Rezard, rapporteur, - les conclusions de Mme Privet, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Bernabé, représentant M. B.

Rezard, rapporteur, - les conclusions de Mme Privet, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Bernabé, représentant M. A.

Rezard, rapporteur, - et les conclusions de Mme Pestka, rapporteure publique. Une note en délibéré, présentée pour Mme B, a été enregistrée le 29 septembre 2023. Considérant ce qui suit : 1.

Rezard, rapporteur, - les conclusions de Mme Pestka, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Boukheloua, représentant M. C. Considérant ce qui suit : 1.

Rezard, rapporteur, - et les conclusions de M. Beaujard, rapporteur public. Considérant ce qui suit : 1. M.

At the demonstration, the first applicant read out names of Iraqi citizens killed in the Iraqi conflict and the second applicant read out names of British soldiers killed in that conflict.

    Moreover, the grounds of the judgment of the Regional Court had not been read out in public at the time of delivery.

The relevant provisions of the Denationalisation Act read as follows: I.

The relevant parts of that judgment read as follows. “[T]he court concludes that the tragic event occurred from 9 to 10 August 1992 in a Croatian army military barracks in Nova Gradiška ...

Section 2 of the 2004 Act reads, in so far as relevant: “1.

Rule 63 is entitled "Prisoners' letters" and it reads as follows:         "Every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the       Governor,

    Law of Ukraine on Fixing the Minimum Living Standard for 2000 (5   October 2000) The relevant extracts of the Law read as follows: “Article 1.

The persons entitled to the war participant status were listed in Article 9 of the Law, which read in so far as relevant: Article 9.

That provision reads: “1.

She relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ..

The applicant’s name read “Fetullah” in the former version of the judgment. 2.     Rectified on 14 September 2011.

The complete statement, as replicated by the District Court in its judgment, reads as follows: “On that occasion, as on others, Mr P. was also present in the chambers of Mr T.

The applicant read the statement in question. 9.

They argued that under the Artificial Procreation Act, read in conjunction with the legal provisions on custody rights, there was a difference in treatment of same-sex couples and different-sex couples

Therefore the Regional Court read out parts of the written records of C.’s statements made during the trial against the police officers before the Istanbul State Security Court.