On 14   July 2000 he was informed that his claim had not been considered by a decision maker and that there was, therefore, no right of appeal. 2.

    At the same time, on 5 March 2013, the applicant lodged an application with the Court alleging, in particular, that the ne bis in idem principle had been violated in his case.

LA COUR DE CASSATION, PREMIÈRE CHAMBRE CIVILE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le moyen unique, ci-après annexé ; Attendu, selon l'arrêt attaqué (Montpellier, 6 avril 2010), que M.

Court’s task was to decide whether fining of applicant for refusing to take the oath had amounted to coercion such as to render his right not to incriminate himself ineffective.

___________________________________ AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANÇAIS _________________________ LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, a rendu

the opportunity to form his own opinion of him and relationship to him.

The applicant reaffirmed his allegations that on the critical date there had been no law classifying his act as an offence. 2.

with a certain M.H. and that he had shot the applicant in his flat in Batman. 20.

He also revoked the permission which the applicant had been given to consult his lawyers, communicate with other persons and receive visits in prison, in particular from his sister who had travelled from

mother and, afterwards, his grandmother (in their capacity of the applicant’s representatives) assisted by a lawyer before the courts.

    The applicant further complains that he was deprived of his right to peaceful possession of his property because the property that he acquired had been destroyed.

Il devait rendre un rapport d'activités chaque semaine, puis chaque jour, et communiquer les horaires de travail qu'il effectuait.

F C, représenté par Me Hiesse, demande au tribunal : 1°) de l'admettre au bénéfice de l'aide juridictionnelle provisoire ; 2°) d'annuler l'arrêté du 28 mars 2025 par lequel la préfète du Rhône a décidé

On this occasion he lost his senses for a short while and it was necessary to isolate him for some time in his room.” 17.

his own cell in the prison accommodation block.

examining his case.

He stated that he had left Afghanistan because the Taliban had come to his village and had asked his father to cooperate with them, which he had refused to do.

On 25 October 2006 he was examined by a doctor, who noted that he had a hematoma around his right eye and on his nose (5x3 and 2.5x3 cm), and one on the back of his head measuring 0.3x0.2 cm.

In early October 1997 the Circuit Court rejected this part of his appeal.

    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.