On 22 November 1994 a hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the defendant’s lawyer. The court held hearings on 27 January, 11 April and 9 May 1995.

The applicant decided not to participate in the proceedings because, in her opinion, the hearing would not be fair. 12 .

Of the nine hearings fixed between 27 October 1998 and 7 April 1999, three were adjourned because a co-defendant, having been drafted into the army, could not attend, two hearings were rescheduled because

not because of her alleged incompetence.

This was because, under section 56(6) of the CSSAIA, as in force until 1 August 2006, such an extension was only open to cohabitees of the opposite sex and because this discriminatory situation did not

Composition de la Cour lors du délibéré : - Jean-Louis BERNAUD, président - Françoise CLEMENT, conseiller - Vincent NICOLAS, conseiller Signé par Jean-Louis BERNAUD, président, et par Sylvie BOURRAT

, 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

de PARIS, substitué par Me LACAZE, avocat au même barreau PARTIES CONVOQUÉES LE : 09 septembre 2015 DÉBATS EN AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE DU : 08 Décembre 2015 Composée de Jean -Louis BERNAUD

Vu 7°, sous le n° 379724, la requête, enregistrée le 23 avril 2014 au secrétariat du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, présentée par la commune de Béchamps représentée par son maire ; la commune de Béchamps

le versement de 1 000 euros à Me Béchiau.

A hearing scheduled for 9 April 1997 was adjourned until 4 February 1998 because of the legitimate impediment of one of the accused.

The applicant lodged an appeal in which he complained, inter alia , that he did not have fair proceedings because his case was decided upon the opinion of the biased expert witness because she worked for

By a judgment which became final on 7 April 2011 the domestic courts dismissed her action as statute-barred because the three-year statutory limitation period had elapsed.

Even though he maintained that he had been unable to succeed to the tenancy because he and A.Z. had been of the same sex, the domestic courts ultimately dismissed the applicant’s claim not because of his

He was taken to a hospital neurology ward, but the doctors refused to carry out the recommended tomography because the applicant was unable to pay for it.

Before the courts the applicant stated that the decree of 2009 was inapplicable to his case because it was not in force when the decision of 24 June 2005 was taken.

Law – Article 6 § 1: The Court noted at the outset that the witness statements and the weight given to them had had a decisive impact on the determination of the case because, apart from them, there was

On 24 February 2016 the Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings because the applicant had not paid the court fee and granted the applicant a deadline for payment.

The Court held that there had been unjustified pre-trial detention of the applicant from 10/08/2006 at the latest until his release on bail on 30/11/2006 because the underlying reasons were not supported

In the Supreme Court’s view, this was so especially because the Convention and its Protocols left the system of appeal to be determined by the States.