According to the police’s report on their video-recording of 19   March 2006, the applicant had stated during his speech that it was necessary to show solidarity with the PKK and the Kurdish people

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

police officers and informants had not acted in a passive manner – had been under an obligation to establish in adversarial proceedings the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s

ENTRE : DEMANDEUR Monsieur [L] [M] né le 08 Décembre 1938 à LA TRONCHE (38), demeurant 8 Rue de la Grange - 38240 MEYLAN représenté par Maître David ROGUET de la SELARL GUMUSCHIAN ROGUET BONZY POLZELLA

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s

In these circumstances, the police’s forceful intervention was disproportionate and not necessary for the prevention of disorder.

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

02 OCTOBRE 2025 ENTRE : DEMANDEURS Monsieur [C] [M], demeurant [Adresse 1] Madame [M], demeurant [Adresse 1] Tous deux représentés par Maître David ROGUET de la SELARL GUMUSCHIAN ROGUET BONZY POLZELLA

On 8 December 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the response of the police’s internal control unit could not be considered as a decision

3] [Localité 2] représentée par Me Emmanuelle VAJOU de la SELARL LX NIMES, Postulant, avocat au barreau de NIMES, représentée par Me Laurence GUMUSCHIAN de la SELARL GUMUSCHIAN ROGUET BONZY POLZELLA

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant

    Did the courts assess the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant