text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
44. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, they argued that the applicant had failed to challenge the prosecutor’s decision of 11 June 2008 before the higher‑ranking prosecutor, as required by... | 5 |
58. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63‑64). In parti... | 5 |
39. The Government maintained that the findings of the reports drawn up following the applicant’s medical examinations, which noted only minor injuries, had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to any physical violence by police officers while in police custody. They argued tha... | 5 |
31. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been ill-treated by police officers at the Tskaltubo Police Department with the aim of extracting a confession from him. He further alleged that the relevant national authorities had failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigatio... | 5 |
32. The Government submitted that the physical force and special means, such as handcuffs, which had been used on the applicant during his arrest fell outside the scope of Article 3 for two reasons. Firstly, the injuries did not result in a deterioration of his health or cause any lasting consequences. Secondly, the p... | 5 |
41. The applicant contended that he had been ill-treated by the police and had endured psychological trauma as a result of that ill-treatment. He therefore considered that the Government’s arguments that the injuries he had sustained did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask... | 5 |
48. The Government further considered that neither the short duration of the applicant’s confinement, nor the concrete circumstances, nor the aims pursued brought the applicant’s detention within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The purpose of placing the applicant in the security cell had not been to pu... | 5 |
76. The Government considered that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant on various occasions had not constituted victimisation and did not amount to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been able to challenge such sanctions before the Prison Department of the Mi... | 5 |
35. The Government submitted that R.D. had not intended to kill the applicant. That had been established in the course of the criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 7 above). However, they conceded that, in view of the seriousness of the injuries sustained, the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment ca... | 5 |
69. The applicant complained that, since the wearing in public of clothing designed to conceal the face was prohibited by law on pain of a criminal sanction, if she wore the full-face veil in a public place she would expose herself to a risk not only of sanctions but also of harassment and discrimination, which would ... | 5 |
33. The Government endorsed the domestic authorities' findings that in the light of the specific circumstances of the case the impugned measures were proportionate. They stressed that ex ante there was reason to assume that the applicant was a very dangerous person who was furthermore experienced in hand-to-hand comba... | 5 |
148. The applicant complained that the unlawful taking and demolition of her flat had amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. She further complained that her forced eviction from her flat against her will had been in breach of her right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4... | 5 |
62. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by three detainee escort officers on the premises of Riga Regional Court on 8 May 2006. Referring to Article 1 and Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention he also complained about the investigation into these events. He stated... | 5 |
70. The Government contended that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and had been thorough and effective. They submitted that the allegations raised by the applicant’s mother in her initial complaint could not be considered credible... | 5 |
53. The applicant challenged the veracity of the data submitted by the Government in respect of the remand prison population. In particular, he pointed out that the figures concerning the remand prison population contained visible corrections. In any event, he asserted that, if the Government’s allegations were accept... | 5 |
46. The Government, referring to their description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention submitted before the Court (see paragraphs 20-23 above), contended that the domestic authorities had taken all necessary measures to ensure adequate conditions of detention for the applicant and that his complaint was gro... | 5 |
125. The applicants complained that, at the moment of their abduction and after it, Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev were subjected to ill‑treatment. The second applicant also complained that she had been beaten by the men who had abducted her brother. The applicants further claimed that, as a result of the disap... | 5 |
35. The applicant maintained his submissions made in the domestic proceedings. He stated that his conversion to Christianity was genuine and lasting. Referring to a number of reports on the situation of Christian converts, he argued that his conversion in and of itself put him at a real risk of being killed or ill-tre... | 5 |
138. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had duly processed all the applicants' requests and they had enjoyed the ri... | 5 |
33. The applicant complained that on 15 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and positi... | 5 |
29. The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on him had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He submitted, in particular, that he had never had a disciplinary punishment in ... | 5 |
52. The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations concerning the risk of treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention had been thoroughly studied by the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s extradition and those concerning his request for refugee status. The domestic co... | 5 |
78. The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to physical ill‑treatment by State Police officers while being arrested on 26 March 2004. The applicant submitted that his descriptions of the event given at different points in time had been complementary. He further relied on the results of examination at Riga ... | 5 |
23. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and detention. He also complained that the conditions of his detention between his arrest and October 2006 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and about the authorities' failure to p... | 5 |
53. The Government maintained that the criminal proceeding had not been completed yet and it was therefore too early to make any conclusions as to the credibility of the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. They further submitted that domestic authorities complied with procedural obligations under Article <mask> ... | 5 |
39. The applicant submitted that the police officers should have been punished in accordance with the Criminal Code and not merely reprimanded, and that there has been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in particular after he had been left suffering without medical assistance for twelve hours. According to h... | 5 |
48. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that following his arrest on 6 December 2003 he had been subjected to psychological pressure and beatings by the police with a view to extracting his confession to the robbery and murder of Ms D. He also complained about the conditions of his detentio... | 5 |
26. The applicant complained that the application of Article 586 of the CC in his case breached Article <mask> of the Convention in that it gave rise to an excessive and disproportionate punishment. Indeed, Article 586 did not apply a ceiling on the length of the imprisonment to which a sum could be converted. In the ... | 5 |
55. The Government failed to submit any document showing that the administrative authorities had conducted an assessment of the applicant’s asylum claim in the light of the principles embodied in Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor did they demonstrate that the applicant had been notified of the content of the decis... | 5 |
46. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was premature, as the applicant had not sought monetary compensation for the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison. Referring to a number of court decisions in unrelated but relevant civil cases, where similar claims ... | 5 |
39. The applicant contested these arguments. He affirmed that he had been detained in Korydallos Prison until 20 June 2013 and on that date he had been transferred to Larissa Prison, where he has remained until this day. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the conditions of detentio... | 5 |
37. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that such ill-treatment had not been investigated properly. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, decided to examine these complaints... | 5 |
74. The applicants argued that, after they were hindered from continuing their travels to Baku, they were under the direct control of the Russian authorities and therefore in a comparable situation to persons in detention. The applicants further submitted that by not providing adequate care and protection to the appli... | 5 |
27. The Government further addressed the applicant's argument of ineffective investigation into the events on 22 September 2001. They asserted that the Russian investigating authorities had done everything possible to effectively respond to the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment. They instituted criminal proceedi... | 5 |
92. The applicant contended that there had been no effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 29 and 30 October 2008. In particular, he had been totally excluded from the investigative process and in fact there was no evidence that any effective measures had been taken to investigate his c... | 5 |
35. The applicant complained that being exposed to public view, being taken to the court hearings in handcuffs and chained to another inmate, the poor material conditions of detention, his exposure to hazardous substances on 31 May 2010 in the cells of the Bucharest Police Department, the inappropriate material condit... | 5 |
68. The Government stressed that the applicant lodged his complaint with the domestic authorities about the alleged ill-treatment with a substantial delay. They also contended that the investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment had been effective and had been held in compliance with Article <mask> ... | 5 |
52. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand prison had been compatible with the standards set forth in domestic legislation and the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on excerpts (22 in total) from the remand prison population register which re... | 5 |
105. The applicants submitted that the manner in which the police operation at their home had been carried out was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. On 31 March 2010, before dawn, a group of masked and heavily armed police officers had forced their way into their house without prior authorisation. Th... | 5 |
38. The Government also contended that the injuries found on the applicant’s body were not so serious as to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court is not convinced of this, especially taking into consideration the applicant’s vulnerable state due to his very young age (fifteen at the time of ... | 5 |
67. The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put forward by the Court in its decision of 3 October 2013. The Court notes in this respect that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State co... | 5 |
33. The Government argued that the applicant’s conditions of detention could not be considered to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the sanitary conditions in all the cells where the applicant was detained were found to be satisfactory and they were monitored on a regular... | 5 |
26. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his time in police custody. In that connection, he claimed that he had been blindfolded, beaten and subjected to Palestinian hanging and had received electric shocks to his genitals several times. He ... | 5 |
27. The Government admitted that the domestic authorities failed to take appropriate measures to protect the second, third and fourth applicants from ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further admitted that the authorities failed to meet the positive obligation to respect th... | 5 |
89. The Government further noted that the situation of asylum-seekers in other EU Member States was constantly monitored and that assessments were made on the basis of current developments. There was a regular exchange of information between the Federal Asylum Office and liaison officers in Hungary, which also ensured... | 5 |
91. The applicant initially complained that his life sentence was de jure and de facto irreducible and that there was no separate regime for life prisoners or a special regime for detainees with psychiatric problems in the prisons where he had been held. In his letter of 2 November 2012 (see paragraph 3 above), follow... | 5 |
57. The applicant submitted that the strip searches to which he had been subjected had been debasing and humiliating. He had been ordered to strip naked despite severe pain in his back. He had then been subjected to a search, including an inspection of his penis and anus. In his view, the prison guards had acted with ... | 5 |
16. The Government argued that the applicants could no longer be considered victims of alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. Their cases had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions had been adopted in their favour. Mr Šukys had received adequate and sufficient compensation while Mr V... | 5 |
95. The Government observed that if a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed on the applicant in the United States then Article <mask> of the Convention did not require the existence of a compulsory parole system as the one and only means to ensure compliance with the Convention. They further noted that the US Gove... | 5 |
104. The applicant noted that where an individual was taken into police custody in good health but was found to be injured at the time of release, it was incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how these injuries had been caused, failing which a clear issue arose under Article <mask> of the Conven... | 5 |
