However, in 12   February 2007 the hospital refused to carry out the examination on the grounds that it had already prepared a similar report on the matter at an earlier date. 47 .

Nor can Article 35 § 1 be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court of his complaint before his position in connection with the matter has finally been settled at the

    The first applicant, Audrey Gauvin-Fournis, was born in 1980 and lives in Levallois-Perret. She was represented by Mr   B.   Favreau, a lawyer practising in Bordeaux.

open blunt traumatic brain injury accompanied by contused head wounds and bruises, haemorrhages in the soft tissues of the head, fractures of the skull bones, haemorrhages above and under the layers of mater

Greece case, the Court noted that the fact of having to reply to the applicant’s request was not a matter for the public prosecutor’s discretion.

When the police officer asked what the matter was, the applicant replied that he had caught a chill and that he had pains in his chest.

. the United Kingdom , 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ III; Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28   October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998 ‑ VIII; and Paul and Audrey

  48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII, and, mutatis mutandis , Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no.   46477/99, §   54, ECHR 2002 ‑ II). 78.

Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United

should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey

safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction (see, for example, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom , 9   June 1998, §   36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ III, and Paul and Audrey

. – unfolded in a matter of a few minutes.

APPELANTE : Madame [G] [A] épouse [X] née le 09 Juillet 1970 à [Localité 7] [Adresse 2] [Localité 1] Représentée par Me Audrey GRANDGONNET de la SELARL CABINET BALESTAS GRANDGONNET MURIDI, avocat

    The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter if it has been submitted within six months of the date of the final decision in the

Moreover, throughout this time, no reasonable steps appear to have been taken to reduce the risk of any collusion between the suspects (see, mutadis mutandis , Ramsahai , cited above, § 330, and Paul and Audrey

    The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been ill-treated while in State custody and that the domestic authorities had failed to investigate the matter. 4.

The Court considers that this argument was duly examined and dismissed by the domestic authorities, who continued the investigation into the matter even after the applicant’s conviction.

provide that the care worker should be given an opportunity to make representations before a decision is made to provisionally include him or her in the POVA list is an aspect of procedure and not a matter

The Constitutional Court has expressly stated that the submission was particularly relevant as regards the wording of the order which parties sought to obtain from it as it could only decide those matters