ARRÊT DU 25 AVRIL 2023 APPELANTE : CIPAV [Adresse 4] [Localité 3] représenté par Me Marion SIMONET de la SELAS EPILOGUE AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de LYON substituée par Me Delphine GIORGI

, avocat au barreau de LYON DÉBATS EN AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE DU : 04 Octobre 2022 Présidée par Thierry GAUTHIER, Conseiller, magistrat rapporteur, (sans opposition des parties dûment avisées

With regard to Giurgiu Prison in particular, they stated that the living space available to the applicant had been between 3.39   sq. m and 3.49 sq. m. 41.

The applicant argued that he had exhausted all available remedies and that in Croatia there was no possibility of obtaining legal aid in proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

Apart from that conviction, there are no other reliable news concerning the applicant.   2.

Giurgiu, a lawyer practising in Baia Mare; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.

The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness.

In the present case the Government omitted to comment on the efficiency of the remedy they suggested.

Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. 24.

[Y] [I] le 11 mai 2018 à la requête de la société Le Bioves : Cette assignation a été délivrée sous la constitution , par la société Le Bioves, de maître Thierry Giogio, avocat au barreau de Nice dont

Furthermore, there was not sufficient legal basis for the court’s decision to sell his property.

Relying on the information contained in the applicant's medical file, they noted that he had received proper medical treatment on a regular basis.

At the same time, they argued that the applicant had failed to send the writ of execution to the local department of the Federal Treasury in good time.

The police did not demolish the remaining four sheds but warned those living there that should they not leave the area, their sheds would also be demolished.

They are, however, subject to a complaint to the Constitutional Court, and, if they concern decisions given in disciplinary proceedings, to the Administrative Court. 2.

They were charged with violating safety regulations under Article 216 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code.

There is nothing in the present case to depart from this conclusion.

COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the appeal hearings had not been public because they had been held in Gobustan Prison.

    On 23 May 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court refused their application because the enforcement proceedings were still pending and because they had in the meantime advanced by thirty positions