courts, to recognise the binding force of the Court’s judgments and implement measures necessary to give it full effect.

The Court of Appeal based its decisions on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice.

CIV. 2 LM COUR DE CASSATION ______________________ Audience publique du 11 juillet 2024 Cassation partielle Mme MARTINEL, président Arrêt n° 674 F-B Pourvoi n° D

The audit of the bailiff’s office carried out by an auditor of the Court of Appeal proved irregularities in the functioning of the court and of the bailiff in the course of auction sales concerning wound

    On 21 December 2006 the applicant was charged with further counts of car theft. 19.     On 15 January 2007 the Pest County Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention.

in relation to 9 counts and acquitted on 31 counts). 9 .

    Did the domestic courts’ refusal [3] to reduce the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment amount to a breach of Article 7 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v.

    The Court further notes that during the subsequent course of the proceedings the first applicant turned three times to the Constitutional Court complaining anew of the protracted length of

    On various dates the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be removed from Russia to their respective countries

In any event, could the Constitutional Court’s decision to declare the applicant’s individual application inadmissible be considered in conformity with the right of access to a court, given the applicant

He also drew the court’s attention to the practice of other municipal and district courts, which was completely different, and claimed that the first-instance court had breached the principle of an adversarial

Court’s judgment of 29 March 2016 (STS no. 241/2016); concerning the sixth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 6 .

CIV. 2 CGA COUR DE CASSATION ______________________ Audience publique du 19 octobre 2017 Rejet non spécialement motivé M.

    Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 February 2005.

had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the Court has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case. ...”

The County Court refused. On 5 March 2013 the Tartu Court of Appeal, on the applicant’s appeal, quashed the lower court’s decision for procedural reasons.

    On 3   September 2008 the Kurgan Regional Court found the applicant guilty on four counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Petersburg City Court upheld it on appeal having fully accepted the District Court’s reasoning. 9.

On 8 May 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of multiple counts of robbery. On 9 May 2004 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised his detention pending investigation and trial.