TROIS JUILLET DEUX MILLE VINGT ET UN PARTIES EN CAUSE : Madame [F] [H] née le 09 Juin 1966 à [Localité 7] de nationalité Française [Adresse 4] [Localité 5] Représentée par Me Thierry BERTHAUD

Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae);Violation of Art. 6-1 due to lack of fair hearing;Violation of Art. 6-1 because of right of access to court;No violation of Art. 6-1 due to alleged lack

Preliminary objections rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, victim);Violation of Art. 6-1 due to lack of fair hearing;Violation of Art. 6-1 because of right of access to court;Not necessary to

Bondsstaat – Coördinatie van de stelsels voor sociale zekerheid – Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 – Artikelen 7, 63 en 64 – Werkloosheidsuitkeringen – Werkloze die zich naar een andere lidstaat begeeft – Behoud

, and the third because another accused was ill and could not attend.

The applicant alleges inter alia that the proceedings were not fair because the sanction was imposed on him after the expiry of the statutory time-limit of one year and because the courts failed to give

The applicant submitted that the proceedings before the Supreme Court had been unfair because he had not had the chance to appear in person before that court and because it had convicted him without hearing

In both cases their actual release was delayed because accommodation in the premises designated was not immediately available, a fact known to the Parole Board at the time it directed release.

    Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention because of the obligation imposed on the applicant, as a healthcare worker, to be vaccinated against Covid-19 in accordance with

défaut et le dommage ; Attendu que Mme X... a reçu, les 8 novembre et 21 décembre 1995, deux injections du vaccin anti-hépatite B Engerix B fabriqué par le laboratoire pharmaceutique Smithkline Beecham

    Of the twenty-one hearings fixed between 5 June 1999 and 25   January 2001, ten were adjourned because Ms F., the victims and witnesses defaulted and eleven were postponed because the

because he lacked knowledge of the English language. 24.

postponed because the parties did not attend and two hearings were adjourned because the applicant amended his claims. 19.

The second medical report was disregarded because it was made the day after the alleged ill-treatment and the photographs of injuries made by the first applicant because they were not dated.

    The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies and because there had been no breach of Article   3. 26.

Date de mise à disposition : 18 mai 2017, prorogée au 1er juin 2017, les avocats dûment avisés conformément à l'article 450 dernier alinéa du code de procédure Audience tenue par Jean-Louis BERNAUD

, président - Françoise CLEMENT, conseiller - Vincent NICOLAS, conseiller assistés pendant les débats de Joëlle POITOUX, greffier A l'audience, Jean-Louis BERNAUD a fait le rapport, conformément

D... ; - les observations de Me Béchard, représentant M. C...