constructed on the plot claimed by the applicants, and in 2006 the State had transferred the land to a private company.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-181757
23 février 2018
The applicant claims that a court decision confirmed that the title deed in question corresponds to these plots.
CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:0902REP001362588
2 septembre 1992
The plan indicated that if Slätvaren 42 were divided the building plot situated away from street S would be given a road easement (vägservitut) to street S over the plot closer to that street.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0322JUD006797901
22 mars 2005
This part of the plot had earlier constituted a separate plot. 30.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0401JUD006448009
1 avril 2014
This plot of land was made up of two smaller plots: one measuring 260,000 sq. m (“Plot A”) and the other measuring 140,000 sq. m (“Plot B”). Proceedings concerning the restitution of Plot B 12.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1110JUD002503808
10 novembre 2015
and was higher than the plot of land in the city centre.
ECLI:CEDH:001-213757
3 novembre 2021
The domestic courts ruled against the applicants finding, inter alia , that: in deciding to transfer a plot of land to the applicant the local authorities had exceeded their powers (application no. 14401
ECLI:CEDH:001-220230
26 septembre 2022
In 1994 the body competent in that field, a local land commission (later on renamed as agricultural department), ordered the restitution of several plots of land measuring 50,800 square metres in total
ECLI:CEDH:001-244712
8 août 2025
The applicant company submitted to the domestic courts that the value of the land in the area where its plots were located was MKD 7,638 (approximately EUR 125) per square metre, as determined by
Tribunal Administratif de Rouen
DTA_2503736_20260430
30 avril 2026
amovibles, mobilier urbain ordinaire ; elle n’a pas été informée de la dépose des plots pour faciliter le passage d’un véhicule ; ces trous étaient parfaitement visibles de l’usager ; la requérante
Tribunal Administratif de MELUN
ORTA_2209181_20221018
18 octobre 2022
faits ne sont pas justifiés, que la société a été informée des travaux et qu'elle ne s'est pas rendue aux réunions d'information, qu'une zone de livraison a été laissée en face de l'entrepôt, que les plots