On 1 March 2017, the investigators rejected the request, stating that the applicant had no procedural status in the criminal case as “he [was] not a suspect and the criminal case [had] not [been] opened

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case 1.

  42371/08, § 82, 18 March 2021). 17.

On 4 March 2005 the investigation of the criminal case against the first applicant (case file no.   40021) was entrusted to investigator G. of the district prosecutor’s office.

(e)     The fifth refusal to open a criminal case On 25 March 2013 the military investigators again refused to open a criminal case into the actions of the FSB officers referring to the same

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and appearing from the case file, may be summarised as follows. 3.

In the case of Lutsenko v.

’s claim that a search of her house had been carried out unlawfully and awarding her compensation for damage caused to her property.

    The competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently extended by two decrees adopted on 16 March 2014 and 9   March 2016 respectively.

les Assurances du Crédit Mutuel, partie intervenante, contre l'arrêt de la cour d'appel de BESANÇON, chambre correctionnelle, en date du 8 décembre 2017, qui, sur renvoi après cassation (Crim., 22 mars

FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par la société Puissance 3, société anonyme, dont le siège est ..., en cassation d'un arrêt rendu le 24 mars

The enforcement of the final judgement in question has never been carried out.

    On 28 March 2013 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of first–instance court. The case was accordingly remitted before the first ‑ instance court. 8.

No such assessment appears to have been carried out. The applicant’s brother died on 5   January 2022.

The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Relying on the Court’s case-law, he also argued that the severity of the possible punishment could not in itself substantiate the risk of reoffending.

  In the case of Bigashev v.

In the case of Harutyun Karapetyan v.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.