On 16 July 2013 the court held the tenth hearing in the case, during which it ordered the applicant’s release from detention on remand. 10.

The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

It formed part of the measures taken following the application of the pilot-judgment procedure in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan* .

The court upheld the decision finding that the measures taken against the applicant were justified by his status as a “so-called detainee of media interest.”

By registered letters sent on various dates (see the attached table) the applicants were warned that their cases might be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

The case concerns the death of the applicant’s daughter, T.

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice, à PARIS, le vingt-trois mars mil neuf cent quatre vingt quatorze, a rendu l'arrêt

of the District Court on Monday 17 March 2003 to consult the case file.

In the case of Gaspari v.

Claude Derveda, demeurant 7, Calade Saint-Came à La Cadière-d'Azur (Var), 32 / M.

2002 (Friendly settlement) in the case of A.S. against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 November 2006 at the 976th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)   The Committee of

No. 3 February 1999 Maric v.

  45920/99, Maric, no.   45922/99, Andrijic, no.   45923/99, and Pranjko, no.

  45920/99, Maric, no.   45922/99, Andrijic, no.   45923/99, and Juric, no.

(See also Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 13590/88 , 25   March 1992; Michaud v.

28 March 2001 D.N. v.

concerning detention conditions ( CM/Del/Dec(2018)1310/H46-13 , 15 March 2018) Conclusion : inadmissible (loss of victim status).

No. 139 March 2011 Potomska and Potomski v.