119. The applicants complained that they had serious grounds to believe that Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment before having been murdered and that no effective investigation had been conducted in that respect. They also submitted that they had suffered severe men... | 5 |
101. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Magomed Dokuyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result of their rel... | 5 |
65. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the absence of an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape. They observed that the courts of the Dagestan Republic had repeatedly criticised the ineffectiveness of the inquiry carried out by the invest... | 5 |
101. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they reasoned that he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution (see paragraph 91 ... | 5 |
57. The Government observed that, as had also been noted by the criminal investigator in her decision of 21 January 2003, within one month of the alleged violence occurring the police had been called only twice, but the applicant had made no allegations of being physically attacked by J.H.L., either in her statements ... | 5 |
28. The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his custody. He also maintained that he had been arrested on 5 September 1999, not on 8 September 1999 as indicated in the arrest report. According to the applicant, he was beaten on the head and neck by a truncheon, pu... | 5 |
29. The Government further submitted that detention conditions in IK-3 and prison hospital had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that in both facilities the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, sufficient food, c... | 5 |
81. The applicants alleged that they had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, at the hands of the Belgian authorities. They explained, firstly, that they had been left for more than ten days in the transit zone without any legal or social assistance, without any means... | 5 |
153. The Government contended that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged atmosphere of fear and uncertainty should equally be rejected for being out of time. From the time when she was recognised as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings, she could no longer claim t... | 5 |
74. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the Kerch ITT. He also complained under the same provision that there had been no adequate forensic examination of the injuries sustained by him in his fight with Mr and Mrs L. According to him, those injuries ... | 5 |
111. The applicant also maintained that ARV treatment was not accessible in all cases in Nigeria. In fact, only a minority of people living with advanced-stage HIV had access to it free of charge. The applicant had no funds and no social network and was liable to be stigmatised and discriminated against in seeking acc... | 5 |
52. The Government submitted that at the time the authorities had been unable to provide four square metres of cell space per detainee in this remand facility, as required under Russian law (see also paragraph 46 above). The problem of overpopulation had been widespread at the relevant time and could not be resolved i... | 5 |
48. The Government further submitted that the allegations of psychological ill-treatment were manifestly ill-founded and that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable, given that the alleged ill-treatment had not reached the minimum level of severity required by that Convention provision. In this regard the... | 5 |
71. The applicant complained that between 7 and 10 September 2007 he had been physically and psychologically ill-treated by his fellow inmates at the Warsaw-Mokotów Remand Centre and that the administration had not ensured his safety. He did not rely on any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this co... | 5 |
49. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64). In parti... | 5 |
69. The Government submitted that the applicant had not been suffering from any illness incompatible with his detention. He had been given all the medical care recommended during his detention, with the exception of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment. However, the latter was only an additional treatment that had not be... | 5 |
78. The applicant relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. She also complained that as a result of her husband's disapp... | 5 |
102. The Government argued that the first applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court about the conditions of his confinement at that court’s convoy premises. On the merits, they relied on the letter from the President of the Khamovnic... | 5 |
46. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about ill-treatment by the police and the lack of any investigation into such ill-treatment. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, he complained that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and arbitrary. He further complained under Ar... | 5 |
61. The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention in Ploieşti Prison and of the general lack of adequate medical treatment for the venous thromboses in his legs. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, a lack of water, a lack of physical exercise and poor nutrition. Moreover, he complained t... | 5 |
39. The Government maintained that the level of severity required for a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention could not be regarded as having been attained in the instant case. In particular, as regards the applicant’s detention in Omonoia police station, the Government cited the Court’s decisions in Ciocan an... | 5 |
33. The Government further submitted that the applicant’s allegations about the risk of ill-treatment in the event of execution of the expulsion order of 18 October 2013 were speculative and “could not be considered by the [domestic] court during the administrative proceedings”. Nevertheless, they had been thoroughly ... | 5 |
53. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been debased, ill-treated and denied medical assistance while being detained in 1985. Relying on Article 5 § 1, she complained that her arrest in 1985 had been unlawful and that the inviolability of her home had been infringed. In substan... | 5 |
31. The Government did not deny that the injuries on the applicant’s body had been caused by police officers during his arrest. However, they maintained that the use of force by the police officers had been justified by the applicant’s behaviour, in particular by his resistance to arrest, and that the intensity of the... | 5 |
45. The Government further asserted that the complaint of a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was not supported by any evidence. The applicant’s reference to the forensic medical expert’s report of 6 March 2004 was irrelevant, as the report had only evidenced a light injury which had clearly pr... | 5 |
125. The Governments of Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom observed that in the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment (15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V) the Court had stated the principle that in view of the absolute nature of the prohibition of treatment contrary to Articl... | 5 |
34. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment, since the results of the domestic investigation had proved that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted. They further insisted that the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment had been carried out thoroughly and... | 5 |
47. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to physical ill-treatment and psychological pressure by the police on 18 August 2005 and thereafter, and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He also complained under the s... | 5 |
36. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police used excessive force against him during arrest and under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached. However, it is noted that the applicant did not use any of the remedies available t... | 5 |
251. The Government endorsed the Supreme Court’s findings (see paragraphs 159 and 160 above) that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They did not deny that the applicants had suffered as a result of their diving, and that they had consequently found or were still finding themselves in unf... | 5 |
84. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant and argued that it was excessive. Referring to the applicant’s claims in respect of the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government reiterated their position on the merits and claimed that the applicant’s conditions of detention di... | 5 |
42. The Government argued that the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment concerning the police officers was not in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and did not result in impunity for them as their sentences would be executed if they committed another wilful offence during the five-year period follo... | 5 |
50. The applicant further argued that the domestic authorities had wrongly established the facts relating to the incident in question. He claimed that the police officers and S.’s brothers had beaten him up and had used force against him that had not been necessary as he did not resist. With respect to his behaviour d... | 5 |
94. The applicant has not submitted that there existed any exceptional circumstances preventing him from complying with the six months’ rule. The Court therefore considers that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention about being placed in metal cages was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordan... | 5 |
65. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The cases regarding both periods he complained of had been reviewed by the administrative courts and decisions in the applicant’s favour had been adopted. The sums awarded ... | 5 |
31. The Government argued that the force used against the applicant on 29 March 2007 did not reach the level of severity necessary for the application of Article <mask> of the Convention. The force had been used only in order to prevent the applicant from attacking a prison guard. The prison doctor who had seen the ap... | 5 |
111. The applicant disputed the Government's factual submissions concerning the conditions of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility from 19 October 2005 to 25 October 2007 (see paragraphs 80-82 above) and maintained that the actual conditions of his detention, as described by him (see paragraphs 75-79 above), am... | 5 |
137. The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been ill-treated to extract their confessions. They alleged additionally under Article 6 that the domestic court had erred in its assessment of evidence in the case, which had led to their conviction, although they had been innoce... | 5 |
108. The applicant complained about a further separate violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of her own suffering resulting from the authorities’ failure to establish the circumstances of her late husband’s death. Leaving aside the question of the applicant’s standing (compare Khadzhialiyev and Othe... | 5 |
99. The Government considered that the first applicant had made detailed and credible statements concerning his PDPA membership, his employment as a prison guard at Pol-e-Charki Prison and subsequent employment by the KhAD/WAD where he reached the rank of either lieutenant-colonel or major. However, the Government con... | 5 |
59. The Government maintained that the applicant did not face a particular risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention upon his return to Sri Lanka. In this connection they contended that the applicant was unlikely to attract the suspicions of the Sri Lankan authorities, given t... | 5 |
27. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been compatible with the requirements of Russian law and Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that although on 29 June 2005 the cells were crowded to the limit, the period of several hours is too short to attain the thresho... | 5 |
115. The Government contended that there was no evidence that Apti Isigov or Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They added that the investigation into the alleged abuses committed during the special operation of 2 July 2001 in Sernovodsk had commenced in ... | 5 |
70. The applicant argued that although the extradition order had been cancelled it remained possible for Russian authorities to remove him from Russia by way of administrative removal or deportation. Thus, he continued to be at risk of ill-treatment, if removed from Russia to Uzbekistan. The applicant maintained that ... | 5 |
53. The Government submitted that in their view the applicant had not complained in concrete terms before the Court about the material conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison and they asked the Court not to examine that part of the applicant’s complaints. Moreover, they argued that that part of the applicant’s co... | 5 |
79. The applicants referred to their submissions on the exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 50 above). They also pointed out that the prosecuting authorities and the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not opened disciplinary proceedings agai... | 5 |
25. The applicant argued that in his letter of 6 October 2004 he had duly informed the investigating judge assigned to his case of the police brutality against him and had thus properly made the relevant domestic authorities aware of the alleged ill-treatment. As to the running of the six-month period, the applicant a... | 5 |
54. The applicant maintained all his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that his frequent transfers to disciplinary cells amounted to a “continuous situation” falling within the six-month time‑limit. He further insisted on the lack of any opportunity to obtain an expert report on the origin of... | 5 |
31. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were ill-treated under police custody. They further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of their police custody and subsequent detention on remand. They also submitted that they were denied a fair hea... | 5 |
60. The Government argued that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court considers that the ill-treatment of the applicant, which on three occasions caused her physical... | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.