On 30 November 1999 the judgment of 28 July 1999 became final because the applicant had not paid the fee. 17.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, she also noted that the applicant should not be deprived of his procedural defence rights simply because he had not been present before the court.

The next hearing was fixed for 15 January 1998 but it was adjourned until 18   February 1998 because the applicant was in hospital.

He further stated that in addition to Iraqi citizenship he also held Iranian citizenship because his father had been an Iranian national.

CINQ ENTRE : Madame [H] [O] [F] épouse [I] née le 29 Juillet 1972 à [Localité 7], demeurant [Adresse 2] Rep/assistant : Maître Anne-sophie DE BUCY de la SELARL AITALI -GROS-CARPI-LE DENMAT-DE BUCY-BECHARI

FAVET, avocat au barreau de GRENOBLE COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DES DÉBATS ET DU DÉLIBÉRÉ : Monsieur Allain URAN, Président de chambre, Madame Christiane BEROUJON, Conseiller, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

assistée de Me Jean-Marc HOURSE, avocat au barreau de LYON COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DES DEBATS ET DU DELIBERE : Monsieur Daniel MULLER, Président de Chambre, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

représentée par la SCP CALAS Jean et Charles, avoués à la Cour assistée de Me Christian BRASSEUR, avocat au barreau de GRENOBLE COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DU DELIBERE : Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

MEDINA de la SELARL CDMF-AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de GRENOBLE COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DES DÉBATS ET DU DÉLIBÉRÉ : Mme Dominique ROLIN, Président de Chambre, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

Adresse 1] [Localité 2] représentée par la SELARL DAUPHIN ET MIHAJLOVIC COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DU DELIBERE : Madame Dominique ROLIN, Président de Chambre, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

postulant et Me Lucien TOURNAIRE, avocat au barreau de MARSEILLE, plaidant COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DU DELIBERE : Madame Dominique ROLIN, Président de Chambre, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

de son représentant légal en exercice, domicilié ès qualités au siège social 85 rue Pascal Marie Agasse 66000 PERPIGNAN représentée par la SCP SALVIGNOL-GUILHEM, avoués à la Cour assistée de Me BECAUD

s request, because the applicant had not made the impugned statement against his better judgment.

On 29 May 2001 the applicant made a further enquiry with the Benefits Agency and on 11 June 2001 he was told that he was not entitled to any benefit because he was not a woman.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complain in substance that their right to respect for their home was violated because their protected tenancy in respect of one flat was terminated and in respect of the other

On 2 June 1993 the applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands, submitting that, because he belonged to the minority Ashraf population group, his life in Mogadishu was made unbearable.

In May 1999 his third application for a discharge of the exclusion order was rejected because he had not produced any evidence to establish that he could not obtain the necessary medical treatment in Turkey

  General measures :   The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the discrimination complaint in this case has already been resolved by means of legislation –

    The applicants complained that their removal to Italy would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention because of alleged deficiencies in the reception system for asylum-seekers. 5.

The police had refused to submit the above Orders because they were classified as secret (for “internal use only”).