France , 25   juin 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III, p. 846, §   36   ; Dalban c.

  France , arrêt du 31 mars 1992, série A n o 234-C, p. 89, § 26   ; Dalban c. Roumanie [GC], n o 28114/95, § 39, CEDH 1999-VI   ; Malhous c.

France , judgment of 25   June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §   44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Rotaru v.

interest in obtaining a finding that there had been a breach of the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have his case heard within a reasonable time (see, mutatis mutandis, Dalban

France , judgment of 25   June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Rotaru v.

France , judgment of 25 June 1995, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v.   Romania , judgment of 28 September 1999, Reports 1999-VI, §   44). 22.

principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged the violation, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for it (see, Dalban

is not to take the place of the national courts but rather to review under Article 10, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation (see Dalban

  France , 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §   44, ECHR   1999 ‑ VI).

raisons d’ordre pratique, le présent arrêt continuera d’appeler Musto Kurtay « requérant »,   bien qu’il faille   aujourd’hui attribuer cette qualité à ses héritiers (voir, par exemple,   Dalban

France , 25 juin 1996, § 36, Recueil 1996-III, Dalban c.   Roumanie [GC], n o 28114/95, § 44, CEDH 1999-VI, Jensen c.

  Romanuel Nicolae Posedaru le «   requérant   » ( Dalban c.   Roumanie [GC], n o 28114/95, § 1, CEDH 1999-VI). A.     Les circonstances de l’espèce 4.

la sauvegarde de la réputation , le présent arrêt contribue à affaiblir la philosophie même de la liberté d'expression et se situe en porte-à-faux par rapport à une jurisprudence solide de la Cour ( Dalban

Ahmet Dizman (voir Dalban c. Roumanie [GC], n o 28114/95, § 1, CEDH 1999 ‑ VI). 2.

Hareta-Paraschiva Vidu, Matilda Zoescu et Adriana Popescu les «   requérantes   » bien qu’il faille aujourd’hui attribuer cette qualité aux successeurs de la première requérante (cf. arrêt Dalban

sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Dalban

France , judgment of 25   June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95,   §   44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Rotaru v.

France , judgment of 25 June 1995, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; and Dalban v.   Romania , judgment of 28 September 1999, Reports 1999-VI, § 44). 22.

  France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).