RG 26/00742 - N° Portalis DBX6-W-B7K-3NEZ MI : 24/00000342 3 copies ORDONNANCE COMMUNE décision nativement numérique délivrée le 18/05/2026 à la SELARL AUSONE AVOCATS Me Olivier BOURU Me Emilie

- N° Portalis DBX6-W-B7J-2NMJ MI : 24/00001726 9 copies ORDONNANCE COMMUNE GROSSE délivrée le 06/10/2025 à Me Delphine BARTHELEMY-MAXWELL Me Thomas BELLEVILLE la SELARL BOERNER & ASSOCIES Me Emilie

DBX6-W-B7J-2NMK MI : 24/00001729 11 copies ORDONNANCE COMMUNE GROSSE délivrée le 06/10/2025 à la SELARL AVOX Me Delphine BARTHELEMY-MAXWELL Me Thomas BELLEVILLE la SELARL BOERNER & ASSOCIES Me Emilie

N° Portalis DBX6-W-B7J-2NZL MI : 24/00001731 10 copies ORDONNANCE COMMUNE GROSSE délivrée le 06/10/2025 à Me Delphine BARTHELEMY-MAXWELL Me Thomas BELLEVILLE la SELARL BOERNER & ASSOCIES Me Emilie

barreau de BORDEAUX INTIMÉE : MMA IARD ASSURANCES MUTUELLES, agissant en la personne de son représentant légal domicilié en cette qualité au siège social sis [Adresse 1] représentée par Maître Emilie

[Adresse 9] ès-qualités d'assureur de la SAS HARRIBEY CONSTRUCTIONS Représentées par Me Xavier SCHONTZ de la SELARL GALY & ASSOCIÉS, avocat au barreau de BORDEAUX substitué à l'audience par Me Emilie

    The case concerns criminal proceedings against her for having forwarded to five recipients in 2013 an email she had received which was part of a chain and to which were attached PDF files

consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: [Courriel 1] To advise [D] [U] of your new email address To let us know of a change in

On various dates the applicants applied to the domestic courts for permission to change their names.

These emails, which were submitted to the police by the victim, correspond case file to her testimony as to the timeframe and the contents ...

Elle soutient que : - la facture émise par le cabinet Clifford Chance pour un montant de 160 200 euros est conforme aux prescriptions de forme de l'article 38-1 du code général des impôts et elle a par

The court held that it had to refuse the request for a change of forename on the same grounds, as that request was merely secondary to the request for a change in civil status. 2.

Moreover, V.T. had no legal basis on which to decide to change the child’s permanent place of residence on her own.

He further stated that on 29   May 2011 two emails had been sent to the applicant from the address [email protected] , allegedly belonging to N.O., who was identified as a spokesperson for the

No reply to the letters has been received by the Court and there are no previous letters from the applicants informing the Court about the change of address.

unauthorised access to her email and social media accounts. 2.

No reply to these letters has been received by the Court (see details in the appended table) and there are no previous letters from the applicants informing the Court about the change of address.

In 2014 and 2015, over a period of about ten months, he sent emails to several judges and authorities, criticising them and requesting them to take measures in his case.

circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.