Limited access to certain posts, especially decision making posts like those of prefect, deputy prefect, or department chief

That case involves Prefect Karera.

The second new trial involves Prefect Zigiranyirazo it started on 3 October 2005.

The operator takes stock of the hazardous substances present in the establishment and keeps the prefect informed thereof.

2.6 Meanwhile, on 23 May 2001, the Prefect of Indre issued an order for the deportation of the complainant.

At the same time, the police notified her of the decision taken by the Prefect of Val de Marne to specify Spain as the country of destination.

There was one woman mayor and a woman was designated sub prefect at Keita, but she was unable to take up her duties owing to her rejection by the traditional chieftaincy.

Before determining Algeria as the country to which he should be deported, the Prefect of Indre had conducted a further review of the risks he would run if returned to that country.

that, as a result, his request for the annulment of the decision to return him to his State of origin taken by the Prefect of Indre on 23 May 2001 is well founded.

that these elements, which were not known to the Prefect of Indre, have not been contradicted by the Minister of the Interior, Internal Security and Local Liberties, who, despite the request addressed to him by the court, did not produce submissions in defence before the closure of proceedings

This appeal contained additional arguments against his deportation that had not been available to the Prefect of Indre when the decision of expulsion was taken and of which the State party's authorities were, or should have, been aware still required judicial resolution at the time he was in fact expelled.

2.6 At 6 a.m. on 28 October 1999, the day of the complainant's release, the French police served her with the expulsion order issued on 31 August 1999 by the Minister of the Interior, as well as a second decision taken on 27 October 1999 by the Prefect of Val de Marne, specifying Spain as the country of destination.

On 14 January 2004, counsel submitted a copy of the decision by the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal of 18 November 2003 overturning the judgement of the Limoges Administrative Court of 8 November 2001 and the decision of 23 May 2001 in which the Prefect of Indre ordered the complainant to be returned to his country of origin.

11.2 Ruling on 18 November 2003 on the complainant's appeal against the ruling by the Limoges Administrative Court of 8 November 2001, the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal found that, given the seriousness of his crimes, the Prefect of Indre could legitimately have considered that the complainant's presence on French territory constituted a serious threat to public order, and that his deportation was not, in the circumstances, a disproportionate imposition on his private and family life.

11.3 The Court went on to overturn the judgement of the Limoges Administrative Court and the decision by the Prefect of Indre to remove the individual in question to his country of origin on the strength of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 27 bis of the order of 2 November 1945 prohibiting the deportation of an alien to a country where it is established that he would be exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.