text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
50. 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 |
96. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the authorities’ failure to ensure that he enjoyed eight hours’ sleep on court hearing days. The Court has already examined a similar issue in the case of Bagel v. Russia (no. 37810/03, § 70, 15 November 2007), concluding that the six hours’ sleep ... | 5 |
40. The applicant complained that he had been detained in appalling conditions from 17 August 1999 to 30 May 2002 in remand prisons nos. IZ-48/2 and 48/3 in Moscow. He further complained that he had not received adequate and proper medical treatment for tuberculosis while in detention in the hospital of remand prison ... | 5 |
80. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand centre no. IZ-71/1 in Tula had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of det... | 5 |
42. The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. They maintained that the applicant had failed to adduce any concrete evidence in support of his allegations. They contended that the allegations were deceitful and were part of a scenario used by the terrorist organisation to dishonour... | 5 |
52. The applicant then referred to a linguistic specialist report, which suggested that the text of the confession of 29 December 2007 had been written by the applicant with the assistance of another person. For the Court, this sole piece of evidence is not sufficient to find that the applicant was subjected to psycho... | 5 |
32. The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the applicants’ allegations about the existence of a risk of their being subjected to ill-treatment were hypothetical. They were not relevant to the issue of the legality of their stay in Russia and could not be considered in the course of expulsion proceed... | 5 |
24. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, he further alleged that he had been denied an effective remedy in respect of his ill-treatment complaint due to shortcomings in the proceedings, in particula... | 5 |
94. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Luiza Mutayeva... | 5 |
42. The Government submitted that the Court had previously found violations of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of applicants being confined in metal cages in courtrooms. However, the present case was different. The applicant had not been physically present in the courtroom during the hearing. He had remain... | 5 |
36. The applicant complained that the material conditions of detention in Jilava Prison amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, squalor, rats, bedbugs, lice and scabies infestations, lack of ventilation, lack of heating in the winter and extremely high temperatures in the ... | 5 |
55. The applicant complained of the conditions of his detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison from 7 June 2011 until 25 May 2012. The domestic courts found that for 268 days, ten evenings and three mornings the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above). The Court finds that this is the ... | 5 |
43. The Government also maintained that, as far as the conditions of detention in the Ladyzhynska Colony were concerned, the applicant’s submissions were vague and general and not such as to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the Colony authorities within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The G... | 5 |
109. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies regarding some of his complaints concerning the alleged procedural violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, in his complaint against the police authority’s decision on the termination of the investigation, he... | 5 |
91. The applicant alleged that he continued to suffer very serious negative consequences as a result of the lack of any effective, independent and impartial investigation. The identification of the police officers responsible and the acknowledgement of their responsibility were very important to the applicant even tho... | 5 |
54. The applicants maintained that they faced a real and personal risk of being persecuted and ill-treated, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, if forced to return to Uzbekistan. They stressed that they had invoked their need for protection since their arrival in Sweden and throughout the national proceeding... | 5 |
66. The Government reiterated that in their opinion the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, given that he had not lodged an appeal against the decision of the Federal Asylum Office in the first set of proceedings. The Government referred to the Asylum Act 2005 and the legal remedies established therein agai... | 5 |
91. The Government contended that the medical assistance provided to the applicant while in detention had been adequate. The applicant had not been subjected to medical tests for hepatitis C upon his arrest and placement in custody because he had demonstrated no clinical evidence of the illness and the prison regulati... | 5 |
79. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the lock-up of the Bucharest Police Inspectorate. The Court notes that the applicant was transferred from that lock-up to Rahova Prison at the latest on 16 January 2004, but only lodged the complaint with ... | 5 |
19. The applicants submitted that they had been arrested and detained unlawfully, contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. They further complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention that they had not been brought before a judge in order for the lawfulness of their arrest to be decided upon and therefore ... | 5 |
176. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the video surveillance and strip searches in the detention facility; the conditions of detention in the remand centre and in the transit prison; the beatings inflicted on her by a warden and some other issues in relation to the detention regime... | 5 |
56. The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by officers A.R. and A.P., as well as a third officer who remained unidentified. As a result of the lengthy investigation and court proceedings, and by incorrectly applying a shorter limitation than that provided for by law, the authorities allowed A.P. to escap... | 5 |
179. The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints were unsubstantiated. However, such general reference, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the authorities, is in the present case insufficient to discharge them from the obligation requiring them to disprove an arguable allegation of discrimin... | 5 |
36. The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention in all the prison facilities in which he had been detained since 2004, the fact that during his detention he had become ill with toxic hepatitis, obstructive bronchopneumonia, anaemia, breathing difficulties, sinusitis, otitis and a deviated s... | 5 |
48. The applicant further complained of the fact that at the time of his arrest he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also invoked Article 5 § 4, submitting that there had been no review of the lawfulness of his detention and that during the inves... | 5 |
51. The applicant pointed first to the State’s special responsibilities towards persons deprived of their liberty, in particular as regards their right to have access to medical care. In this connection he stressed that a person was usually free to choose a specialist to treat his condition and a method of recommended... | 5 |
79. The applicant submitted that his conditions of detention on İmralı Island were inhuman and exceeded the severity threshold deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention. He also alleged a violation of Articles 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, on the grounds of the social isolation imposed on him during his d... | 5 |
45. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by the police whilst being apprehended on 22 January 2004 and that there had not been an adequate domestic investigation into the matter. The applicant further complained that the physical conditions of his detention in Odesa S... | 5 |
232. The Government submitted that the mere fact that Mr Harakchiev had been sentenced to whole life imprisonment did not amount to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention because he could seek presidential clemency at any time. There was already a precedent in which a person serving a whole life sentence had had... | 5 |
28. The applicant complained that the overcrowded conditions of detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non‑smokers in Aiud, Gherla, Rahova, Jilava, Slobozia, Dej and Miercurea‑Ciuc Prisons and the overcrowded and poor transport conditions every time he was transferred between those facilities,... | 5 |
55. The applicants complained about the conditions in which the bodies of their deceased relatives had been stored during the identification process. Except for the fourth and the sixth applicant who did not take part in the identification, they were also dissatisfied with the circumstances of their personal participa... | 5 |
57. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted a statement made by V. and N., the inmates detained and transported together with him. In the applicant’s view, the domestic authorities had failed to ensure that his detention during the period in question had been compatible with the requirements set out in Ar... | 5 |
156. The Government requested the Court to declare the complaints raised under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention inadmissible on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicant had not raised them in compliance with the procedural requirements of domestic law before the Constitutional Court. The... | 8 |
23. The Government stated that there was no violation of the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. Initially, the applicant was placed in detention because there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a crime. The preventive measure was selected according to the nat... | 8 |
126. The Government asserted that Visadi Shokkarov had been detained on 20 January 2003, that on 22 January 2003 his detention on remand had been authorised by the Nadterechniy District Court, and that he had had unrestricted access to his lawyer. In sum, they submitted that Visadi Shokkarov’s detention had fully comp... | 8 |
314. The applicants in Satovkhanova and Others (no. 29844/11), Tembulatovy (no. 38134/11), Shavanova and Others (no. 44296/11) and Sugatiyeva and Others (no. 13874/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 3. The applicants in Satovkhanova and Ot... | 8 |
17. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that they had not been promptly informed of the reason for their arrests. Relying on Article 5 § 3 and 4 of the Convention, they complained that their period of detention in police custody had been excessively long and that they had not had the opport... | 8 |
34. The Government submitted that, at the time of the events, the period of detention of the applicants was in compliance with the requirements of the domestic law. Referring to their derogation of 5 May 1992, the Government argued that it was absolutely essential that they derogate from the procedural guarantees gove... | 8 |
83. The Government agreed that house arrest constituted deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nevertheless, they considered that lesser reasons were required in order to justify house arrest because this measure was milder than detention in custody. That was moreover so in the in... | 8 |
37. The applicant claimed that his detention between 7 July 2010 and 15 November 2012 on the basis of a judgment delivered by a “court” of an entity which had not been recognised by the respondent Government violated his right to liberty guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged that the failure of th... | 8 |
