des plaidoiries dans le délibéré de la cour, composée de : Mme Danielle DEMONT- PIEROT, conseillère, présidente suppléante désignée par ordonnance du premier président du 18 février 2008, Mme Monique BEHARY

(Pyrénées-Atlantiques), 26°/ La société Behigo et fils, dont le siège est ...

Ont été entendus au cours de l'audience publique du 9 novembre 2022 à 9h30 : - le rapport de Mme Gazeau, magistrate désignée, - et les observations de Me Benabu, avocat commis d'office, représentant

somme de 20 000 euros, assortie des intérêts au taux légal et de leur capitalisation, en réparation des préjudices subis à raison des conditions de vie indigne lors de son séjour au sein du hameau des Bellugues

On 23 September 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the offence of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the PKK, under Article   7   §

The application is lodged with the Court by the applicant community’s chairperson on behalf of the community. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No.

    Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention

TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Dicle on behalf of the DEP (DEMOCRATIC PARTY) v. Turkey (application no. 25141/94).

Law – Article 14: (a)   Admissibility (exhaustion of domestic remedies) – The applicants explained that they had preferred to ask the association to act on their behalf for fear of retaliation by

    The case concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to appoint to the applicant a legal aid lawyer who could lodge a   cassation appeal with the Supreme Court on her behalf. 2.

On 12 January 2009 the Bakhchysaray district prosecutor appealed against the judgment of 9 June 2006 on the Department’s behalf.

The first application was lodged by a parent on his own behalf, complaining about the fact that he had been fined for failing to have his school-age children duly vaccinated.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated on account of the domestic courts’ failure to hear witnesses on his behalf.

On 20 March 2000 the Regional Court decided to stay the proceedings pending the determination of the applicants’ request for an extra-ordinary appeal on points of law to be filed on their behalf.

    The Court notes that the first applicant lodged the application on behalf of herself, her two sons and her two daughters.

    On 6 and 16 September 2013 a lawyer acting on behalf of the first and second applicants enquired with the Kvemo Kartli regional prosecutor about a progress in the investigation.

  The facts, as submitted on behalf of the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

damages in his own name and on behalf of the company.

    The applicants’ representative submitted an introductory letter on behalf of his clients on 31 July 2013.