Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"CodexAI
AND · OR · NOT · "…"DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1122DEC000407918
22 novembre 2022
22 novembre 2022
However, that is not the issue in the present case because the applicant has not made any complaints in that respect.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0308DEC005001415
8 mars 2022
8 mars 2022
In 1998 the company’s accounts were frozen because of unpaid debts.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0312DEC006664913
12 mars 2026
12 mars 2026
The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible because the applicant had failed to properly exhaust available domestic remedies.
Source officielle6ème chambre
DTA_2500413_20250401
1 avril 2025
1 avril 2025
B A, représenté par Me Bechaux, demande au tribunal, dans le dernier état de ses écritures : 1°) d'annuler la décision implicite par laquelle la préfète du Rhône a rejeté sa demande de titre de séjour
Source officielle6ème chambre
DTA_2311124_20250401
1 avril 2025
1 avril 2025
B A, représenté par Me Bechaux, demande au tribunal, dans le dernier état de ses écritures : 1°) d'annuler la décision implicite par laquelle la préfète du Rhône a rejeté sa demande de titre de séjour
Source officiellePRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-424013-424399
2 octobre 2001
2 octobre 2001
G.B. complained that he did not have a fair trial before the cour d’assises because his defence counsel was not given sufficient time to study the documents in question, because the expert changed his
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:1202DEC001847991
2 décembre 1991
2 décembre 1991
The applicant company's objection, namely that the arbitration award was null and void because it had been given out of time, had already been raised without success before a first instance court
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0914DEC004230802
14 septembre 2004
14 septembre 2004
On 2 July 2002 the Court of Appeal also upheld that judgment, rejecting the applicant's claims as unfounded because he refused to receive the document in spite of numerous offers to provide it by the employer
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0330DEC004188998
30 mars 1999
30 mars 1999
On 9 November 1995, the case was postponed because of the impediment of the Airola Magistrate, the absence of some witnesses and the parties’ request.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-147363
22 septembre 2014
22 septembre 2014
The applicant felt his left arm numb and could not sleep because of the pain.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-161581
24 février 2016
24 février 2016
In February 2008 V.M. informed the court that it had been impossible to deliver the court documents to the applicant because he could not be found at his official place of residence in Kaunas.
Source officielleCASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0111JUD004444213
11 janvier 2024
11 janvier 2024
On 13 December 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal refused to examine the appeal because it had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit.
Source officielleCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:1211DEC000493802
11 décembre 2003
11 décembre 2003
In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because she had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Zadar Municipal Court.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-224235
20 mars 2023
20 mars 2023
The applicant alleged further that the trial against him had been unfair because, even though he had been convicted mainly on the basis of the unlawful audio and video surveillance of his phone conversations
Source officiellePRESS;GENERAL;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-482636-483837
29 janvier 2002
29 janvier 2002
He was informed that his claim was invalid because the regulations governing the payment of widows’ benefits were specific to women.
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-162148
24 mars 2016
24 mars 2016
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention because he was punished for having refused to remove a religious cap in the courtroom. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Source officielleChambre Civile
668d86f553e3bdd077888003
9 juillet 2024
9 juillet 2024
Compagnie d’assurance AXA FRANCE IARD, immatriculée au RCS de NANTERRE sous le numéro 722 057 460, dont le siège social est sis 313 Terrasses de l’Arche - 92000 NANTERRE représentées par Me Maxime BERTHAUD
Source officielle1ère Chambre
67f6040eebd7282443856870
8 avril 2025
8 avril 2025
représentée par Maître [J] [S], es-qualité d'administrateur judiciaire de Monsieur [W] [D] Sise [Adresse 5] Représentée par Me Anne-Sophie DE BUCY de la SELARL AITALI -GROS-CARPI-LE DENMAT-DE BUCY-BECHARI
Source officielleTribunal Administratif de MELUN
DTA_2211828_20221209
9 décembre 2022
9 décembre 2022
B A, demeurant en centre d'hébergement d'urgence pour demandeurs d'asile au 4 route de Fontainebleau à Vitry-sur-Seine (94400), représenté par Me Bechiau, demande au juge des référés : 1°) de l'admettre
Source officielleCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-203249
27 mai 2020
27 mai 2020
On 16 January 2013 the proceedings were terminated because the children had reached the age when they could legally decide whether to maintain a personal relationship with the applicant.
Source officiellePage 91 sur 1499