The Court has previously held that the placement of defendants behind glass partitions or in glass cabins   did not in itself involve an element of humiliation sufficient to reach the minimum level

;   41230/16 12/07/2016 Zigurds ŠTELMAHERS 1960     06/03/2008   18/01/2016   7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C30202108      

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête enregistrée le 23 février 2024, Mme A B, représentée par Me Lemelle, demande au tribunal : 1°) le bénéfice de l'aide juridictionnelle à titre provisoire ;

A C, l'EARL Lebel, M. M AF, M. R F, Mme AC AH, Mme T N, M. S N, M. AE G, Mme Q AL, Mme L AK, le groupement foncier agricole La Ferme de la Vallée, M. J U, Mme Z AG, M. E V, Mme P AJ, Mme AB H, M.

During this time the case was considered by three levels of jurisdiction.

Thus, the proceeding lasted in total three years, eleven months and thirteen days at two levels of jurisdiction. There were no delays in the proceedings attributable to the authorities.

on the Court’s case-law 198 July 2016 A.M. v. the Netherlands - 29094/09 Judgment 5.7.2016 [Section III] Article 13 Effective remedy No requirement under Article   13 for States to set up second level

Thus, the length of the proceedings, which lasted for about two years and six months before two levels of jurisdiction (see the appended table), cannot be considered excessive.

/2008   18/09/2013   5 years, 6 months and 12 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     10437/14 15/01/2014 Larisa Anatolyevna Nikolayenko 07/06/1951 01/10/2012   14/08/2013   10

Thus, the proceeding lasted in total three years and twenty ‑ four days at two levels of jurisdiction. There were no delays in the proceedings attributable to the authorities.

Thus, the proceedings lasted in total four years, nine months and twenty-three days at two levels of jurisdiction. There were no delays in the proceedings attributable to the authorities.

The assessment of this minimum level was, in the nature of things, relative and depended on all the circumstances of the case.

Pursuant to a modification of the applicable methodology and without any change in her health, the level of her disability was changed to 40 per cent in December 2009.

Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 57835/19 24/10/2019 Éva Margit

Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 15611/17 14/02/2017 Magdaléna Popovics 16/03/1960 18/10/2012  

judiciaire d'Evreux du 27 octobre 2021 APPELANTS : Monsieur [V] [D] né le 22 mars 1967 à Gennevilliiers [Adresse 4] [Localité 7] représenté et assisté par Me Marion QUEFFRINEC de la Scp PICARD LEBEL

Guiserix, président, Mme Topsi, conseillère, Mme Lebel, conseillère. Rendu public par mise à disposition au greffe le 17 avril 2025. La rapporteure, Signé I.

Le rapport de Mme Lebel a été entendu au cours de l'audience publique, ainsi que les observations de M. B, présent, le préfet de la Guyane n'étant ni présent, ni représenté.

Délibéré après l'audience du 26 juin 2025, à laquelle siégeaient : Mme Rolin, présidente, Mme Topsi, conseillère, Mme Lebel, conseillère.