On 11 July 2014 the applicant NGO lodged a defamation claim against a local media company and its journalist because of an article published in the newspaper run by the company.

That order became binding. On 1 September 2015 the applicant’s grandson complained to the prosecutor again, because the court order was yet to be complied with.

[I] ont été propriétaires d’une maison d’habitation située 22 rue Charles Péguy à ORGERES EN BEAUCE.

Cosmétiques, représentée par sa gérante, Mme Y..., pour l'exploitation d'un institut de beauté sous l'enseigne Yves Rocher ; que Mme Y... s'est rendue caution solidaire des sommes dues en exécution de

X..., auteur du texte de la chanson, du chef d'injure raciale à l'égard des Français dits de souche au titre des passages "nazillons", "bidochons décomplexés", "gros beaufs qui ont la haine de l'étranger

The court found that the applicant was absconding because he failed to appear when summoned before the court.

Etablissement d'hébergement pour personnes âgées dépendantes d'Aubignan et de Beaumes de Venise (EHPAD 84) — Caractère communicable, de la délibération du conseil d'administration statuant sur le licenciement

In particular, the acts for which the applicants were convicted did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when they were committed because they did not meet the required elements of the offence

This judgment became binding on 7   June 2004.

to an oral hearing had been violated because the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal on points of law without oral hearing.

had to be appointed by the court, and also because Mr G.'

aggravante des atteintes sexuelles, distincte des éléments constitutifs de l'infraction ; qu'ainsi, en déduisant l'absence de consentement de la victime, de son âge et du fait que le prévenu était son beau-père

Some of the applicants had previously received an order to leave Italian territory because they did not have valid residence permits; the other applicants received a deportation order on 3 March 2000 itself

The authorities refused the visa because the applicant’s income was insufficient to sponsor the children for residency and because the applicant did not qualify for an exemption.

The Regional Court held that the applicant had created a dangerous situation, because the demonstration had taken place during lunch time and the steps had to be cordoned off because they had become slippery

Whereas the Amsterdam Regional Court acquitted the applicant of complicity in manslaughter because there was no conclusive technical evidence available and it therefore mainly came down to witness X’s

the prison courtyard; that he did not benefit from conjugal visits; that the prison did not test for sexually transmitted diseases; and that he could not work because of his sexual orientation.

s placement under guardianship, the Federal Constitutional Court found that the Bayreuth Regional Court’s decision in the appeal proceedings had violated the applicant’s personality rights, notably because

He also alleges that because of the poor conditions of detention, he has contracted tuberculosis and C-hepatitis and has developed type II diabetes during his detention.