of the Court ( Ilbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v.

A mere hope did not constitute a legitimate expectation.

In October 2017 the Court of Cassation delivered a leading judgment in another case, in which it held that the arrest of judges suspected of being members of an armed organisation was to be treated as

    On 3 September 2013 the Poznań District Prosecutor opened proceedings to reconstruct the case file (case no. 2 Ds 3416/13/10).

The case was adjourned and reopened by a supervising prosecutor four times, but the offenders were never identified.

In the present case, it is not established that an action before the Federal Constitutional Court would have had no prospect of success: non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

In 2004 the district court rejected his application, observing that the mere fact that the child wished to live with her father was not sufficient reason to transfer custody.

Moreover, according to the case-law of the domestic courts a decision to award a government contract was considered an administrative act and the relevant legal provisions did not grant any civil right

They were represented before the Court by Ms Claudia-Elvira Mera, a lawyer practising in Deva.

However, the private prosecutors called for the applicant’s conviction under Article   607 to be upheld, arguing that his conduct had gone further than mere denial of genocide.

(b) The applicant’s victim status – The present case differed from cases in which the Court had accepted that an applicant could claim to be a victim of a violation of Article   8 occasioned by the

En aucun cas je n'ai entendu d'insultes injurieuses, vulgaires et agressives envers M [X] et sa compagne [...]

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

  Norway , cited above, § 48, and the cases cited therein). Care order issued in respect of X 19.

Je n'ai pas cédé à la provocation, vous avez alors continué: vus m'avez traité de 'merde', dit 'de retourner dans ma cage'.

The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : VU LES ARTICLES 1742 DU CODE CIVIL, 793, ALINEA 3, ET 831 DU CODE RURAL; ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DE LA COMBINAISON DE CES TEXTES QUE SI, EN CAS DE DECES DU PRENEUR, SON CONJOINT

TRAVERSAIT LA CHAUSSEE, EN TENANT A LA MAIN LE CYCLOMOTEUR DONT ELLE VENAIT DE DESCENDRE, FUT HEURTEE ET MORTELLEMENT BLESSEE PAR LA VOITURE AUTOMOBILE CONDUITE PAR Y..., SON PROPRIETAIRE ; QUE VEUVE X..., MERE

FREQUENTAIENT UN ETABLISSEMENT SCOLAIRE EN BELGIQUE, NE POUVAIENT, SANS DE GRANDES DIFFICULTES ET INCONVENIENTS, ETRE CHANGES D'ETABLISSEMENT EN COURS D'ANNEE SCOLAIRE ET, QU'EN RAISON DE LEUR JEUNE AGE, LEUR MERE