On appeal, this fine was quashed, because the plant did take steps to comply with the judgment, and because the applicant had rejected ats proposed by the plant.

    On 6 June 1991 the examination of the appeal was further adjourned because the applicant’s lawyer was on strike.

au centre de rétention de : X se disant [P] [S] né le 23 Août 1992 à [Localité 3] (MAROC) de nationalité Marocaine Vu l'appel formé le 31 juillet 2025 à 10 h 08 par courriel, par Me Aurore BECHARD

de : X se disant [K] [P] né le 20 Janvier 1992 à [Localité 3] OU [Localité 1] (SENEGAL) de nationalité Sénégalaise Vu l'appel formé le 31 juillet 2025 à 10 h 08 par courriel, par Me Aurore BECHARD

ordonnant le maintien au centre de rétention de : [V] [J] né le 10 Juin 1993 à [Localité 2] - ALGERIE de nationalité Algérienne Vu l'appel formé le 03/09/2023 à 21 h 02 par courriel, par Me Aurore BECHARD

Localité 1] (TUNISIE) de nationalité Tunisienne Vu la notification de ladite ordonnance au retenu le 07 avril 2026 à 19h00 Vu l'appel formé le 08 avril 2026 à 11 h 50 par courriel, par Me Aurore BECHARD

centre de rétention de : X se disant [Y] [K] né le 01 Janvier 1979 à [Localité 1] (MAROC) de nationalité Marocaine Vu l'appel formé le 15 juillet 2024 à 11 h 46 par courriel, par Me Aurore BECHARD

Notre Y... des Champs 38160 ST VERAND Défaillant COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DU DÉLIBÉRÉ : Monsieur Allain URAN, Président de chambre, Madame Christiane BEROUJON, Conseiller, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

Notre Y... des Champs 38160 ST VERAND Défaillant COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : LORS DU DÉLIBÉRÉ : Monsieur Allain URAN, Président de chambre, Madame Christiane BEROUJON, Conseiller, Monsieur Jean-Louis BERNAUD

MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the Supreme Court to declare inadmissible the applicant’s civil action for compensation for injuries sustained in a work-related accident, because

On 2 June 2004 the case was adjourned until 8 June 2004 because the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings. On 1 February 2005 the case was adjourned again because the judge was on sick leave. 17.

He wished to recover the bank's debt from the ARKO, because the ARKO had unlawfully frozen the recovery of debts from the bank.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair because the courts had ruled against him.

On 3 January 2001 the judgment became binding, but was not immediately enforced because at that time the Foundation lacked funds.

The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that his right of access to court was breached because he could not have his challenge against the Romanian Parliament’s decision of 16 October 2012

His request was dismissed because at the time of filing his request, he was 61   years old and had 41 years of work experience and had fulfilled the requirements for the so-called old age pension

Composition de la Cour lors du délibéré : - Jean-Louis BERNAUD, président - Françoise CLEMENT, conseiller - Vincent NICOLAS, conseiller Signé par Jean-Louis BERNAUD, président, et par Leïla KASMI

    The applicant further complains that she was deprived of her right to peaceful possession of her property because her house was destroyed and because she is not able to obtain compensation