CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0216DEC004380619
16 février 2021
On 2 November 2016 the Denizli Labour Court of First Instance decided to comply with the findings of the Court of Cassation and dismissed the applicant’s case with the same reasoning.
Page 82 sur 322
1ère Chambre A
5fde8bb5b0b7f16103a061f6
28 juin 2018
de l'acte de donation-partage], l'arrêt relève que la seule indication portée à l'acte en ce qui concerne la parcelle cadastrée [...] sur la commune de Gignac La Nerthe d'une parcelle en nature de labours
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:1023DEC004339798
23 octobre 2001
On 2 December 1993 the Second Civil Section decided that the case should be transmitted to the Labour Section of the Warsaw District Court as it concerned a claim based on labour law.
cr
édure suiviec/Alain X
613725facd58014677421feb
2 mai 2001
estime que les études et les travaux réalisés ont permis la mise en conformité du système d'assainissement sur le versant Est dès 1994 grâce, entre autres, à la mise en eau de la station d'épuration du Labiou
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0326DEC001535914
26 mars 2019
On 15 September 2011 the Pécs Labour Court upheld the applicant’s complaint in the most part.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0617DEC005845300
17 juin 2003
The child benefit proceedings before the Labour Office On 28 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Aschaffenburg Labour Office for child benefits according to Section 1 of the Federal Child Benefits
Contentieux civil Annexe
69e14cc4cdc6046d477f1f12
10 avril 2026
comparant Madame [Z] [J] épouse [K], demeurant 10 RUE FRANCOIS MITTERRAND - 62113 LABOURSE comparante EXPOSÉ DU LITIGE Par acte sous seing privé du 19 novembre 2009, la SA DE HLM HABITAT
civ2
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C210770
1 décembre 2022
Labaune, conseiller référendaire, les observations écrites de la SCP Piwnica et Molinié, avocat de Mme [V], après débats en l'audience publique du 18 octobre 2022 où étaient présents Mme Taillandier-Thomas
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C210618
7 septembre 2023
Labaune, conseiller référendaire, les observations écrites de la SCP Piwnica et Molinié, avocat de Mmes [Z] et [H], de MM.
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C210610
Labaune, conseiller référendaire, les observations écrites de la SCP Piwnica et Molinié, avocat de M.
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:C210027
9 janvier 2025
Labaune, conseiller référendaire, les observations écrites de la SCP Françoise Fabiani - François Pinatel, avocat de la caisse d'allocations familiales d'Ille-et-Vilaine, de la SCP Bauer-Violas, Feschotte-Desbois
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0916DEC001773605
16 septembre 2008
In December 1994 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his employer before the Budapest Labour Court.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-172633
7 mars 2017
Notably, during labour she was separated from her husband, kept immobilised in a wheelchair for about an hour after arriving at the hospital, and had three consecutive pelvic examinations by three different
CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1970:0202DEC000431469
2 février 1970
also had regard to Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention; Whereas it is true that paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 4-2) provides that no-one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour
ECLI:CEDH:001-165323
28 juin 2016
On 20 August 2004 the applicant signed a ten-year labour agreement with the Ministry of Defence to work as an engineer in an ammunition laboratory.
ECLI:CEDH:001-218151
30 mai 2022
The applicant challenged that decision before the Labour and Social Court in Ljubljana.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0221DEC002845805
21 février 2012
On 2 September 2002 the applicant was dismissed from his position in the State Committee of Ukraine for Labour Safety ( Державний комітет України з нагляду за охороною праці) (hereinafter – the State Committee
ECLI:CEDH:001-243692
16 mai 2025
It appears that the Lithuanian central authority (the State Child Rights and Adoption Service under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour) replied in July and September 2023, informing the Italian
ECLI:CEDH:001-141422
27 janvier 2014
The first-instance court held that under the Act, the right to privileged employment could only be used once, and that the Labour Act made no distinction between the rights pertaining to permanent and
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1011DEC003745202
11 octobre 2007
It held that the Labour and Social Court had correctly applied the law.