The applicant regularly met his daughter according to the contact schedule until summer 2014 when he introduced his daughter to his new girlfriend, following which they became friends.

His claim was disallowed on 25 May 2001. The applicant appealed and his appeal was refused on 27 September 2001. 4.

journey, or by reason of his age or state of health.

would impede his free entry into and departure from Luxembourg.

The applicant appealed against his conviction but not his sentence. On 21 May 1990 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, upholding his conviction.

that his detention had been unlawful.

request, the documentation he requested, render him an opportunity to access and inspect specific documents of the Constitutional Court and afford him enough time to engage a legal representative of his

his duties.

His examination had thus been objectively impossible.

paternity established in respect of his five children and the children returned to his care. 21 .

    The applicant did not give his consent for his wife’s autopsy and she was buried without the exact cause of her death being established. 20.

        The applicant fell behind with his payments.

his knowledge and expertise in this particular field.

Il soutient que : - le jugement contesté est entaché d’une erreur d’a réciation ; - le centre hos italier universitaire de Nîmes a commis une faute en réalisant en urgence une coronarogra hie non indis

preventive measure of remand in custody in his respect, and had rejected his request for release on bail without giving any reasons. 4.

He told the investigators how he had become involved in the murder and discussed with them how his forthcoming revelations and protection as a witness would change his life and that of his family.

During the trial, the applicant retracted his previous self-incriminating statements and claimed innocence, asserting that the police had planted the Subutex in his pocket and that he had never conspired

After his action had been dismissed by the Wels Regional Court the applicant appealed to the Linz Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal and held that no further appeal was granted to the Supreme Court

of his land, and the applicant's complaint that he did not have available any remedy in relation to the actions of the administrative authorities prior to the occupation of his land.

The applicant alleges that the police officer kicked him in his head, which caused bleeding from his mouth.