Accordingly, they held that the applicant did not meet the legal criteria for military disability (see paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 above). 14.

  54648/09, 23 October 2014), the mitigation of his sentence did not constitute sufficient redress for the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

ans et dix mois. 22.

Moreover, the law at issue did not provide any procedural safeguards. 16 .

The decision of the judge ordering seizure referred to a “state of suspicion” and did not contain a finding of guilt. Moreover, the subsequent proceedings did not reveal any prejudgement.

have Romanian citizenship and/or did not reside in Romania.

In doing so the courts either did not specify the reasons for their decision or merely referred to impossibility of the witnesses’ attendance. 5.

    Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

CONSTRUCTION, partie civile, contre l'arrêt de la chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de POITIERS, en date du 20 juin 2006, qui, dans l'information suivie, sur sa plainte, contre Denis X... et Marina

.. et de Mme W..., puis, avant-dire droit sur la demande de prestation compensatoire, a rabattu l'ordonnance de clôture, rouvert les débats, renvoyé l'examen de l'affaire à une audience ultérieure et dit

juillet 2000, le Figaro littéraire a fait paraître sous le titre "le roman vrai du docteur X..., un article de Mme Y... intitulé "ce que voulait Marie", premier épisode d'un feuilleton consacré à un fait divers

Ils ont acquis pendant le mariage un bien immobilier sis [Adresse 3].

However, since banditry did not fall into the category of offences exempt from statutory limitation, the Regional Court relieved the applicant of criminal liability.

O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Maria Wójcicka-Surówka, is a Polish

    In the same vein, it is also noted that the applicant did not prove that he was unable to have his case heard on account of that fine or that it had “a chilling effect” on him.

table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   September 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President,   Jolien Schukking ,   Ana Maria

    The Court therefore considers that the proceedings finalised by the decision of 19   April 2019 did not involve a “determination of a criminal charge” against the applicant.

list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 42812/10 Mária

According to the 1972 land-use plan ( programma di fabbricazione ), the land was designated for agricultural use. 3 .