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

29 963 résultats pour « Bechaud »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-2703066-2962990

Admin. suprême

21 avril 2009

21 avril 2009

The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 because of the failure to inform the applicant of the opinion of the Principal State Prosecutor of the

Page 88 sur 1499

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0119JUD004844418

Admin. suprême

19 janvier 2023

19 janvier 2023

Because the medical staff could not enter the flat, police were called in, and they forced the door.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0918JUD003278604

Admin. suprême

18 septembre 2008

18 septembre 2008

According to the applicants, the judgment was not enforced fully, because the cost-of-living adjustment had been incomplete.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0515DEC001110121

Admin. suprême

15 mai 2025

15 mai 2025

However, because of the media attention given to his case, his distress lasted about a year and a half.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:1209DEC001288187

Admin. suprême

9 décembre 1987

9 décembre 1987

          According to the statement of a psychiatrist, the first applicant's husband is extremely depressed and has suicidal tendencies because of the impending

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-3270987-3667739

Admin. suprême

30 septembre 2010

30 septembre 2010

  Mr Farcaş said that he was unable to travel further than 600 metres around his house because of the height of the pavements and claimed that his situation had worsened in 2007, as it had become

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1213DEC002051308

Admin. suprême

13 décembre 2011

13 décembre 2011

The court noted that the hearings were often postponed because of the failure by the applicant and the other party to attend them, and that the claim had been left unexamined twice because the applicant

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-166716

Admin. suprême

22 août 2016

22 août 2016

On 1 June 2009 the inquiry was suspended again because the main case file had been lost.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0328DEC007948217

Admin. suprême

28 mars 2023

28 mars 2023

He was unable to see Y, either because X and Y were not at home or because Y refused to see him (for the latter, see the bailiff’s report of 5 June 2011). 4 .

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1204JUD001175606

Admin. suprême

4 décembre 2008

4 décembre 2008

    The Government argued that the application was inadmissible, because it had been lodged more than six months after the dates of the judgments. 11.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0903DEC003599911

Admin. suprême

3 septembre 2013

3 septembre 2013

A previous application of the applicant (no. 19313/08) was struck out of the list of cases on 8 September 2009, because the applicant had withdrawn it. A.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0305DEC005063115

Admin. suprême

5 mars 2026

5 mars 2026

Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained that the suspension of his pension had been unlawful because Law no. 213-VIII had been contrary to the Constitution.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0510DEC003310415

Admin. suprême

10 mai 2022

10 mai 2022

    On 19 May 2015 the applicant company re-sent its letter of 30   October   2014 to AMA, because it had gone missing. No reply has been given. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-14138

Admin. suprême

29 juin 2023

29 juin 2023

The applicant had submitted, however, that a life sentence with eligibility for parole would in his case amount to a de facto life sentence without parole because he would have to serve a minimum term

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0503JUD003243896

Admin. suprême

3 mai 2001

3 mai 2001

The court decided that the sentence should not be suspended because its effective serving by the applicant could help him understand his constitutional duties and have a positive impact on his personal

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-158420

Admin. suprême

8 octobre 2015

8 octobre 2015

At about that time, the two applicants moved from Burgas to Sinemorets, allegedly because they were no longer able to afford living in Burgas.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0315DEC000882108

Admin. suprême

15 mars 2016

15 mars 2016

He explained that he had missed the statutory five-day time-limit for lodging his appeal because he had received the decision of 17 September 2007 only on 26 September 2007.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0117JUD000678311

Admin. suprême

17 janvier 2017

17 janvier 2017

    On 12 July 2001 the applicant company lodged an application for transfer of jurisdiction, because the DAA had not rendered a decision within the statutory six-month time-limit. 7.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-157802

Admin. suprême

14 septembre 2015

14 septembre 2015

Also “a week or two ago the defendant was saying in one of the recordings that people should remain calm because the criminal file will be transferred, and please note that it was transferred” and “A.S

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-127126

Admin. suprême

17 septembre 2013

17 septembre 2013

The applicant refused to sign the report because it stated incorrectly the circumstances in which he had been apprehended.

Source officielle