subsequently before the Court should have been raised, “at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law” before the national authorities ( Fressoz

Greece , no. 18877/91, judgment of 15 November 1996, § 33; Fressoz and Roire v. France , no. 29183/95, judgment of 21   January 1999, § 38; Azinas v.

    In fresh proceedings the District Court found, on 24 November 2004, that the applicant had tarnished the plaintiff’s good reputation by the impugned statements and ordered him to publish

  the United Kingdom , judgment of 27   March 1996, Reports 1996 ‑ II, § 39, and Fressoz and Roire v.   France [GC], no.   29183/95, §   54, ECHR 1999 ‑ I). 33.

level should have been aired before those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Fressoz

In the Court’s opinion this implies that an Article 6 complaint was raised in substance before these courts (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v.

effective and adequate – to afford the Contracting States the possibility of putting right the violations alleged against them before bringing the matter before the Court (see, among other authorities, Fressoz

its supervisory function is not to take the place of the competent domestic courts, but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see Fressoz

should have been raised before those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities , Fressoz

its supervisory function is not to take the place of the competent domestic courts, but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see Fressoz

authorities but rather to review under Article   10, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see, among many other authorities, Fressoz

interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and providing reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Fressoz

exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the competent domestic courts but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see Fressoz

subsequently before the Court should have been raised, “at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law” before the national authorities (see Fressoz

hospitalisation de jour de 28 heures par semaine à Garches du 4 avril 2016 au 2 décembre 2018 puis de 22 heures à compter de sa prise en charge au sein de l'institut médico-éducatif Les Heures Claires de Freneuse

    Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see Fressoz

principles relating to the freedom of the press and the question of assessing the necessity of an interference with that freedom, as set out in the summary of its established case-law in the case of Fressoz

should have been ventilated before those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Fressoz

in question was “proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued” and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are “relevant and sufficient” (see, among other authorities, Fressoz