Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
PCP JTJ proxi fond
67081b1e89f19e8c50f8d5c5
7 octobre 2024
7 octobre 2024
TRIBUNAL JUDICIAIRE DE PARIS [1] [1] Copie conforme délivrée le : à : Me Audrey CHELLY SZULMAN Madame [F] [P] épouse [O] Pour la Directrice de greffe Pôle civil de proximité ■ PCP JTJ proxi fond
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-6632
19 octobre 1999
19 octobre 1999
The applicant made use of the possibility offered by law of requesting the public prosecutor after expiry of the time-limit to institute proceedings to contest the paternity of the child.
Source officielleReconduite à la frontière
DTA_2602652_20260310
10 mars 2026
10 mars 2026
E..., représenté par Me Chelly, demande au tribunal : 1°) de l’admettre au bénéfice de l’aide juridictionnelle ; 2°) d’annuler les arrêtés du 5 février 2026 par lesquels le préfet des Bouches-du-Rhône
Source officielleReconduite à la frontière
DTA_2602653_20260310
10 mars 2026
10 mars 2026
E..., représenté par Me Chelly, demande au tribunal : 1°) de l’admettre au bénéfice de l’aide juridictionnelle ; 2°) d’annuler les arrêtés du 5 février 2026 par lesquels le préfet des Bouches-du-Rhône
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-736
30 novembre 2010
30 novembre 2010
Spain - 35159/09 Judgment 30.11.2010 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Restriction on transsexual’s access to her child: no violation Facts – The applicant is a male-to-female transsexual.
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-2919
8 janvier 2007
8 janvier 2007
The applicant, claiming that he had lost all ties with the child, requested the attorney-general's office to initiate an action to disclaim paternity on his behalf.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0310DEC002095806
10 mars 2009
10 mars 2009
In support, he stated that he had not been intimate with Ms N. for over 300 days before the child was born.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0827DEC007703301
27 août 2002
27 août 2002
They stated that they made it clear that they could not envisage adopting a “boisterous” child or any child who presented challenging behavioural or physical disabilities.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0518DEC001122304
18 mai 2006
18 mai 2006
with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-124240
17 juillet 2013
17 juillet 2013
Section 106 “If a child stays without legal basis with a person who refuses to hand it over, the court shall in non-contentious proceedings, on a request by a parent, the child or a Social Welfare Centre
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-138927
4 novembre 2013
4 novembre 2013
On 9 May 2012 the first-instance court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and Mrs J.S.M.; granted custody of the child to his ex-wife; ordered the first applicant to pay child maintenance; and
Source officielleCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-13515
9 décembre 2021
9 décembre 2021
The Court accepted that the authorities had been called upon to adopt urgent measures temporarily separating the mother and child.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1007DEC001934422
7 octobre 2025
7 octobre 2025
best interests of the child.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0309JUD005122220
9 mars 2023
9 mars 2023
The child’s mother, with whom the child had been living, failed to comply with those arrangements.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1014DEC004262214
14 octobre 2014
14 octobre 2014
It accepted the mother’s request and allowed that her child should reside permanently in Germany, at the mother’s place.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-196462
12 septembre 2019
12 septembre 2019
In the meantime, in October 2017 E.Ch. brought proceedings for the determination of a contact arrangement between the applicant and the child.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-163130
25 avril 2016
25 avril 2016
In her view, the Child Care Protection Services had not properly evaluated the issue. The claimed lack of ability to cooperate was merely a question of disagreement.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-163129
27 avril 2016
27 avril 2016
The Child Care Protection Services submitted that the applicant should be refused contact rights while the applicant requested increased contact rights.
Source officielleCASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-98243
4 mars 2010
4 mars 2010
As a matter of course, the Child Welfare Board now involves the parents of the child in its investigations; it may deviate from this rule only in highly exceptional circumstances and it always consults
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0613JUD005105621
13 juin 2023
13 juin 2023
G.O. had felt oppressed and lacking in confidence in Switzerland, and her emotional state inevitably affected that of the child.
Source officiellePage 67 sur 385
XI PropCo Chilly-Mazarin SNC
12/07/2026
Voir →
IDEM CHILLY
28/06/2026
Voir →
CHILLY RECYCLAGE
28/06/2026
Voir →
PARC EOLIEN DE CHILLY FRANSART
04/06/2026
Voir →
CHILLY POWDER
30/04/2026
Voir →