адм. д. №   3415/2016 г., ВАС, V о. ) The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the refusal to provide her the reasons for the judgment was disproportionate, in particular because

Thus, on 19 July 2000 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of legal counsel of the applicant’s co-accused, on 2 October 2000 – because of the illness of the co-accused and on 29 June 2001 –

In respect of application no. 42152/23, the enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant have been suspended because of the existence of a garnishee order for tax debts, issued by the entity entrusted

It sought the annulment of the interim order because of the excessive delay in the proceedings before the District Court.

A hearing listed for 6 March 1997 was adjourned because the plans were not ready, and another hearing, scheduled for 6 May 1997, failed to take place because counsel for B.R. was absent.

As regards the fourth application the Government argue that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies because he withdrew his appeal.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 7 février 2023, Mme D A, représentée par Me Bechard, demande au juge des référés, sur le fondement de l'article L. 521-1 du code de justice administrative

[A], - fixé les honoraires de la Selarl Berthaud et associés à la somme globale de 4 873.60 € TTC, - constaté que Mme [W] et M.

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

Because of the seriousness of her crimes, and because the presence of her family members in Austria could not deter her from repeatedly committing offences, the exclusion order was proportionate to the

Lastly, she argued that a complaint for a violation of the right to be heard would have been unreasonably difficult because of the short statutory time-limit of two weeks, because of a lack of success

    On 8 May 2012 the applicant was withdrawn from unpaid work in prison because of his deteriorating health. 14 .

Two hearings scheduled in July 2001 were adjourned because certain procedural shortcomings had to be rectified and because the victims and witnesses did not appear.

LE CLOS DU TUNNEL [Adresse 1] [Adresse 1] Représentant : Me Mohamed AITALI de la SELARL AITALI-GROS-CARPI-LE DENMAT-DE BUCY-BECHARI, avocat au barreau de BESANCON INTIMÉE ORDONNANCE CONSTATANT

he did not exhaust domestic remedies, in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, or because he did not observe the six months' rule.

THE LAW On 20 October 2003 the Government indicated that the application was not fit for examination by this Court because the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts.

She complained that the HBRB had acted unlawfully because it had failed to make adequate findings of fact or provide sufficient reasons for its decision.

    The applicant has been prevented from returning to his home and property because the Turkish military authorities have continuously occupied and used his home.

because of his failure to appear before the court.