In terms of reasoning, the Constitutional Court referred to its previous ruling in an unrelated case, case no. II.

The Court had furthermore distinguished in other cases between a mere hope of restitution of property and a “legitimate expectation”, which had to be more concrete and be based on a legal provision or

The case was eventually assigned to a formation of three judges, including Judge Sh.T, and declared admissible.

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

62 March 2004 Merger and Cros v.

font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     637   20.9.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE

of mere intoxication if an alternative measure could be used.

margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law

margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law

However the Court had no reason to depart from its previous case-law that the mere carrying out of a pre-investigation inquiry, not followed by a preliminary investigation, was insufficient for the authorities

font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 21 September 2020 Published on 12 October 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 32667/19 Mercè

CASSATION SUR LES POURVOIS DE X..., DIT Y..., CONTRE : 1° UN ARRET DE LA CHAMBRE D'ACCUSATION DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS EN DATE DU 2 JUILLET 1963 QUI A DECLARE INAPPLICABLE EN L'ESPECE LES DISPOSITIONS

Georgia and Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   April 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer

Vous avez aussi le ton en criant : « tu me fais tout de suite ce chèque ou sinon, je te casse les dents ». M.

Law : The Government had argued that the case had been resolved and should therefore be struck out of the Court’s list under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

The facts of the case touched on ethically sensitive issues – adoption, the taking of a child into care, medically assisted reproduction and surrogate motherhood – in which member States enjoyed a wide

In the case of Cela and Others v.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents, may be summarised as follows.

  [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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 to the 17 ‑