A B, représenté par Me Nombret, demande au tribunal : 1°) de l'admettre au bénéfice de l'aide juridictionnelle provisoire ; 2°) d'annuler l'arrêté du 30 septembre 2022 par lequel le préfet de la

B, représenté par Me Nombret, demande au tribunal : 1°) de l'admettre provisoirement au bénéfice de l'aide juridictionnelle ; 2°) d'annuler l'arrêté du 3 août 2022 par lequel le préfet de police l'a

Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski   v.   Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§   45 ‑ 88   respectively).

    From the reasoning of the domestic courts’ judgments it is clear that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells during his stay in the Łowicz Prison from 18 July 2013 to 16 April

AXA FRANCE 49 Boulevard des Arceaux 34000 MONTPELLIER représentée par la SCP FONTAINE-MACALUSO JULLIEN, avoués à la Cour assistée de la SCP GOUJON - MAURY, avocats au barreau de NIMES Monsieur Norbert

regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ludwig-Norbert

    As regards the definition of the subject matter of the application, the Court reiterates that its case-law is clear that a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it, and not merely

Moreover, the Court reiterates that in its pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski (see Orchowski , cited above, § 96 and Norbert   Sikorski , cited above, §§ 100-101) it has

  17885/04) and Norbert   Sikorski   v.   Poland (no. 17599/05) adopted on 22 October 2009 (see   §§ 75-85 and §§   45 ‑ 88   respectively).

  17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland (no.   17599/05) on 22   October 2009 (see §§   75 ‑ 85 and §§   45 ‑ 88 respectively).

  Poland (no. 17885/04), and Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland (no.

Eugen Gassner in 1947, Mr Herbert Victor Beck in 1953, Mr Karl Roman Beck in 1951, Mr Werner Benjamin Hilbe in 1953, Mr   Franz Josef Schädler in 1946, Mr Oswald Schädler in 1946 and Mr   Norbert

  Poland, no. 17885/04 ; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no.   17599/05; and Łatak v.   Poland (dec.), no.   52070/08).

  17885/04; Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland , no.   17599/05 and Łatak v.   Poland (dec.), no.   52070/08).

considered for release on parole is a significantly longer period than the maximum recommended time frame for the review of a life sentence, which is twenty-five years, as established on the basis of clear

The judgment had been perfectly clear that the applicant’s part was to be calculated directly in application of the law.

The remedy’s basis in domestic law must therefore be clear ( compare Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland , no.   17599/05, § 117, 22 October 2009; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no.

Poland (no. 17885/04, §§ 75-85, 22 October 2009), and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05 §§ 45-88, 22 October 2009). Subsequent developments are described in Łatak v.

  17885/04, §§   75-85, 22   October 2009) and Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland (no.   17599/05, §§   45 ‑ 88, 22   October 2009).

Norbert Q...,M. Emmanuel R..., M. Frederic S... (QSR) ; - M. Daniel T... (directeur général de KPOS France); - M. Paul U... (directeur adjoint de KPOS Roumanie) et M. OO..., M.