The subject matter of the disputed speech was therefore of a political nature, in the context of which Article 10 § 2 provided little scope for restrictions.

  The Court reiterated that there was little scope under Article 10 for restrictions on political speech or public debate.

  The Court did not accept the Government’s contention that the legal characterisation of the offence had been of little importance as long as the alternative conviction had been based on the same

  The judge emphasised that there was no point in the applicant's continuing the proceedings as he had extremely little chance of success and would have to pay considerable costs.

it convinced that a defect in such proceedings would necessarily be remedied in proceedings on the merits since any prejudice suffered in the meantime might by then have become irreversible and with little

Représentée par Me Isabelle BAILLIEU de la SCP JUDICIA AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de MONTPELLIER INTIMEE : LA [6] ([7]) [Adresse 2] [Localité 3] Représentée par Me Guillaume DESMOULIN de la SAS Littler

The latter action had been explained by the best interests of the little girl in being removed from an environment in which she had been heavily penalised in a variety of ways, and also on account of the

There was therefore little scope for restrictions under Article 10   §   2.

At the time of Y’s birth, any action which the applicant could have brought in order to deny paternity would have had little prospects of success as he would have been unable to prove any of the elements

He had returned to Marka the following day, and a little while later had once more obtained permission from al-Shabaab to leave the city and talk to his father one more time.

However, this argument has little weight as regards the proceedings before the Administrative Court which never proceeded to an examination of the merits of the case. 35.

       This meant that very little discussion took place in the      jury room because there was no factual evidence to relate      to.

[I] a investi du temps pour la préparation de l'ouverture du restaurant Little Italy, avant même l'ouverture de l'établissement et en accord avec M. [E].

Elle explique que c'est bien elle qui a effectué une demande de retour des marchandises Little Marcel le 30 septembre 2016 conformément à ce qui est indiqué par l'employeur; qu'il est également exact qu'une

B..., ainsi que de Me Litzler, représentant le centre hospitalier Alpes-Isère. Considérant ce qui suit : Les requêtes n° 2304605 et n°2307166, présentées par M. A...

Ont été entendus au cours de l'audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Vaccaro-Planchet, présidente, - et les observations de Me Litzler, représentant la métropole de Lyon.

Stillmunkes, président assesseur, - les conclusions de Mme Cottier, rapporteure publique, - et les observations de Me Litzler représentant le centre hospitalier du Vinatier.

Pin, premier conseiller, - les conclusions de Mme Cottier, rapporteure publique, - et les observations de Me Brun, représentant Mme B, et de Me Litzler, représentant la métropole de Lyon.

Ont été entendu au cours de l'audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Vaccaro-Planchet, présidente ; - et les observations de Me Litzler, représentant la métropole de Lyon.

Habchi, rapporteur public, - et les observations de Me Litzler, représentant la métropole de Lyon. La clôture de l'instruction a été prononcée à l'issue de l'audience.