35. The applicant disagreed. He submitted that the President of the Kraków Court of Appeal had recognised that errors had been committed by the judge who had issued the detention order. However, that statement had been made informally in a letter addressed to a local MP. The applicant argued that the implicit admissio... | 8 |
66. The applicant alleged that he had not been informed about his rights. Since the burden of proof was on the respondent State, which had the obligation to keep a record, the applicant’s version is more tenable than that of the Government. Hence, the omission of the national authorities to inform the applicant of his... | 8 |
107. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government argued that the applicant had several remedies at his disposal, including Article 108 of the Code, which provided for a procedure for challenging a me... | 8 |
36. The applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful, unjustified and arbitrary, that several decisions concerning his detention had been taken while he had had no legal representation despite its being mandatory and that the procedure in respect of his requests for release had fallen short of the applica... | 8 |
16. The applicant argued that the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been adequate and proportionate to the severity of the breaches of his rights. In support of this contention the applicant cited cases in which the Court had found... | 8 |
39. The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that his arrest and detention had not been based on reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had committed a criminal offence. In his observations lodged with the Court on 15 June 2011, the applicant also complained that his arrest on 10 Novem... | 8 |
62. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention and house arrest had not been justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as requi... | 8 |
108. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention as he had not complained about either the alleged unlawfulness or the length of his detention pending extradition to a prosecutor's office or a court. They also submi... | 8 |
58. The applicant also complained that his detention on remand, which ended on 26 August 1996 (paragraph 14 above), was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person). However, the application was introduced on 22 December 2001, more than six months after the applicant... | 8 |
11. The applicant complained about the length of his detention in police custody, the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of this detention and the absence of a remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He relied on Article 5 §§ ... | 8 |
42. The applicant maintained his complaint. He considered the ex post facto authorisation of his pre-trial detention from 27 October 2007 to 10 January 2008 tainted with arbitrariness and contrary to the safeguards provided by Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, he argued that the reasons underlying the extensio... | 8 |
225. The applicant argued that the respondent State was responsible for the violation of his rights under this Article, by its own agents and/or foreign agents operating in its territory and under its jurisdiction. His detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia without charge or judicial oversight had viol... | 8 |
60. The applicant complained in passing that he had been ill-treated in 1995 by the domestic authorities. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant further challenged the lawfulness of the decisions to remand him in custody taken in 1995 and 2000 and the lawfulness of his detention on remand in 1995-1... | 8 |
33. The applicant disagreed with the Government. He argued that his complaints fell under Article <mask> of the Convention and, as such, were submitted in conformity with the requirements of the Convention because they related to his period of “detention on remand” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention... | 8 |
52. The Government maintained that the grounds of the applicant's pre‑trial detention were clearly defined and the law itself was foreseeable in its application, so that it met the standard of “lawfulness” set by the Convention. They contended that the applicant had been detained on the ground of suspicion of committi... | 8 |
96. The Government contended that, following his acquittal, the applicant had lost his victim status in respect of his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, in their view, it remained open to the applicant to bring a civil claim for compensation for the damage allegedly resulting from unlawfu... | 8 |
41. The applicant complained that his detention after 11 March 2009 had been unlawful in that it had exceeded the maximum statutory time-limit and that he had been detained in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes he had been charged with. He further alleged that his pre-trial detentio... | 8 |
65. The applicant argued that Article <mask> of the Convention protected individuals against arbitrary detention by the State. In the present case, the applicant had been detained without a warrant past the 72-hour period of detention on remand permitted under national law. A warrant had only been issued at 4 p.m. The... | 8 |
45. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to give reasons to justify his detention, and that there had not been relevant and sufficient reasons for the extension of the detention period. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Art... | 8 |
83. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, deprived them of the right of access to court because they had not examined their claim on the merits. They als... | 8 |
