Für ein weiteres Gespräch stehe ich Ihnen gerne zur         Verfügung."

    The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of being made to wear handcuffs whilst being taken from official buildings and into court during his pre-trial detention.

example, that the Commission accepted that the compulsory use of a crash helmet by a motorcyclist, in the interest of road safety, might be held to override the religious duty of a male Sikh believer to wear

On 31 October 1995 he was ordered to pay a fine for driving his car whilst under the influence of drink, and failing to wear his glasses whilst driving. The fine was ordered by the St.

Allegedly, the applicant was “subjected to violence, forced to wear female clothes and was sexually assaulted”.

Because of the surgery he was allowed to wear slippers instead of army boots. On 15 April 2007 Gegham Sergoyan was put on duty.

In the opinion of an appeal court a situation where a detainee has to wear the same clothes 5 weeks in a row as a result of the prison’s act or omission, can be seen as treatment against the detainee’s

In the opinion of an appeal court a situation where a detainee has to wear the same clothes 5 weeks in a row as a result of the prison’s act or omission, can be seen as treatment against the detainee’s

        The applicant had to wear winter clothing all the time because of low temperature, the cell was in a basement. walls were covered with frost, sleeping place made of metal suspended

  D.H., arrêt De Weer du 27 février 1980, série A n° 35, p. 16 par. 29).

menée par le directeur commercial de Gemalto pour la région MOA, [F] [I], devenu employé d'une filiale française du Groupe, VERIFONE France SA qui reportait à [B] [E] directeur général de la région WEMEA

Après l’échec d’un premier recours (Beschwerde), son recours ultérieur (weitere Beschwerde) aboutit: le 18 août 1989, la cour d’appel de Stuttgart cassa les décisions antérieures, avec renvoi au tribunal

    On 31 January 2007 he was diagnosed for the first time with visual impairment (no further details being available) in Sofiyivska Prison, and he was told to wear spectacles.

While under house arrest, the applicants were obliged to wear electronic bracelets. 12.

    Alleged obligation to wear prison clothes The applicant claimed that he had been taken to the court hearings wearing prison clothes.

During this walk he had to wear handcuffs. On 10 April 1997 the applicant was questioned by the Investigating Office in the presence of his lawyer.

Et ce sursis de paiement n'est accordé que provisoirement ("bis auf weiteres").

In its decision, the Court of Appeal did not admit an appeal on points of law ( weitere Beschwerde ). 11.

His further appeal (weitere Beschwerde) from this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) of Berlin on 27 February 1963.   11.