selon l'arrêt attaqué (Rouen, 14 décembre 2004), rendu sur renvoi après cassation (3e Civ. 13 décembre 2000, pourvoi n° 98-22.867), que, bénéficiaire d'une autorisation préfectorale d'exploiter une carrière

    On 28 March 2001 the first applicant was acknowledged as a victim and a civil claimant in criminal case no. 24031. 27.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

The court agreed and adjourned the case. The third hearing took place on 20 May 1996. The order pursuant to which the operation of 2 March 1995 had been carried out was admitted in evidence.

Née le 6 mars 1958 à La Cadière et Cambo (Gard) demeurant...

But the above ‑ mentioned Law of 4 March 2002, which was applicable to pending proceedings, had had the effect in the case brought by the applicants of excluding the “special burdens” from the damage

By judgment of July 1997, the competent regional court ordered the applicant to give up her property, on the ground that on 15 March 1990, she had not carried out an activity connected with agriculture

died on 10 March 2014.

MARXER                  G.B.

Ce magistrat a rendu compte des plaidoiries dans le délibéré de la Cour, composée de : Mme Catherine METADIEU, Présidente Mme Marie-Elisabeth OPPELT-RÉVENEAU, Conseillère Mme Marie-Antoinette COLAS,

    Between 4 and 5 March 2004 a fingerprint identification test was carried out, which established that the bayonet had no fingerprints on it. 28.

  In the case of Vig v.

  22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010 and the cases cited therein; Shilbergs v.   Russia , no. 20075/03, §§ 66-79, 17 December 2009; and Ciorap v.

The Gdańsk Regional Court, after reconsideration of the case, upheld the first-instance judgment.

On 29 March 2001 the Chapayevsk Town Court remitted the case to Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are a family of four.

may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court.

Review of complaints at domestic level Upon a complaint by the applicant, the hospital on 12 March 2003 replied that the transplantation had been carried out by the transplant doctors in accordance with

In the case of Pilčić v.