The Court heard addresses by Miss Picard, Mr Bourgoin, Mr Weitzel and Mr Alexandre, and also replies to questions put by it and by one of its members.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Cede, Mr Trechsel and Mr Lansky. 6.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Cabral Barreto for the Government, by Mr Campinos for the Commission and by Mrs Neves Anacleto for the applicant, as well as their replies to its questions.

  According to the submissions of the applicant's lawyer, he was not informed   thereof; rather, the conversation merely concerned the applicant's detention on remand.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Mucha, Mr Blake and Mr Pannick, and also replies to questions put by several of its members. 7.

Merlin-Desmartis , administrative court judge,       on secondment to the Legal Affairs Department, Ministry       of Foreign Affairs,     Mr L.

The Court heard addresses by Mrs Liddy, Mr Emmerson and Mr Burnett. AS TO THE FACTS I.   the CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

    An oral hearing on admissibility and merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 November 2005.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr S. de Nigris de Maria, Mr T. Verrilli and Mr N. Lettieri, and Mr Lettieri’s replies to judges’ questions. THE FACTS I.

    On 27 July 2000 the Government filed the documents requested along with further observations on the merits of the application. 9.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Blanc and Mrs Dubrocard. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The case of Mr Annoni di Gussola 8.

The applicant had not invoked evidence disregarded by the Land Office and, by merely articulating his discontent with the latter’s decision, had not raised any valid objection to the facts as established

    The applicants and the Government each filed written observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

The order merely mentions the names of persons who have been authorised to practise medicine in France.

It matters little that his opinion is a minority one and may appear to be devoid of merit since, in a sphere in which it is unlikely that any certainty exists, it would be particularly unreasonable to

    The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Danelius, Mr Plender and Mr Jacot-Guillarmod, and the latter’s reply to the question asked by one member of the Court.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Danelius, Ms Hubin-Paugam and Mr Dobelle. AS TO THE FACTS I.    CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Cabral Barreto, Mr Simont, Mr Dalcq and Mr Nelissen-Grade, and also their answers to its questions.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.