99. The Government claimed that the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. As to the placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital in December 2002, the Government indicated that he had been taken there at the request of the district psychiatrist. Upon his arrival at th... | 8 |
224. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been detained unlawfully and kept incommunicado, without any arrest warrant having been issued, and that he had never been brought before a judge. He claimed that the respondent State bore direct responsibility for his entire period of ca... | 8 |
16. The applicant complained that contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention his involuntary placement in a psychiatric facility had been unlawful owing to the failure of the national authorities to meet the substantive requirements for hospitalisation and that the application for judicial authorisation of his hospi... | 8 |
203. The applicant complained of various defects in the proceedings concerning his detention, namely the detention orders of 25 October 2003, 22-23 December 2003, 20 May, 8 and 16 June 2004. He referred to Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 in this respect. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under paragrap... | 8 |
270. The applicants in the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Ar... | 8 |
56. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were arrested on the basis of an order issued by a prosecutor who according to the Romanian Constitution could not be considered a magistrate. They also claimed that their arrest was ordered by a bill of indictment, contrary to Romanian law... | 8 |
75. The applicants explained that under Italian law (Article 14 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, see paragraph 33 above), the only legal form of deprivation of liberty of an unlawful migrant awaiting return was placement in a CIE, subject to judicial supervision (validation of administrative detention decisions ... | 8 |
65. The Government submitted that after the expiry of the maximum eighteen-month period of detention the domestic courts had extended the applicant’s detention in accordance with Article 109 §§ 7 and 8 of the CCrP (cited in paragraphs 50 and 51 above), which provided for the possibility of extending a defendant’s dete... | 8 |
63. The applicant stated that he had in addition pursued a criminal remedy and that the inadequacy of that remedy had only become obvious to him in late December 2011, when he had been repeatedly refused victim status in the ongoing criminal proceedings (see paragraph 22 above). The Court does not accept the applicant... | 8 |
27. The applicant submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention required domestic courts to review the lawfulness of a person’s deprivation of liberty at regular intervals. Under domestic law that obligation was embodied in Articles 121 and 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required the Court of Appeal to... | 8 |
129. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was not based on a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 ... | 8 |
45. The applicant alleged that his detention in the Edirne and Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centres was unlawful and thus in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained, under the same provision, that he did not have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulnes... | 8 |
88. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Oksana Belenko’s detention had been unlawful. The Court notes that the latest decision in connection with this complaint was taken on 20 May 2004, whereas the application was lodged on 20 May 2006, which is more than six months later. It fol... | 8 |
295. The applicant further contested the Government’s allegation that he had been deprived of his liberty for disciplinary reasons. In reality he had been arrested as a suspect in a criminal case. This had been done unlawfully and in violation of the prescribed procedures, which led to his being deprived of legal assi... | 8 |
108. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy is whether the applicant could have raised that complaint in order to obtain direct and timely redress, and not merely an indirect ... | 8 |
93. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, had deprived them of the right of access to court because they had not examined their claim on the merits. They... | 8 |
187. The applicant, who has been held in compulsory confinement in a social protection facility since January 2004, has submitted his complaints – concerning the fact that he did not receive psychological or psychiatric treatment in that facility as a result of a language problem – under both Article 3 and Article <ma... | 8 |
59. The applicant inter alia claimed that the domestic legislation did not provide for judicial review or any other remedy for his complaint concerning the breach of his right to liberty as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. This complaint is to be separated from his claim that he had been unlawfully depr... | 8 |
11. The Government submitted that all three applicants had lost their victim status as a result of the fact that the domestic courts had acknowledged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and had compensated them in the civil proceedings initiated by them against the state. Moreover, the first and the second ap... | 8 |
349. The applicant further submitted that the planning of the military operations in the Çağlayan area in April and May 1994 was inadequate and that the recording of detentions during such operations was deficient. The Court considers that it is not necessary, given its conclusions above, to consider the former compla... | 8 |
74. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that at the time of his arrest, there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. Under Article 6 of the Convention he complained of the lack of access to the Supreme Court on account of the latter’s decision to reject his appea... | 8 |
