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

30 676 résultats pour « Bothner »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-225268

Admin. suprême

17 mai 2023

17 mai 2023

The applicant unsuccessfully argued, both before the CEC and subsequently before the administrative courts, that the omission in question had been of a purely technical nature and that he should have been

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-206383

Admin. suprême

4 novembre 2020

4 novembre 2020

They shared several telephone numbers, both landline and mobile, all of which were registered as belonging to the second applicant.

Source officielle
TA

Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg

ORTA_2406005_20250416

Administratif

16 avril 2025

16 avril 2025

BOHN

Source officielle
TA

Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg

ORTA_2406006_20250416

Administratif

16 avril 2025

16 avril 2025

BOHN

Source officielle
TA

Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg

ORTA_2406007_20250416

Administratif

16 avril 2025

16 avril 2025

BOHN

Source officielle
TA

Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg

ORTA_2406008_20250416

Administratif

16 avril 2025

16 avril 2025

BOHN

Source officielle
TA

Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg

ORTA_2406009_20250416

Administratif

16 avril 2025

16 avril 2025

BOHN

Source officielle
TA

Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg

ORTA_2406010_20250416

Administratif

16 avril 2025

16 avril 2025

BOHN

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-2445

Admin. suprême

13 novembre 2007

13 novembre 2007

This practice was incompatible with the principle of “subjective impartiality”, since no one could act as both plaintiff and judge.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:1205DEC007216401

Admin. suprême

5 décembre 2006

5 décembre 2006

She sued both her former employer (the ambulance station) and the company responsible for the accident. She sought a pension, damages and just satisfaction.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-3514

Admin. suprême

12 janvier 2006

12 janvier 2006

the right to live in and use their native settlement in Uummannaq/Dundas in the Thule District and that they had the right to move, stay and hunt in the entire Thule District; and seeking compensation both

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0603DEC005455900

Admin. suprême

3 juin 2003

3 juin 2003

  Thirdly, this surcharge is imposed under a general rule, whose purpose is both deterrent and punitive.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-777928-794126

Admin. suprême

19 juin 2003

19 juin 2003

Both the journalists and the prosecution appealed.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0219DEC006533401

Admin. suprême

19 février 2002

19 février 2002

The applicant and his wife were married in 1992 and had two children, both born in 1995. The applicant’s wife died on 9 July 1998.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;CLIN;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:002-7082

Admin. suprême

15 juin 2000

15 juin 2000

The Court observed that in the case before it the author of the article at issue had sought to provide an explanation for developments in south-east Turkey and had expressed his point of view on both the

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0330DEC003747597

Admin. suprême

30 mars 1999

30 mars 1999

Both applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Gilbert Blades, a lawyer practising in Lincoln. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   A.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0624JUD000690102

Admin. suprême

24 juin 2003

24 juin 2003

    Subsequently, the General Prosecutor filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgments of both courts. 12.

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-2970394-3271183

Admin. suprême

22 décembre 2009

22 décembre 2009

Both applicants relied on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).

Source officielle
CE

PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:003-3022254-3334865

Admin. suprême

11 février 2010

11 février 2010

xa0; Unanimously:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights          Principal facts   The applicant in both

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG

ECLI:CEDH:001-145293

Admin. suprême

3 juin 2014

3 juin 2014

He asked the court to declare that both parties were at fault for the breakdown of marriage. On 16 February 2011 the Łódź Regional Court refused to grant the applicant a divorce.

Source officielle

Page 93 sur 1534

← PrécédentSuivant →