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

7 691 résultats pour « Chilly »

RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
Tous
CC
CE
TA
CAA
CA
CPH
TJ
TCOM
CJUE
Prud'h.
Conv. coll.
BOFIP
IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

PRESS;GENERAL;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-780812-797300

Admin. suprême

26 juin 2003

26 juin 2003

Later that day, the child was placed in a foster home.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-159421

Admin. suprême

25 novembre 2015

25 novembre 2015

In August 2009, the applicant’s husband moved out from the family home together with the child.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-187545

Admin. suprême

9 octobre 2018

9 octobre 2018

access to the child determined ( иск об определении порядка общения с ребенком ).

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-68297-68765

Admin. suprême

27 juin 2000

27 juin 2000

  In September 1993 he requested confirmation of his paternity of I, a child born in 1992, that custody of I be shared with the mother, H, and that the child be granted rights of access to him.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0920DEC000469916

Admin. suprême

20 septembre 2022

20 septembre 2022

The applicant was also to pay child allowance, amounting to 13,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) per child monthly. 4.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0116DEC001430921

Admin. suprême

16 janvier 2024

16 janvier 2024

She concluded that both parents were fit to take care of the child and presented no mental health issues.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-205318

Admin. suprême

22 septembre 2020

22 septembre 2020

S. not to prevent the applicant from seeing the child and established a schedule for regular meetings of the applicant with the child. That judgment became final on 2 August 2016.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1988:1005DEC001227086

Admin. suprême

5 octobre 1988

5 octobre 1988

  She did not dare to be left alone with her child, not even for a short while, and she could not let her child stay with her during nights.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:0412DEC002467194

Admin. suprême

12 avril 1996

12 avril 1996

The absence of ones' child may cause considerable suffering to the non- custodial parent.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1216DEC002740522

Admin. suprême

16 décembre 2025

16 décembre 2025

It was noted that the child welfare services would need to evaluate and adjust the contact arrangements in the future. 5.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0907DEC003422296

Admin. suprême

7 septembre 1999

7 septembre 1999

    Following a child protection conference, the children were removed from the Child Protection Register in June 1995, at which time it was reported that they were living happily with their

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0912DEC004566599

Admin. suprême

12 septembre 2000

12 septembre 2000

  It was agreed that the applicant would have custody of the child and that the child would visit his father at weekends.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0626DEC000493611

Admin. suprême

26 juin 2018

26 juin 2018

, but no later than when the child reaches the age of majority.” 25.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0521DEC005124499

Admin. suprême

21 mai 2002

21 mai 2002

with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parent and the child.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1213DEC001150418

Admin. suprême

13 décembre 2022

13 décembre 2022

    The applicant argued that she did not wish to vaccinate her second child before appropriate testing had been performed to confirm that the child would not develop autism, as her first-born

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0601DEC004186119

Admin. suprême

1 juin 2021

1 juin 2021

she felt that those visits were detrimental to the child.

Source officielle
CJUE

CJUE

ECLI:EU:C:1989:590

CJUE

22 novembre 1989

22 novembre 1989

. # Common commercial policy - Community protective measures - Trade with non-member countries - Dessert apples originating in Chile. # Case C-152/88.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:1021REP003284296

Admin. suprême

21 octobre 1998

21 octobre 1998

the child."

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0510JUD002939295

Admin. suprême

10 mai 2001

10 mai 2001

between the child and its parents.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1030JUD004093816

Admin. suprême

30 octobre 2018

30 octobre 2018

of the child constituted the main guidance.

Source officielle

Page 56 sur 385

← PrécédentSuivant →