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

2 899 résultats pour « Merrily ADRASSE »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0105JUD002402303

Admin. suprême

5 janvier 2010

5 janvier 2010

It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.

Page 77 sur 145

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1215JUD001648312

Admin. suprême

15 décembre 2016

15 décembre 2016

    The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 8.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0527JUD000567116

Admin. suprême

27 mai 2021

27 mai 2021

The Court of Appeal also noted that the witnesses L.B. and S.S., for their part, had merely stated that the applicant had appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and had had difficulty walking when

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1206DEC001460005

Admin. suprême

6 décembre 2005

6 décembre 2005

On 23 June 2004 Turkey’s Central Authority instructed the Sarıyer public prosecutor (“the public prosecutor”) to ascertain the child’s current address, apply to the Sarıyer Court for an order prohibiting

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1010JUD000478218

Admin. suprême

10 octobre 2019

10 octobre 2019

ambiguity” ( Unklarheitenregel ) states that what is decisive in establishing the semantic content is how the statements in question are understood within their context by a significant part of the addressees

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0601JUD006281917

Admin. suprême

1 juin 2021

1 juin 2021

The CPS could merely apply the law. 22 .

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0214JUD003074912

Admin. suprême

14 février 2017

14 février 2017

    Merits 1.     Argument before the Court (a)     The Government 45.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0220JUD004386818

Admin. suprême

20 février 2024

20 février 2024

On the merits, he asked the Federal Supreme Court, first, to set aside the lower court’s judgment in so far as that court had not examined the question whether the check of 5   February 2015 had been

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1203JUD000022618

Admin. suprême

3 décembre 2024

3 décembre 2024

Merits 66.     The applicants maintained their complaints. 67.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0325JUD004032416

Admin. suprême

25 mars 2021

25 mars 2021

charges pending against [the applicant] in France, the nature of the charges on which he was convicted in Romania, the severity of the sentence passed and the fact that, in the French proceedings, he has merely

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0322JUD003720197

Admin. suprême

22 mars 2001

22 mars 2001

    The applicant and the Government each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. 8.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0330JUD002092805

Admin. suprême

30 mars 2010

30 mars 2010

    Merits 1.     General principles 52.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0304JUD004272202

Admin. suprême

4 mars 2008

4 mars 2008

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 48.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0710JUD001652805

Admin. suprême

10 juillet 2008

10 juillet 2008

Under the provisions of Article   29 §   3 of the Convention, the Court decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1115JUD001255603

Admin. suprême

15 novembre 2007

15 novembre 2007

Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD005954510

Admin. suprême

26 novembre 2013

26 novembre 2013

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 33.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0711JUD005481000

Admin. suprême

11 juillet 2006

11 juillet 2006

    The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits. 8.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0724JUD001860303

Admin. suprême

24 juillet 2008

24 juillet 2008

    As to the merits, the Government pointed out that the procedure at issue had been authorised by a judge who, together with the Court of Cassation, had also supervised it.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0503DEC006539713

Admin. suprême

3 mai 2016

3 mai 2016

Subsequent AWB meetings took place to address areas of disagreement, with adjournments for bilateral negotiations. This often led to agreement between the industrial parties.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0408JUD007150301

Admin. suprême

8 avril 2004

8 avril 2004

to submit written comments on the merits of the complaints that had been declared admissible (Rule 59 § 1 and Rule 71 §§ 1 and 2).

Source officielle