HOTEL CENTRE VILLE Sa NATION CREDIT BAIL Sa BNP PARIBAS SNC START UP COUR D'APPEL DE LYON PREMIERE CHAMBRE CIVILE A ARRET DU 17 Janvier 2008 APPELANTES : Madame Isabelle X... épouse Y...

Respondent State urged to take individual measures

violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5, as the actual purpose of these measures was to silence or punish him for criticising the government; recalling further that a joint press statement

resume the dialogue with the Committee in order to achieve rapid and concrete progress in the execution of this judgment;   Underlined, in view of the situation, the obligation of every member State

explore all reinstatement options available, other than the parliamentary options, and that this call has not yielded any results;   Faced with this situation, underlining the obligation of every State

information either in this respect, or on the payment to the applicants of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court;   REITERATED WITH INSISTENCE the unconditional obligation of every respondent State

judgments of the Court;   DECLARES that this continued refusal by Turkey is in flagrant conflict with its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State

Respondent State urged to take individual measures

Respondent State urged to take individual measures

the root causes of these violations, in particular the misuse of the criminal law and retaliatory prosecutions, which could include the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Group of States

flaws of the criminal proceedings engaged against him and notwithstanding the Committee’s repeated calls, the applicant still has not been released;   Recalling that it is intolerable that, in a State

Respondent State urged to take individual measures

the applicant’s pre-trial detention on grounds pertaining to the same factual context would entail a prolongation of the violation of his rights as well as a breach of the obligation on the respondent State

Respondent State urged to take individual measures

compulsory military service cannot alleviate the need for the legislative amendments, as those measures do not offer an alternative to mandatory military service;   Reiterating the obligation of every State

Court would be highly desirable as a means to provide appropriate redress to the applicant, other forms of redress are also possible;   Reaffirming the unconditional obligation of every respondent State

would have enjoyed had the violations not occurred and that such measures should be compatible with the conclusions and spirit of the Court’s judgment, involving good faith on the part of the respondent State

applicants’ pre-trial detention on grounds pertaining to the same factual context would entail a prolongation of the violation of their rights as well as a breach of the obligation on the respondent State