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

12 118 résultats pour « Wize »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-11265

Admin. suprême

28 juin 2016

28 juin 2016

The climate of impunity thus created had allowed the husband to continue assaulting his wife without fear of prosecution.

Source officielle

Page 45 sur 606

← PrécédentSuivant →
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0926DEC006729510

Admin. suprême

26 septembre 2017

26 septembre 2017

In 2011, the applicant was expelled to Tunisia, where he was subsequently joined by his wife and four children, who are all Dutch nationals. 4.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1208DEC002401502

Admin. suprême

8 décembre 2005

8 décembre 2005

Two further witnesses stated that the victim and his wife had been in an inebriated state.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1994:0705DEC001774891

Admin. suprême

5 juillet 1994

5 juillet 1994

        On 22 April 1988 the applicant and his wife had a meeting with Mr. L.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0713DEC001224686

Admin. suprême

13 juillet 1987

13 juillet 1987

Moreover, the applicant had in principle agreed that his former wife should take care of their daughter.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:1010DEC001560189

Admin. suprême

10 octobre 1991

10 octobre 1991

to thefamily home and awarded custody of the children to both the applicant and his wife.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0914DEC005025299

Admin. suprême

14 septembre 2004

14 septembre 2004

The spouses had merely not cohabited for a number of months because of marital problems; however, the first applicant had remained in contact with his wife.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0626DEC002628395

Admin. suprême

26 juin 1996

26 juin 1996

       On 14 July 1993 the applicant's former wife commented on the applicant's appeal.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0529JUD003786202

Admin. suprême

29 mai 2012

29 mai 2012

    On 18 May 2000 the applicant’s wife gave birth to their son. 13.     On 16 November 2000 and 20 November 2001 the applicant received two short-term visits from his wife.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1122DEC000892312

Admin. suprême

22 novembre 2016

22 novembre 2016

The court was of the view that there was no prospect of him returning to his wife. 14.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1017DEC002514116

Admin. suprême

17 octobre 2017

17 octobre 2017

    On 29 December 2007 the applicant and his wife arrived in Sweden.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0119JUD000477206

Admin. suprême

19 janvier 2017

19 janvier 2017

    On 15 September 2003 the applicant’s wife hired a lawyer, G., to represent the applicant. 11.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0710JUD000226010

Admin. suprême

10 juillet 2014

10 juillet 2014

    The applicant’s wife was requested to attend an interview at the consulate on 21   February 2008.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0225JUD006837717

Admin. suprême

25 février 2020

25 février 2020

After the wife and her sister left the Gurdwara , the sister had been seized and dragged into a white car by unknown men. Unlike the wife, the sister had not yet put on her burqa.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0701JUD006642409

Admin. suprême

1 juillet 2021

1 juillet 2021

The applicant’s conduct in prison and regular visits from his wife and relatives 11.     In 2008 the applicant got married. He had a child with his wife.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:0630REP001483089

Admin. suprême

30 juin 1992

30 juin 1992

  The applicant arrived at Manchester Airport on 8 August 1987 and sought leave to enter to rejoin his wife.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-9175

Admin. suprême

19 février 1996

19 février 1996

Turkey - original reasons for his application for political asylum no longer valid - possible for applicant to receive his ordinary invalidity pension if he returned to his country - possible for his wife

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-115711

Admin. suprême

7 décembre 2010

7 décembre 2010

On 4 January 2005 the applicant’s former common-law wife gave birth to a girl.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-14513

Admin. suprême

29 avril 2025

29 avril 2025

- 39631/20 Judgment 29.4.2025 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Prison authorities’ refusal to hand over to a prisoner voluminous internet printouts posted to him by his wife

Source officielle
CC

soc

ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:SO10189

Cassation

17 février 2016

17 février 2016

société par actions simplifiée, dont le siège est [Adresse 3], 2°/ à la société Nexans France, société par actions simplifiée unipersonnelle, dont le siège est [Adresse 2], 3°/ à la société Nexans Wires

Source officielle