Monsieur [K] [JO] et Madame [H] [R] qui établissent que Madame [X] [UK] et son mari fournissaient à Madame [RO] [U] veuve [UK] de nombreux services, en entretenant son jardin, taillant les rosiers, faisant

l'édification d'un bâtiment agricole à usage de stockage et de parc de contention de bovins avec panneaux photovoltaïques sur le territoire de la commune, ensemble les décisions implicites de rejet du 6 mars

La cour d'appel de Douai désignée cour de renvoi, a été saisie par déclaration de la société JPD du 15 mars 2017.

On 16 March 2017 he decided that as a result of their actions, each applicant’s monthly salary, due that month, should be decreased by 100,000   Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 320   euros

Although this rule applies only to adults, the Court must limit its review to the issue affecting the applicant, who is an adult (see Marckx v. Belgium , 13 June 1979, § 27, Series A no. 31). 27.

Compte de la marge brute moyenne de ses quatre derniers exercices, elle demande à la cour de condamner la société RDM à lui payer la somme de 172 849,75 euros.

un risque de chute très important et avait donc nécessairement conscience ou aurait dû avoir conscience du danger auquel elle exposait son salarié ; que le plan de prévention des risques établi le 26 mars

Mme Marie-Hélène Z...épouse X... Mme Michelle A...épouse B... Mme Claude Josiane A...épouse D... Mme Danièle Annie A...épouse E... Mme Josette Nicole A...épouse F...

D... épouse de Monsieur Léopold EE..., décédée le 7 mars 2001 à Auckland ; 26- Monsieur Yeung N... C... C...

The Municipality imposed a fine of 6,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) on the applicant.

Porázik (“the applicant”), on 22 August 2014; the decision to give notice to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”) of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16 March

    On 13 September 2005 and 28 March 2006 respectively the Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the restriction placed on the first applicant

  Folmer Reindel, advocate, as adviser, and by his wife Mary Hauschildt as assistant.   The Government were represented by Mr.

In a report on 30 May 1984 the customs authorities noted Mr Funke’s refusal to comply with the Colmar Court of Appeal’s judgment of 14 March 1983 (see paragraph 13 above).

On 28   December 2010 the prolongation was ordered until 6 March 2011, without hearing the applicant.

    In March 2004 a Member of Parliament (“the MP”) and other individuals lodged a complaint for abstract review with the Constitutional Court.

    The applicants entered Hungary illegally and were intercepted and arrested by the police on 10 March 2009.

    On 19 March 2005, following the pronouncement of the divorce of the applicant and his wife, the Budapest Central District Court placed the couple’s son with the mother.