liquidation judiciaire avec poursuite d'activité d'un mois de la société SACMO au capital de 1 136 333 €, immatriculée au RCS de NANTES sous le numéro 380 408 914 et dont le siège social se situe [Adresse

24/05/2024 accordée par le bureau d'aide juridictionnelle de [Localité 2]) INTIMÉS [Localité 3] [Adresse 3] [Localité 4] défaillante [Localité 5] [Adresse 4] [Adresse 5] [Localité 6] non

At the conclusion of her evidence the court ordered that her name and address should not be disclosed in court.

En raison d'une erreur matérielle affectant l'adresse des lieux litigieux qui en réalité est située [Adresse 6], le [Adresse 7] étant le numéro du chemin départemental figurant sur le règlement de copropriété

    The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits.

It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). 5.

further comments in reply submitted by the applicant on 15 January and 1 February 1986 respectively;   -        the hearing of the parties on the admissibility and merits

Except in the case of facts which are manifest or common knowledge, the court must not intervene in this regard, otherwise it will prejudge the merits, if only in part ... .

The Court heard their addresses as well as replies to the questions of some of its members. AS TO THE FACTS I.   THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A. Introduction 6.

The Court heard addresses by Mrs Belliard, Mr Soyer and Mr de Grandcourt. 6.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Conforti, Mr Ebstein-Langevin, Mr   Prevost and Mr Perrin de Brichambaut. 8.

Thirdly, according to the Government, a supervisory review did not prejudge subsequent judgments by merely remitting the case for a further investigation.

    A hearing on admissibility and the merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 October 2002 (Rule 54 § 3).

  The Court heard addresses by them. THE FACTS 11.     The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Rome. 12.

The argument that they had been created by law was not persuasive because PODDA had merely branded two not ‑ for ‑ profit associations “professional organisations” and had endowed them with

  The Court heard addresses by Mrs Rizoiu, Mr Selegean, Mr Olteanu and Mr F. Rotaru. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.

  The interrogation included no questions on the merits.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Nicolini, Mr Henry and Mrs   Dubrocard. THE FACTS 7.

The applicant did not address this issue. 72.     The Court observes that the remedies referred to by the Government are merely of a retrospective character.