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;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0520DEC003176508

Admin. suprême

20 mai 2014

20 mai 2014

He also claimed that the Agency had failed to indicate all evidence used in the proceedings, and that the Supreme Court erroneously rejected his complaint in that regard without addressing its merits.

Page 86 sur 145

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0725JUD000272816

Admin. suprême

25 juillet 2017

25 juillet 2017

    The Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court (“the HSC”) examined the following cases on the merits and allowed appeals on points of law in situations where the defendants had pleaded

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1219JUD001204705

Admin. suprême

19 décembre 2017

19 décembre 2017

    Merits 39.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1020DEC005786014

Admin. suprême

20 octobre 2020

20 octobre 2020

You address the administrative board, the legally elected body of the Notaries Chamber, in a particularly insulting manner.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1997:0218JUD001899091

Admin. suprême

18 février 1997

18 février 1997

The Court heard addresses by Mr Bratza, Mr Ziegler and Mr Boillat. AS TO THE FACTS I.    Circumstances of the case 6.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0707JUD004555906

Admin. suprême

7 juillet 2015

7 juillet 2015

grounds should be joined to the merits. 39.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0623JUD003431013

Admin. suprême

23 juin 2020

23 juin 2020

Merits The parties’ submissions 35.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0708DEC001522703

Admin. suprême

8 juillet 2003

8 juillet 2003

In its judgment ( Merits ) of 19 September 2000 in the case of IJL, GMR and AKP v. the United Kingdom (nos. 29522/95, 30056/96 and 30574/96), the Court found that the respondent Government had breached

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1202JUD004699815

Admin. suprême

2 décembre 2021

2 décembre 2021

Merits 41 .

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1105JUD003787108

Admin. suprême

5 novembre 2013

5 novembre 2013

The Court also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1013DEC003229902

Admin. suprême

13 octobre 2005

13 octobre 2005

She was not unable to express her own view, and was not merely repeating her mother’s views.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0601JUD001204902

Admin. suprême

1 juin 2006

1 juin 2006

The applicant objected, but the District Court did not address her objections. On 6 December 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 10 January 2003 upon the applicant’s request. 25.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0321JUD007625411

Admin. suprême

21 mars 2019

21 mars 2019

The expert was asked to address a number of specific questions relevant to the determination of the pecuniary damage sustained. 9.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0125DEC004702399

Admin. suprême

25 janvier 2001

25 janvier 2001

He maintained that the Government had failed to establish that the court had attempted to summon them on several occasions, but had been unable to do so as their address in Bulgaria were unknown.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0709JUD000684608

Admin. suprême

9 juillet 2013

9 juillet 2013

In consequence, the case was remitted to the Pezinok District Court for examination on the merits. 22.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0513DEC000134912

Admin. suprême

13 mai 2014

13 mai 2014

The courts emphasised that the order did not imply that the first applicant should reside with either parent, but merely required that the status quo ante be restored so that questions of residence and

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:1028JUD000533907

Admin. suprême

28 octobre 2010

28 octobre 2010

It had tried to hear the limited partners as witnesses, but it had been impossible to summon any of them since they were all foreigners and none had a known address in Austria.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0330DEC000741202

Admin. suprême

30 mars 2006

30 mars 2006

On 7 January 2002 the applicant moved and settled in the Voronezh Region having notified the bailiffs of his new address.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0518DEC004555815

Admin. suprême

18 mai 2021

18 mai 2021

    Incoming correspondence is to be passed on to the addressee upon inspection without delay, unless it (a) contains impermissible information or objects, or (b) is in a language different from

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0918DEC000291211

Admin. suprême

18 septembre 2012

18 septembre 2012

    In the present case the applicant, by repeatedly complaining to the probation officer, had recourse to the remedy specifically designed to address his complaint about his father’s failure

Source officielle