20. The applicant complained that that his detention with a view to deportation was irregular and unlimited in time. The Court will consider firstly whether there was effective judicial supervision over the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and secondly whether it... | 8 |
204. The Government submitted that, since the applicant’s detention had been ordered and extended in accordance with the domestic law, it had also been in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the courts had taken a lawful and justified decision to close the de... | 8 |
40. The applicants contended that after their arrest they were not brought promptly before a judge. The applicants further complained that the Moskovsky District Court did not examine their request for release for several months and that the decision of that court to discontinue the review proceedings concerning their... | 8 |
42. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention pending the outcome of the trial and the domestic court’s use of a stereotyped reasoning for refusing his requests for release. Relying upon Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, he argued that although he... | 8 |
52. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complained that his pre-trial detention had not been justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 ... | 8 |
50. The applicant complained about the overall length of his pre-trial detention and the lack of adequate judicial review of its lawfulness. He also alleged that his detention after 28 May 2003 had been unlawful, not having been covered by any order in that regard. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the re... | 8 |
515. The applicant complained that from 5 December 2002 to 22 September 2003 Poland had enabled the CIA to hold him on its territory in secret, unacknowledged detention, which had been imposed and implemented outside any legal procedures and designed to ensure the complete denial of any of the safeguards contained in ... | 8 |
59. The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention that their detention on remand was unreasonably long, and that their requests for release pending trial received no serious consideration by the court. Moreover, they contended that they were prevented from working whilst on remand, as a res... | 8 |
128. The applicants reiterated their argument that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been detained by the representatives of the federal forces and argued that their relatives' detention had not satisfied any of the conditions set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, had ha... | 8 |
32. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies and had missed the six-month term in respect of her complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to her failure to appeal against the judgment of 8 May 2012 and stated that the civil proceedings initiated by her had... | 8 |
46. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the system of immigration detention in the United Kingdom fell short of the requirements of Article 5 § 1(f) (in particular, on account of the absence of fixed time-limits and automatic judicial review) and that the length of his detention exceede... | 8 |
52. The applicant further considered that he could still claim to be the victim of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He stressed that the Court’s findings in its judgment in the M. v. Germany case had not been implemented in his case, neither before nor after the Federal Constitutional Court’s leading judg... | 8 |
25. The applicant complained that his detention between 29 April and 31 May 2005 had been unlawful. He further complained that on 31 May 2005 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court had extended his detention in his absence and that his ensuing detention on the basis of that detention order was unlawful. He relied on Article <... | 8 |
69. The Government conceded that there had been a violation of the applicants' rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of their unlawful detention. Moreover, that violation was established by the domestic courts, which in itself offered partial satisfaction to the applicants. In order to o... | 8 |
46. The Government found that the finding of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in itself, would constitute sufficient compensation for any non‑pecuniary damage. Otherwise, they found that a compensation should be very modest, as at least part of duration of the detention must be regarded justified and s... | 8 |
131. The Government submitted that on 9 June 2002 Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov had been detained in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention with a view to checking their identity and verifying whether they were members of an illegal ... | 8 |
35. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her detention pending trial had been unjustified. She further alleged without invoking any Article of the Convention or Protocols thereto that she had been unlawfully dismissed from the Zaporizhzhya Customs Office in March 2002. Lastly, without r... | 8 |
111. The applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his detention and the arrangements for the periodic review of that measure, that he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention and that he had been unable to obtain compensation for his deprivation of liberty, which he considered contrary to the Conventi... | 8 |
102. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that by wrongly finding that their claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, the national courts had deprived them of the right of access to court. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in relat... | 8 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.