Of six hearings fixed between 20 April and 17 June 2004, three were adjourned because the judge was ill. 22.

It decided to serve the summons on the applicant via public notification because the applicant had moved abroad.

The applicant’s appeal against that decision was rejected because it was not provided by law.

The applicants submitted that if returned, the family and he would be at risk of persecution in their home country because of his participation in an opposition movement.

On 16 January 2006 the applicant was released from detention because he had served all 30 days of his sentence.

On 7 July 2010 the applicant went for the examination, but after her height was measured the process was terminated and the applicant was told that she was unfit for the position because she was too small

    In March 2014 the investigation was discontinued because of the expiry of the prescription period.

    The Government argued that the applicant had lost his victim status because the enforcement proceedings at issue had been terminated.

The first-instance judgment, adopted by the Labin Municipal Court on 27   October   2014, was upheld by the Pula County Court on 5   January   2015 and thus became final. 3 .

On 26 May 1999 the case was transferred to another judge because the previous judge had been temporarily placed to another court.

D, et de Mmes B et Béchard est rejetée comme portée devant une juridiction incompétente pour en connaitre.

In its assessment of Z’s testimony the Regional Court set out that it took into account that investigations against Z were opened because of statements by the applicant.

At that time, the applicant did not move into her new apartment, because the construction of the building had not been fully completed and the tenants had to complete the repair works in their respective

Despite his efforts, the bailiff was unable to obtain enforcement of the interim order because of the opposition of the owners’ association.

The judgment... became final on 15 June 1998, the date of the judgment of the Šibenik County Court..., by which the defendant’s appeal was dismissed.

(h)     The authorisation for a childminder in Blagnac to mind a child in her care had been withdrawn because she was a Jehovah’s Witness.

Those authorities refused the request for family reunification because the applicant could not comply with the maintenance requirement and because it had not been lodged within three months after the applicant

It is obvious that in the present case this argument cannot apply because this is not a case where the applicant declined to give evidence because of his concern about self-incrimination.

SOCIETE GROUPE AVENIR Représentant : Me Caroline BEAUD, avocat au barreau de LYON, toque : 984 INTIMEE Nous, Sophie DUMURGIER, Présidente chargée de la mise en état, assistée de Clémence RUILLAT,