décision du 16 novembre 1988 de l'inspecteur du travail, de l'emploi et de la politique sociale agricole du département de l'Ain autorisant le licenciement par la société d'intérêt collectif agricole de Bechanne

However, it concluded that the applicant had not incurred any damage because of the violation of his privacy because the distress he suffered had been related to his mental illness and to the search as

The applicant alleged that the measures taken by the authorities interfered with his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion protected by Article   9 of the Convention because they had

The applicant stated that whenever he was unable to walk because of his medical condition he was not provided with a wheelchair, accessible living quarters or a person to assist him.

    On 10 April 1998 the hearing was postponed because of the absence of a co-accused and on 8 May 1998 the judge adjourned the case because the last-mentioned co-accused had not been informed

    On 28 June 2005 the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital, because of his unwillingness to accept treatment voluntarily and because it was deemed that, without treatment, he would

He told the applicant that he had wanted to photograph the car because he had been amused by the officers’ working methods.

He submitted, inter alia , that his right to legal defence had not been ensured because during the hearing he had not been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and because the representation by

The appeal was fixed for hearing on 25 November 1991 but adjourned to 12 January 1992 because the applicant was ill, and then to 20 March 1992 because the applicant’s lawyer had other commitments.

It was obvious from the reasoning, however, that the detention on remand was prolonged because there was a risk that the applicant would interfere with the proceedings.

However, that hearing was adjourned because the applicant was ill.

COUR D'APPEL D'[Localité 3] [Adresse 2] [Localité 1] Chambre 1-1 N° RG 21/00932 - N° Portalis DBVB-V-B7F-BG2BV Ordonnance n° 2025/M34 SARL MULLER ET BECHOU Immatriculée au RCS de [Localité

COMMERCE DE CASTRES PREMIERE CHAMBRE JUGEMENT DU 27 AVRIL 2026 Le Tribunal de Commerce de CASTRES, après que la cause ait été débattue en audience publique le 19 janvier 2026 par-devant Monsieur Paul BERTHAUD

BESANCON DEFENDEUR(S) : Monsieur [X] [Z] né le [Date naissance 4] 1980 à [Localité 11], demeurant [Adresse 8] Rep/assistant : Maître Aude CARPI de la SELARL AITALI -GROS-CARPI-LE DENMAT-DE BUCY-BECHARI

Two hearings on 9   June and 3 November 1992 were adjourned because some of the witnesses summoned to appear were absent.

Several hearings were adjourned either because the defendants and third parties failed to appear or because the applicant amended his claims. 11.

D A B, représenté par Me Béchard, demande au juge des référés sur le fondement de l'article L. 521-1 du code de justice administrative : 1°) de l'admettre au bénéfice de l'aide juridictionnelle provisoire

At a hearing held on 20 September 2017, the Centre stated that it had failed to issue an authorisation to institute the proceedings because neither they nor the applicant had the funds to cover possible

parties dûment avisées) qui en ont rendu compte à la Cour dans son délibéré, assistés pendant les débats de Malika CHINOUNE, Greffier COMPOSITION DE LA COUR LORS DU DELIBERE : Jean-Louis BERNAUD

This constituted an interference with her right to respect for her private life because a measure as drastic as a dismissal from work on the sole ground of a person’s sex must have adverse effects on his