CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
civ3
613722a3cd580146773ff769
28 février 1996
Rubin Z..., demeurant ..., défendeur à la cassation ; La demanderesse invoque, à l'appui de son pourvoi, les deux moyens de cassation annexés au présent arrêt ; LA COUR, en l'audience publique du
Page 65 sur 241
soc
613723f3cd5801467741053e
8 janvier 2002
Rudi E..., 5 / de M. Jean-Pierre X..., 6 / de M. Laurent G..., 7 / de M. Jean-Marie A..., 8 / de M. Bernard D..., 9 / de Mme Astride Y..., 10 / de M. François Z..., 11 / de M.
Tribunal Administratif de MELUN
ORTA_2202340_20240603
3 juin 2024
Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 9 mars 2022, M. et Mme B A, représentés par Me Spanier Ruffier, demandent au tribunal : 1°) de condamner la commune de Soignolles-en-Brie à
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0704JUD001135420
4 juillet 2024
[1] 11354/20 07/02/2020 Aleksandr Andreyevich MELNIKOV 1993 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally for fair elections Moscow 27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0502JUD001856110
2 mai 2017
) 100,000 euros (EUR) Realtor’s fee for the purchase of the flat RUB 47,300 The rent (2011- present) RUB 2,920,000 Realtor’s fee in connection with the rent of the flat RUB 20,000
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0917DEC007849414
17 septembre 2019
valeur nominale de 4 175 RUB.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0111JUD006153919
11 janvier 2022
) pour représentation au niveau interne ; 200 000 RUB pour représentation devant la Cour ; 1 860 RUB frais postaux. 600 EUR (six cents euros) pour représentation au niveau interne
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0606JUD008352717
6 juin 2024
30,000 2) administrative fine of RUB 30,000 1) 28/08/2018, Cheremushinskiy District Court of Moscow 2) 28/08/2018, Cheremushinskiy District Court of Moscow 1,000
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-245217
18 septembre 2025
Smolensk Regional Court, 15/07/2020 Fine of RUB 30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.
ECLI:CEDH:001-229767
30 novembre 2023
xa0; 40353/21 30/07/2021 Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BEREZIKOV 1983 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy” Rostov-on-Don 23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0410JUD001686908
10 avril 2012
) and compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 10,000.
ECLI:CEDH:001-229905
11/2021 Khochiakbar Numonchonovich SHARIPOV 1998 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Rally in support of Izzat Amon Moscow 02/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB
ECLI:CEDH:001-171817
6 février 2017
RUB 10,000,000. On 28 October 2013 the applicant received the writ of execution. On 2 October 2014 the judgment was fully executed and the applicant received RUB 10,000,000.
ECLI:CEDH:001-167631
23 septembre 2016
) and RUB 1,000 or administrative detention of up to fifteen days ...”
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0616JUD002298310
16 juin 2020
967,429 (EUR 12,660) to the first applicant RUB 1,009,014 (EUR 13,210) to the second and third applicants each RUB 451,053 (EUR 5,900) to the fourth applicant
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD001723019
10 novembre 2022
Final decision - 23/11/2018, Murmansk Regional Court. 3,900 27865/19 30/04/2019 Pavel Aleksandrovich SOLDATENKO 1988 Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg administrative fine of RUB 10,000 19/12/
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;FRA;FRE
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1127DEC001206404
27 novembre 2008
) et de 112 885 026 RUB respectivement.
ECLI:CEDH:001-111735
22 mai 2012
The applicant further alleged that a golden bracelet worth 10,500 Russian roubles (RUB) had gone missing after this search. The applicant was taken to the temporary detention facility.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0922DEC002843807
22 septembre 2015
He sought 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 6.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-1950
24 juillet 2008
Law :Article 3 – Concerning the alleged ill-treatment : The use of rubber truncheons in the applicant’s case had had a legal basis under the Penitentiary Institutions Act and the Custody Act.