If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 8 § 2? In particular: (i)     Was the interference prescribed by law?

A UN CONGE ADMINISTRATIF PREVU PAR L'ARTICLE 8-2° DU DECRET DU 31 DECEMBRE 1947 FIXANT A TITRE PROVISOIRE LE REGIME DE REMUNERATION ET LES AVANTAGES ACCESSOIRES DES PERSONNELS DE L'ETAT DANS LES DEPARTEMENTS

55 de la Constitution, des articles 1er et 8, § 2, du Protocole additionnel du 17 mars 1978 à la Convention européenne d'entraide judiciaire en matière pénale du 20 avril 1959 et de la réserve du Luxembourg

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

Sous l’angle de l’article 13 de la Convention, il dénonce l’absence de voies de recours internes effectives pour remédier aux violations alléguées de l’article 8. QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES 1.

The applicant complains of a violation of her rights under Articles 8 and   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.

The applicant relies on Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

  2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   3.

lors, que la mesure d'interdiction définitive du territoire national, parfaitement justifiée, doit être maintenue, ladite mesure n'apportant pas une atteinte disproportionnée aux droits protégés par l'article

    Y a-t-il eu atteinte au droit des requérantes au respect de leur vie familiale, au sens de l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention   ?

The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

  2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

  2.     La détention des enfants requérants était-elle régulière, au sens de l’article   5   §   1   f) de la Convention ?   3.

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.

  b) If so, was that interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see for instance Shtukaturov v.   Russia , no.   44009/05, ECHR 2008 and A.N. v.

  2.     Was the applicant afforded free legal assistance, within the meaning of Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?   3.