LES HOTELS (TRES) PARTICULIERS [Adresse 1] [Localité 5] Représentée par Me Stéphanie MOMIRON, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : D2132 COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : En application des dispositions

né le 10 Juillet 1975 à YAYLACI (TURQUIE) ... 69200 VENISSIEUX représenté par Me Annick DE FOURCROY, avoué à la Cour assisté de Me Bernard MOMPOINT, avocat au barreau de LYON INTIME : M.

. 44690 LA HAYE FOUASSIERE Représentée par Me Dominique LE COULS-BOUVET de la SCP SCP PHILIPPE COLLEU DOMINIQUE LE COULS-BOUVET, Postulant, avocat au barreau de RENNES Représentée par Me Emilie MOUSSION

    On the applicant’s motion, on 19 November 2001 the judges of the Pest County Labour Court declared themselves biased.

On 25   January   2007 the applicant lodged a motion for bias against one of the Court of Appeal judges as he had been part of the Regional Court’s chamber of three judges, which had rejected

They further argued that they had filed a motion with the Regional Court seeking to exclude this piece of evidence and assign an additional forensic examination but their motion was dismissed.

On 4 October 2002 the court refused the motion because the prosecutor had only cited facts from the investigative file, had affirmed the applicant’s complicity but not his guilt, and was not personally

The Court raised of its own motion a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as to whether the applicant had an effective domestic remedy against the excessive length of the impugned proceedings.

In that respect the applicant complained that the district court had failed to summon, of its own motion, E.M. as a witness.

On 5 March 1993, of its own motion, the Municipal Department for Spatial Planning, Urban Development and Housing ( Opštinsko odeljenje za urbanizam, komunalno-građevinske i stambene poslove – “the Municipality

The prosecutor, being guided by law and his/her inner convictions, shall support charges on behalf of the State, present evidence, participate in examination of evidence, file motions, express his/her

On 27 September 2000 the court stayed the proceedings upon a motion of the applicant. On 25 August 2001 the applicant asked for the proceedings to be resumed.

A’s assistant advocate supported counsel’s motion. The public prosecutor expressed understanding for the motion without taking a stance. 8.

The proceedings are being conducted against them as one set, with decisions being taken and procedural motions being made together.

Furthermore, they argued that the applicant had had a prior remedy to complain about the inconsistency, namely a motion to supplement the judgment ( petición de aclaración o complemento ).

Because no hearing had been scheduled, he filed a motion for bias against the presiding judge in May 2003, which was later dismissed.

On 20   February   2003 the applicant requested to reject the mother’s motion.

During the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant’s request.

cases amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression;   Art. 6 § 1 – fair trial – the applicant was unable to present evidence in his defence as all his motions