l'inspection départementale du travail et de la direction régionale de la concurrence, de la consommation, du travail et de l'emploi ont effectué un contrôle sur un chantier de construction d'un ensemble de chalets

[X] (l'acquéreur), promoteur immobilier, s'est porté acquéreur d'un ensemble immobilier appartenant à la société civile immobilière Chalet hôtel (la SCI) sous diverses conditions suspensives, comprenant

Après une expertise ordonnée en référé par la juridiction administrative ayant révélé un dysfonctionnement de la pompe à chaleur par grand froid, l'avocat a conseillé à la commune d'engager des pourparlers

During that hearing, the applicant’s representative challenged the whole panel for bias once more, arguing that the previous challenges for bias and the request for withdrawal should not have been examined

The Supreme Court refused the challenge on 13th February. 48.

    The applicant subsequently petitioned the Prosecutor General to   exercise his discretionary power to challenge these decisions by way of an   extraordinary appeal on points of

The notice was not challenged, and the fine was paid. 7 .

    On 18 September 2006 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (the “AIT”), which dismissed his challenge on 15 February 2007.

ARRET N° 194 N° RG 22/03181 N° Portalis DBV5-V-B7G-GWK7 URSSAF POITOU-CHARENTES C/ SYNDICAT MIXTE D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU POTABLE 4B RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE

ARRET N° 190 N° RG 22/03084 N° Portalis DBV5-V-B7G-GWC5 S.A.S. [1] C/ CPAM DE LA CHARENTE MARITIME RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS COUR

L'assignation a été dénoncée à la préfecture de la Charente-Maritime le 24 octobre 2025.

  On 2 March 1989 the Vienna Appellate Building Authority ( Bauoberbehörde ), following a first set of proceedings in which the applicant had successfully challenged the refusal of his request for

    On 11 June 2013 the applicants challenged the Supreme Court’s decision by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.

A copy of the challenged decision and all other decisions that were issued in connection with the challenged decision in proceedings before the competent authorities in the case, as well as the relevant

In particular, was there any possibility that the applicant could effectively challenge the forfeiture (see, Microintelect OOD v.

On 7 October 2020 Mr G. challenged that decision. 29 .

On 20 August 2004 the applicant challenged this preliminary indication, which was set aside in order that the matter could be considered de novo at a substantive hearing.

THE LAW Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the applicant’s right of access to a court to challenge his disbarment 22.

During the proceedings before the District Court, in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and in 2004, the applicant challenged individual judges or all judges of the District Court for bias.