text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
51. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and had refused his request for release on bail without any explanation. The Court considers that these complaints fall to ... | 8 |
44. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in relation to his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained in this connection that he could have sought compensation under Article 141 of the Code of Cr... | 8 |
36. The applicant alleged that Articles 2, 3, 7 and 13 had been violated in the course of the criminal proceedings. He further complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, that the criminal proceedings against him had not been terminated despite th... | 8 |
25. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the refusal of the Novgorod Regional Court to award him non‑pecuniary damages. The Court notes that the main thrust of the present application, as submitted by the applicant, rests under Article <mask> of the Convention which provision, i... | 8 |
83. The applicant claimed LVL 10,000 (approximately EUR 15,000) in compensation for the anxiety she had suffered for almost four years, particularly on account of the threat of deportation she had faced throughout that time. Her arrest and detention in February 2001 had further aggravated her psychological state: more... | 8 |
40. The applicant’s complaint therefore falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention alone. Having regard to the way in which the applicant phrased his complaint and the Court’s approach in comparable cases (see, for instance, Dörr v. Germany (dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013; and H.W. v. Germany, ci... | 8 |
183. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that the criminal investigations conducted following her complaints had been ineffective. Moreover, she complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty while held at her grandparents’ house by ... | 8 |
55. The applicant rejected the Government's interpretation of Article 287 (4) CCP. He argued that that Article did not meet the requirements of “quality of law” under Article <mask> of the Convention and that neither the prosecution nor the domestic courts had given any details capable of clarifying the application of... | 8 |
40. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the failure of the Supreme Court of Justice to deduct the time spent in detention pending trial from his prison term, as required by law. He claimed that he had not been informed of any subsequent decision in that regard unti... | 8 |
53. 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, the Government indicated that the procedure prescribed by law was duly followed by the authorities. The applicant’s placement was authoris... | 8 |
140. The applicants, who were released before the paragraph 3 safeguard came into play, had the opportunity to, and did, bring the question of the lawfulness of their detention before the courts under section 469 of the Administration of Justice Act (see paragraph 17 above). Furthermore, they could have been granted c... | 8 |
76. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. They pointed out that, in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law (referring to Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 39, Series A no. 281‑A; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, §§ 41-43, 20 April 2010; and S.M. ... | 8 |
27. The applicant submitted that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences charged, and that any suspicion that might have been present initially had decreased with the passage of the almost a year he had spent in pre-trial detention. In conclusion, the applicant submitted that in his c... | 8 |
293. The Government lastly argued that the disciplinary penalty in question had been imposed under Paragraphs 51 and 54 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces of Armenia approved by Government Decree no. 247 on 12 August 1996, as well as its Annex 5. When depositing its instrument of ratification, Armenia... | 8 |
62. The applicant emphasised that both the Zyuzinskiy District Court and the Moscow City Court had failed to consider his arguments relating to Article <mask> of the Convention and that no time-limit for his detention had been stipulated in the expulsion order. With reference to the Court’s previous findings (in parti... | 8 |
48. The Government submitted that the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. They submitted that the applicant had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and the domestic courts had duly examined the material submitted by the prosecuting authoriti... | 8 |
58. The applicant submitted that his detention between 1 and 4 May 2005 had been contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine, which only permits detention without a court order for up to seventy-two hours in view of the urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime from being committed, but which does not permit such detent... | 8 |
26. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They maintained in this connection that he could have sought compensation under Article 141 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) for his allegedly unlawful detent... | 8 |
62. The Government also submitted that the applicant had failed to make use of the available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the non‑availability of judicial review of his house arrest. They argued that according to the Bulgarian Constitution international trea... | 8 |
53. The Government maintained that the applicant had been detained in accordance with the decision of the prosecutor. They stressed that the prosecutor, pursuant to the reservation made by Ukraine in respect of Article <mask> of the Convention, could be considered “... another officer authorised by law to exercise jud... | 8 |
77. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant’s detention from 20 March to 10 April 2009 had been lawful and justified. Up until 20 March 2009 the applica... | 8 |
114. The Government observed that the liberties and detention judge of the Rouen tribunal de grande instance had ordered, on 29 August 2007, an extension of the detention for fifteen days, a decision that was upheld by the Rouen Court of Appeal on 30 August 2007. The ordinary courts had thus found that the applicants’... | 8 |
58. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he was arrested by a prosecutor and was not brought promptly before a judge. In addition, he complains that his detention was not extended every thirty days as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he had no possibility of appeali... | 8 |
27. The applicant complained that her involuntary hospitalisation in the Psychiatric Clinic of the North Estonia Medical Centre on 6 November 2006 had not been “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and that she had not received a fair hearing before the Harju County Court when it decided on 8... | 8 |
59. The applicant further complained about inhuman and degrading conditions in several pre-trial detention facilities he had been kept in prior to his conviction. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his pre-trial detention throughout the period between 2001 and 2002 had been unlawful. He fin... | 8 |
79. The applicants whose relatives were arrested and taken away by the members of the security forces complained that the detention of Casım Çelik, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf Çelik, Mirhaç Çelik, Naci Şengül, Seddık Şengül, Reşit Sevli, Kemal İzci, Hayrullah Öztürk, Salih Şengül, Hurşit Taşkın, Abdullah İnan and Aşur Seçkin h... | 8 |
23. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they submitted that he had been kept under surveillance in the Izmir Military Recruitment Office for the sole purpose of ensuring his transfer back to his ar... | 8 |
17. The applicants argued that the compensation awarded to them in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been adequate and proportionate to the severity of the breaches of their rights. In support of this contention the applicants cited cases in which the Court had found breaches of Article... | 8 |
