Hogan, All England Law Reports, 1960, vol. 3, p. 149). 31.

Hossain Muhammad Saqawat («   le requérant   ») a saisi la Cour en vertu de l’article   34 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales («   la

    Par un arrêt du 17 décembre 2020 ( Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België et autres , C-336/19, EU:C:2020:1031) rendu sur conclusions contraires de l’Avocat général Hogan (EU:C:2020

Albania 29     KUQO FLORENC ALB 06/07/1982 Albania 30     MAHMOUD ABDUL MOHAMMED SYR 07/06/1905 Syria 31     MOHAMMADI KAYWAN IRN 20/12/1982 Iran 32     MUSTAFA HOOSAM

Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Turkish nationals, Fatma Ayten Yagtzilar, Mustafa Aykut Yagtzilar, Yakut   Yagtzilar, Nermin Baykal, Bahadir Atik, Feriha Neriman Atik, Alan   Hosman

He was represented before the Court by D’Arcy Horan & Co., a firm of solicitors in Dublin. The circumstances of the case 2.

;      51878/16 22/08/2016 Hatice ANT 19/03/2001 Şırnak Reşit Ant Şırnak   Ali Deniz CEYLAN             51889/16 22/08/2016 Hozan

Referring to the Court's decision in the case of Homann v.

Referring to the Court's decision in the case of Homann v.

: Me Martine DUPUIS de la SELARL LEXAVOUE PARIS-VERSAILLES, Postulant, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES, vestiaire : 625 - N° du dossier 1860869 Représentant : Me Christelle COSLIN du PARTNERSHIPS HOGAN

    In its judgment of 17   December 2020 in Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others (C-336/19, EU:C:2020:1031), given contrary to the opinion of Advocate General Hogan (

Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law). B.     Inquests 1.     Statutory provisions and rules 48.

Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law).     Inquests     i.

Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law).     Inquests     i.

    The applicant was represented by Mr Gunnar Homann, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.

He is represented before the Court by Mr Gunnar Homann, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen. A.     The circumstances of the case 1.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors., [2011] IEHC 214, the High Court (Hogan   J) observed that it was plain that a majority of the Supreme Court in Meadows was prepared to apply

the applicant’s preventive detention no longer concerned the “determination ... of any criminal charge” against him for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis , Homann

Hogan , S.C.,   Counsel , Mr   F. O'Reilly ,   Solicitor .   The applicant also attended.   The Court heard addresses by each of the counsel present. THE FACTS I.