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 · "…"
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
Exporter CSV

4 744 résultats pour « Sher MESSINGER »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1113DEC005256799

Admin. suprême

13 novembre 2003

13 novembre 2003

As a result, the shares ceased to be registered at the Securities Centre.

Source officielle

Page 43 sur 238

← PrécédentSuivant →
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:0901DEC002006292

Admin. suprême

1 septembre 1993

1 septembre 1993

The obligation to publish annual accounts was therefore "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0926DEC001609190

Admin. suprême

26 septembre 2002

26 septembre 2002

She states that she had no legal representation or proper interpretation.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0630DEC006680201

Admin. suprême

30 juin 2005

30 juin 2005

Since the cell was overcrowded, during seven months the applicant had to share his bunk bed with other prisoners.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0904JUD004272808

Admin. suprême

4 septembre 2018

4 septembre 2018

    The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:1103DEC002923903

Admin. suprême

3 novembre 2009

3 novembre 2009

Purchase contract and joint ownership of an immovable property In 1991 the applicant concluded a contract with nine persons by which he bought their 9/10 ownership share in an immovable property.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-147200

Admin. suprême

16 septembre 2014

16 septembre 2014

    Can VEGRAD DD be considered to be a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0328JUD004566805

Admin. suprême

28 mars 2017

28 mars 2017

    The first applicant owned a one-sixth share of a house constructed between 1937 and 1949 (her share amounting to some 24 sq.   m, of which some 12 sq.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0611JUD003699908

Admin. suprême

11 juin 2013

11 juin 2013

    The applicant is a privately held company limited by shares with its seat in Budapest. 5.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-13913

Admin. suprême

6 décembre 2022

6 décembre 2022

The applicants had lost opportunities on the market which had inevitably entailed a loss of chances for them to make profit, which could translate into a decrease in the equity value of their shares; shares

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0626DEC005668600

Admin. suprême

26 juin 2006

26 juin 2006

Accordingly, it considered that the requirement for proving the origin of the applicant company’s share capital had not been met.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1210DEC000128421

Admin. suprême

10 décembre 2024

10 décembre 2024

    During the period in question, the third applicant’s companies held the largest share of the land-based gambling industry in Bulgaria.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0125DEC004875499

Admin. suprême

25 janvier 2001

25 janvier 2001

The first applicant’s share was put at 1,493,204   French francs (FRF) at the 1962 value of the franc, the second applicant’s share at FRF 1,520,798 and their mother’s share at FRF   1,111,246

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0510JUD001973502

Admin. suprême

10 mai 2007

10 mai 2007

She asked the court to take the necessary action against the prison officers concerned.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0511DEC001137385

Admin. suprême

11 mai 1987

11 mai 1987

She is in an important phase of development and has not yet attained the age and maturity where she can decide for herself. She ought not to be placed in such a situation of choice.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0307JUD002722717

Admin. suprême

7 mars 2023

7 mars 2023

She had expressed concern about “foreign religious cultists” who had pasted evangelical tracts on the notice board at the entrance of her apartment building. 8 .

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0304JUD001864010

Admin. suprême

4 mars 2014

4 mars 2014

In Mr   Grande Stevens’s opinion, this would be one way to prevent the launch of a takeover bid with regard to the FIAT shares. 9 .

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0303JUD002768504

Admin. suprême

3 mars 2011

3 mars 2011

At a meeting of 18   December 1999, the company’s shareholders struck him off the list of the company’s shareholders and re-distributed his shares that, according to applicant, were worth UAH 162,962

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0904REP002032392

Admin. suprême

4 septembre 1996

4 septembre 1996

It was divided into 670,000 shares of a nominal value of 1,000 drachmas each.   18.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0827DEC003465511

Admin. suprême

27 août 2019

27 août 2019

    Until 1997 the State owned all shares in the first applicant. After the first applicant was offered for privatisation, in 1997 the second applicant acquired 80% of its shares.

Source officielle