The domestic courts’ assessment of the facts had been comprehensive, relevant, persuasive and in line with the Court’s case-law.

    Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law ...” A.     Admissibility 51.

    Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ... ...” Admissibility 25.

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect)

The first applicant lives in Istanbul, the second and third applicants live in Erzincan and the fourth applicant lives in Neunkirchen (Austria).

Nothing in the case file indicated by what criminal behaviour the protestors might have endangered the lives of innocent bystanders present at the time of the police officers’ intervention.

In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

Only where it could be shown that the authorities had not done all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life could a possible violation of a positive obligation

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

    During this time A.H. continued to live in the institutional accommodation in Vimmerby.

Mr Talat Acar lives in İzmir. The other applicants live in Midyat. 6.

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

His focus had been on whether J.F. had taken something that could have endangered his life.

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

Laroche, son liquidateur amiable, 2°/ la société Limes et râpes du Saut-du-Tarn, dont le siège est : 81160 Saint-Juery, 3°/ la société Mob outillage de la Loire et de Milours, dont le siège est .

siège de cette cour d'appel a rejeté sa demande aux motifs que le candidat ne justifie pas d'une activité professionnelle suffisante en rapport avec la spécialité C-06.05 et qu'il indique avoir des liens

une prolongation de sa détention provisoire sans justifier dans sa décision que cette mesure est rendue nécessaire par une difficulté rencontrée pour l'extraction de la personne concernée qui serait liée