FRANÇAIS COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS Pôle 6 - Chambre 3 ARRET DU 28 FÉVRIER 2012 (n° , 5 pages) Numéro d'inscription au répertoire général : S 10/03488 Décision déférée à la Cour : jugement rendu

The applicant does not give any concrete and specific reasons as to the actual manner in which his defence would have been prejudiced if the forensic examination by his defence team had been carried out

    On 1 February 2006 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed his action.

  At an unspecified time in 1993 his business failed, his house was repossessed and he incurred debts of some £ 20,000.

with his source.

of the initial domestic judgment in his favour. 42.

    In considering Article 8, he said: “A man in a police cell is entitled to privacy just as much as a man sitting at his fireside in his own home.

He did not ask that he or his lawyer be invited to the session of the appeal panel. 10.

They further submitted that, at the time of his claim in 2001, a woman in his circumstances would not have been entitled to any benefits.

On 25   February 2020 the Supreme Court refused to examine his subsequent appeal on points of law. 4.

    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.

effect on his behaviour.

During that time the first applicant was questioned about his sexual practices with, and about the age of, his current partner.

his or her incompatibility with the exercise of his functions absolute and permanent.

The court dismissed his claim in the amount of HRK   3,500 in respect of mental anguish caused by loss of amenities of life because it established that his injuries did not have lasting consequences

    At the request of the Regional Court, Dr W. submitted another expert opinion on 2 July 2018, confirming his diagnosis as set out in his first expert opinion (see paragraph 7 above).

The applicant further considered that his dismissal had violated his right to freedom of expression and was discriminatory. THE FACTS 2 .

His application was refused by the competent domestic court.

The applicant, through his lawyer, announced that his permanent residence was within the geographical jurisdiction of that court. His father’s family lived in that area. 20.

  His residence permit was subsequently extended for one year at a time. 15.