Consequently, he could not have done so before he had actually lodged his appeal.

his defence rights (judgment no.

by the Prosecution, thus denying the applicant the right to cross examine F.S. on his plea.

    The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings concerning his above actions was excessive and that the dismissal of his action of 25 January 2004 had been arbitrary.

le premier président afin de statuer dans les termes de l'article L 743-21 et suivants du code de l'entrée et de séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile, assistée de Rosanna VALETTE, Greffier, avons rendu

JUILLET 2025 (n° /2025, 3 pages) Numéro d'inscription au répertoire général : N° RG 24/00808 - N° Portalis 35L7-V-B7I-CKQOO Sur saisine d'office en rectification d'erreur matérielle d'un arrêt rendu

his surrender has been based.

    The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private and family life and home was violated on account of his children’s placement in public

proceedings leading to his conviction of an offence. 4.

After his death, 14/32 of his share to "Polidendri" devolved to his widow, and 14/96 to each of his three children, Sophia, Constantinos (the first applicant) and Irene (the eighth applicant).

    In his letter of 1 May 2004 the applicant described his conditions of detention in the remand centre since 24 November 2003 as follows. On his arrival the applicant was put in cell no.

According to a doctor’s report, R.J. sustained an injury to his forehead and had blood on his face. His leg was broken and he had bruises on his arms. 12.

upper body and had pointed his handgun at the officers.

On 9 March 2005 he was found dead in his apartment by his mother (the second applicant).

He had been dishonest in his dealings with money and in representation of circumstances, particularly where his financial interests and reputation were involved.

    The Court would note at the outset that it does not consider it necessary to decide whether the lack of participation of the applicant and his counsel, taken separately, would render the

In his application the applicant argued that the decision to detain him, as well as his ongoing detention, were contrary to the law.

    The Government claimed that the reason why the applicant had been dismissed had been not his participation in the strike, but his failure to perform his work duties.

    The applicant and his lawyers then submitted, inter alia , that the fear of his absconding was unjustified.

  Everyone has the right to effective protection by the judges and courts in the exercise of his rights and his legitimate interests and in no circumstances may there be any denial of defence rights