He gave as his reasons for leaving Chile the fact that he could not keep his house in Villa Alemana where he lived with his family and his poor financial situation resulting from lengthy periods of unemployment

the full benefit of his solicitor’s advice.

On 7   December 2001 his employer terminated his work contract on disciplinary grounds.

It had not been alleged by the applicant that he had subsequently been forced to change his conduct, or that his conviction had had a chilling effect on the exercise of his freedom of expression or any

Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, président de la République italienne, s’est rendu hier à la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme.

  The case concerns the applicant's complaints concerning the drawing of inferences at his trial from his refusal to give evidence in his defence.

Furthermore, it did not appear that there were special circumstances in the applicant’s case such as would render his expulsion to Algeria possible.

It may,      nevertheless, be assumed that he is somewhat cautious in      his attitude towards his father.

Nor did he provide any explanation at all prior to his trial as to how the fibres might have come to be in his hair and on his clothes.

When testifying, A.S. indicated his permanent address in France and his current address in Poland.

lesion under his left kneecap, a swelling on his left ankle and some old blade cuts.

a violation of his, his wife’s and his daughter’s right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention. 4.

During his years as a minister he received remuneration from the Permanent Commission of the Evangelical Church.

[C] [G] [Adresse 5] [Localité 11] représenté par Me Laurent HIETTER, avocat au barreau de LILLE M.

He spent the major part of his day in bed being assisted by his cellmates.

a criminal offence and a risk of his absconding.

  It found, inter alia, that already in his original appeal the applicant had referred to his contacts with friends in Pakistan and to correspondence with his wife, for which reason it would have

The circumstances above were the subject of the applicant’s first application with the Court, where he complained of the non-enforcement of final court judgments in his favour.

the decision-making process, it had not been shown that the authorities and the courts failed to take all necessary steps to render his involvement in the decision-making process as effective as possible

With regard to the applicant’s individual situation, the Asylum Court remarked that he had already demonstrated that he was able to provide for his most important needs during his first stay in Greece.