d'asile ORDONNANCE DU 25 AVRIL 2024 (1 pages) Numéro d'inscription au répertoire général et de décision : B N° RG 24/01883 - N° Portalis 35L7-V-B7I-CJJGU Décision déférée : ordonnance rendue

A l'issue des débats, le Président a indiqué que la décision serait rendue le 11 DECEMBRE 2019 à 14 heures par mise à la disposition des parties au Greffe, les parties en ayant été préalablement avisées

LA COUR DE CASSATION, PREMIERE CHAMBRE CIVILE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par Monsieur Robert X..., demeurant à Troyes (Aube), 65, bis rue de la Paix, en cassation d'un arrêt rendu

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par Mlle Camille A..., demeurant ..., en cassation d'un jugement rendu le 11 mai

TRIBUNAL JUDICIAIRE DE NANTERRE RÉFÉRÉS ORDONNANCE DE RÉFÉRÉ RENDUE LE 06 OCTOBRE 2025 N° RG 25/01822 - N° Portalis DB3R-W-B7J-2QKY N° de minute : S.A.S.

However, these applications and his appeals against the decisions to prolong his detention on remand were to no avail. 26.

The administrator submitted a report on the debtor company’s property and his activity.

His complaint was lodged with the Court on 16 May 2005. His detention until 19 August 2004 was based on the detention orders issued prior to that date.

private life and his correspondence”. 6.3.2.

His interests thus fell within the scope of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, which was sufficient to render Article   14 applicable.

He was arrested and taken to the vice squad police office where his particulars were recorded and his fingerprints taken.

freedom of expression and (under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) on the alleged violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

not serve his interests to stay in his adoptive family. 10.

As to the second invitation, the applicant informed the Commission that he had no intention of expressing his views on the subject. On 17 December 1998 BAS rejected his request for registration.

    The applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal his conviction and sentence, alleging that his trial was unfair on account of significant jury irregularities.

Upon his refusal to do this, the city refused its consent to his request for a building permit.

Following his arrest his solicitor again sought an assurance from the PSNI that his consultations with him would not be subjected to covert surveillance.

The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and applications for release were unsuccessful.

He lived in the town of Roman until his death on 13 March 1998. 13.

Judge O. stated that his involvement in different proceedings concerning the applicant was not a relevant reason for his exclusion.