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 · "…"
Exporter CSV
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes

11 119 résultats pour « Behague »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-4507

Admin. suprême

15 janvier 2004

15 janvier 2004

eyewitnesses to the alleged incidents or to the remand in custody of the applicant’s husband, it could not be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that he had been abducted and killed by persons acting on behalf

Source officielle

Page 85 sur 556

← PrécédentSuivant →
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-3450

Admin. suprême

2 mars 2006

2 mars 2006

In 1994 the applicants allowed some members of the association to travel overseas on the association’s behalf.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-5861

Admin. suprême

30 novembre 2000

30 novembre 2000

obligations Request for additional financial assistance: Article 6 inapplicable The first two applicants were the parents of the third applicant, a minor who had been disabled since birth, on whose behalf

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-68183-68651

Admin. suprême

31 mai 2001

31 mai 2001

fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated in that he could not cross-examine the witnesses whose statements served as the basis for his conviction or have witnesses on his behalf

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-4392

Admin. suprême

18 mai 2004

18 mai 2004

Four witnesses present at the scene, who were called by the applicant, gave evidence on his behalf to the court of first instance.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0110DEC001133906

Admin. suprême

10 janvier 2012

10 janvier 2012

By letter of 28 July 2011, Mr Florin Frăţeanu informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the application on behalf of the applicant company, adding that he had not been aware of the fact that the company

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0307DEC002840511

Admin. suprême

7 mars 2017

7 mars 2017

    The Government’s submissions were transmitted to the representative, who was invited to submit, on behalf of her clients and as appropriate, comments on the unilateral declaration and observations

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-168271

Admin. suprême

3 octobre 2016

3 octobre 2016

  23380/09, §   55, ECHR 2015) and having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the first applicant, Mr Osman İşçi (see, in particular, paragraphs 20 and   21 of the application form

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-174689

Admin. suprême

31 mai 2017

31 mai 2017

The agreement had authorised the Company to act on behalf of the State and conclude contracts with individuals upon the termination of their property rights in respect of real estate expropriated for State

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-2171

Admin. suprême

10 avril 2012

10 avril 2012

After communicating the application in 2005, the applicant’s lawyer did not submit any observations on his behalf despite being granted extensions of time for doing so.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1015DEC005437610

Admin. suprême

15 octobre 2013

15 octobre 2013

Mr Srećko Pejović and Mr Milan Pejović, both Serbian nationals, born in 1958 and 1961 respectively and living in Guča and Čačak, wished to pursue the application and that he would continue to act on behalf

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0625DEC001288019

Admin. suprême

25 juin 2020

25 juin 2020

The Government’s observations, received on 9 September 2019, were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit any comments on behalf of the applicant.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-205030

Admin. suprême

7 septembre 2020

7 septembre 2020

failed to establish all parties to the dispute and, in particular, to involve as co-defendant the relevant territorial department of the State Treasury which was the body in charge of making payments of behalf

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1210DEC003816115

Admin. suprême

10 décembre 2019

10 décembre 2019

By a letter of 6 June 2019 the applicant’s representative was invited to submit by 18 July 2019 at the latest any written observations he might wish to make in reply on behalf of the applicant, together

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0626DEC003140514

Admin. suprême

26 juin 2018

26 juin 2018

The applicant’s lawyer failed to file observations and just satisfaction claims on behalf of the applicant.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1010DEC004972512

Admin. suprême

10 octobre 2017

10 octobre 2017

No heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0923DEC002651212

Admin. suprême

23 septembre 2021

23 septembre 2021

applicant’s representative, through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms), who was invited to submit by 4   January 2021 any written observations he wished to make in reply on behalf

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-206180

Admin. suprême

20 octobre 2020

20 octobre 2020

Moreover, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal lodged by the first applicant on behalf of his son (concerning the alleged domestic violence) as incompatible ratione personae since he did not have

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-188249

Admin. suprême

15 novembre 2018

15 novembre 2018

The General Prosecutor’s Office and the Sebastopol prosecutor’s office intervened on behalf of the State company in both sets of proceedings, which allegedly gave the latter an unfair advantage vis-à-vis

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0522DEC003996707

Admin. suprême

22 mai 2012

22 mai 2012

The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

Source officielle