2025 Nature de l'affaire : Action en responsabilité exercée contre l'administrateur, le mandataire judiciaire , le liquidateur, le commissaire à l'exécution du plan Décision attaquée : n° 2024L00067 rendue

    Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his

Therefore, his claims concerning the recognition of his title and repossession of the property were also unfounded.

his physical appearance.

promptly of the reasons for his arrest and that there had been no sufficient grounds for his pre-trial detention. 48.

his apartment front door by security forces.

constitutionally protected, and his civil right, to his good name.

for the preparation of his defence under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b).

of his back above the hip; he complained that his ribs hurt, and that he could barely move and breathe. 5.

The letter noted the applicant’s wish to proceed with his application and requested details as to how the change in circumstances, i.e. the repossession of the applicant’s house, did not render his application

    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.

In his statement of claim he gave a detailed account of the conditions of his detention from 19 April to 26 September 2000. 24 .

    On 14 June 2006 the police attended the home of Mr A.C. after having been alerted by his bank to suspicious activity in his bank accounts and discovered his dead body.

his lawyer. 4.

    On 13 February 2006 at 3.30 p.m. the applicant was interviewed by the police in the presence of his lawyer; he exercised his right to remain silent.

We have had the advantage of studying those grounds together with an answer to those grounds by leading counsel and the comments of his junior and his instructing counsel.

In fixing his sentence, the Court considered that his main motive for cooperation with the Ministry had been to prove his loyalty to the German Democratic Republic.

defence without entailing a substantial reduction in his and his family’s standard of living.

  At the end of October 1983 he offered V 7,000 DM for the murder of his divorced wife.   V pro forma declared his consent.

His objection was supported by the other defendants. 16.