AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le vingt-deux septembre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-neuf, a rendu

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE COMMERCIALE, FINANCIERE ET ECONOMIQUE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par la société d'HLM les Foyers de Seine-et-Marne, société

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le seize janvier mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-sept, a rendu l'arrêt

BONNAL président, R É P U B L I Q U E F R A N Ç A I S E ________________________________________ AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS _________________________ ARRÊT DE LA COUR DE CASSATION

BONNAL président, R É P U B L I Q U E F R A N Ç A I S E ________________________________________ AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS _________________________ ARRÊT DE LA COUR DE CASSATION

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le vingt-huit janvier deux mille quatre, a rendu l'arrêt suivant :

Le nom commercial et le nom de domaine ont pour objet, le premier, d'identifier une entreprise et, le second, de permettre l'accès à un site internet.

impartiality of trial court since applicant's misgivings could not be regarded as objectively justified.

Denmark (7 May 1985 and 16 July 1987, Series A no. 127, pp. 11-16, and no. 154, pp. 33-38).

It is therefore not necessary for the Court to examine it. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Holds by seven votes to two that there has been no violation of Article 6 (art. 6);   2.

No violation of Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 53

The file was made available to the members of the commission of inquiry, on the condition that they would not take it away or make copies of it.

with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1.

The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible by reason of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and, in the alternative, that there had been no breach of Article 6 § 2 (art. 6-2).

Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three). B.

No violation of Art. 3;Not necessary to examine Art. 5

    It is not disputed in the instant case that the decision not to register the applicant on the special electoral roll was taken in circumstances which left no room for arbitrariness. 55.

– State's liability very narrowly circumscribed under that provision – applicants had not claimed to be victims of a "denial of justice" or of "gross negligence" – French courts had not interpreted concept

and was therefore not in itself incompatible with the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.