Referring to the Court’s case-law, in particular to the case of Mikulić v.

Objective approach: mere fact that trial judge also dealt with case at pre-trial stage does not in itself justify fears as to his impartiality.

Travel restrictions on convicted criminals could be justified only in cases where clear indications of a genuine public interest outweighed the individual’s right to freedom of movement.

  A mere possibility of ill-treatment is not sufficient.

Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred

  In the case of Asiye Genç v.

    The case concerns allegations of medical negligence and the remedies available to the applicants in this respect. 2.

may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court.

the same events as those which form the subject of the present case. ***** See the cases of Abdullah Yaşa and Others (op. cit.) and İzci v.

Monsieur Patrick X... représenté par la SCP BOYER LESCAT MERLE, avoués à la Cour assisté de Me Eric FORZY, avocat au barreau de BORDEAUX Madame Y... épouse X... représentée par la SCP BOYER LESCAT MERLE

représenté par la SCP BOYER LESCAT MERLE C / SAS SOCIETE LOCADOUR GLR représentée par la SCP B.

proceedings in support of the prosecution case, for example to contradict or cast doubt upon other statements of the accused.

In several cases in which a biological father claimed a right under Article   8 of the Convention of access to his child, the Supreme Court held that mere biological fatherhood in itself is insufficient

Firstly, the mere fact that the child would have developed stronger emotional ties with his intended parents had he remained with them for longer did not suffice to justify his removal.

In the case of Juppala v.

font-style:italic } Published on 11 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61891/19 Marko TEŠIĆ against Serbia lodged on 21 November 2019 communicated on 20 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

. ; ATTENDU QUE LE POURVOI EN CASSATION N'ETANT PAS SUSPENSIF, LE PAYEMENT DU MONTANT DE LA CONDAMNATION NE SUFFIT PAS A PROUVER L'ACQUIESCEMENT, S'IL NE RESULTE PAS DES CIRCONSTANCES DANS LESQUELLES

QUALIFICATION ET LA CULPABILITE OU L'INNOCENCE DE CEUX AUXQUELS LE FAIT EST IMPUTE ; ET ATTENDU, D'AUTRE PART, QU'IL RESULTE DES DISPOSITIONS DE L'ARTICLE 1384, ALINEA 4 ET 7, QUE SI LE PERE ET LA MERE