88. The Government further pointed out that Germany had not breached its positive obligation to protect the applicant from an alleged deprivation of liberty by private persons. It was already questionable whether Article <mask> of the Convention incorporated such a positive obligation at all. In any event, German law ... | 8 |
30. The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been beaten and forced to plead guilty. He further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention during the judicial proceedings. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention he alleged that he had been p... | 8 |
126. The Government’s position was that the applicants had failed to exhaust available remedies as regards this complaint in two respects. First, they had failed to bring a private-law claim concerning their complaint about the provision of information regarding their arrest and detention. The Government pointed out t... | 8 |
26. The Government submitted that the applicant’s closest living relative and heir, pursuant to the domestic law, was his father. Hence, Ms Zīmele could not be considered the applicant’s next of kin. Besides, Ms Zīmele had provided no evidence of the fact that the applicant’s father had no objections to her pursuing t... | 8 |
28. The applicant complained that there was no reasonable suspicion for his arrest and detention. By a letter dated 7 July 2000, the applicant complained that he had been held in police custody for twelve days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The appli... | 8 |
54. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no reasonable suspicion to justify his arrest, and under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in particular on account of his alleged entrapment by the police during a “test... | 8 |
26. The Government declared in that context that they had taken note of the Court’s judgment in the case of Glien (cited above). In the light of the Court’s findings in that judgment, the Government accepted that until his transfer to Hamburg Prison in May 2013 the applicant, who had been detained in Lübeck Prison tog... | 8 |
67. The applicant complained that his arrest and detention in Ukraine were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention since his criminal prosecution in Belarus was unlawful. Moreover, the applicant’s detention in Ukraine was not regulated by any law and he could not challenge it. The applicant further complained und... | 8 |
24. The applicants complained that their detention was unlawful under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they claimed that by virtue of Article 108 § 1.1 of the CCrP, they should not have been placed in custody because the offences imputed to them had been committed within the sphere of their business ac... | 8 |
121. The Government submitted that the applicants had not brought their complaints concerning their detention before the domestic courts. In particular, they claimed that the applicants could have brought an administrative recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution challenging the lawfulness of the decisions to de... | 8 |
100. The Government considered that this complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as the proceedings had not entailed the determination of either a criminal charge or “civil rights and obligations”. In the Government's view, the forfeiture of bail could only be... | 8 |
68. 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 |
19. The Government conceded that the applicant had been tried and convicted by a tribunal “not established by law”. Nevertheless, in their opinion, this fact alone was insufficient to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. The quashing of the applicant’s conviction by way of supervisory review had been... | 8 |
129. The Government further argued that the applicant had not been “arrested” but merely “conveyed” before the investigator, or “subjected to attachment”, or enforced attendance (privod), since Russian law did not provide for the “arrest” (arest) of witnesses. The Government concluded that this measure fell outside th... | 8 |
12. The Government submitted that, having been acquitted, the applicant could exercise his “right to rehabilitation” under Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant’s acquittal automatically implied that the State had acknowledged a violation of the his rights set out in Article <mask> of the Conven... | 8 |
62. The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the supervisory review of the court decision of 25 April 2006 ordering the applicant’s release on bail had been necessary as a result of the lower court’s failure to take into account the risk of the applicant’s absconding. Furthermore, the applicant and hi... | 8 |
50. The applicant’s deprivation of liberty clearly did not fall under sub‑paragraphs (a), (d), (e) or (f) of paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor could it be said to fall under sub—paragraph (b): there was no evidence of non‑compliance with a lawful order of a court and the applicant’s detention could ... | 8 |
83. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that in the second set of criminal proceedings he did not have access to his case file. He submitted that this limited to a great extent his opportunity to challenge the decisions extending his pre‑trial detention. The applicant underlined that... | 8 |
16. The applicant complained under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to respect the prohibition of reformatio in peius, a principle established by Article 326 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, when deciding his appeal to his detriment. In his view, had he not appealed ag... | 8 |
75. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of his detention in excess of the maximum forty‑eight-hour period permitted by the domestic law prior to being brought before a judge, because the domestic courts had already ack... | 8 |
47. The applicant lastly complained that he had been wrongly arrested and detained on 7 and 8 April 2009 and claimed that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court notes that this complaint was lodged more than six months after the alleged breach took place. Therefore, it must be ... | 8 |
62. The Government submitted that the applicants’ remand in custody had been lawful and compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Both detention orders had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CCrP and had contained concrete grounds for remanding them in custody. The domestic courts ha... | 8 |
192. The Government pleaded that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and stated that it had been open to him to institute proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his arrest or detention. They claimed that he could have applied to the H... | 8 |
35. The Government argue that to determine whether a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention requires more than simply establishing that a time-limit under domestic law has been exceeded, in particular where it concerns confinement orders in which there is always a gene... | 8 |
128. The applicants disputed the Government’s submission that Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been killed at the moment when the federal servicemen had strafed their car. They argued that their relatives could have been wounded rather than dead when taken out of the car and put into the military helicopter, a... | 8 |
24. The applicant complained that his detention between 3 March and 27 April 2015 had not been lawful and/or based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence or on relevant and sufficient reasons, as required by Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention, in so far... | 8 |
167. The Government submitted that the first applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was to be rejected as being incompatible ratione personae with the Convention provisions, in so far as it concerned the lack of compensation to him for the alleged violations of his rights under paragraphs 2, 3 and... | 8 |
22. The Government submitted that the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had failed to invoke Article <mask> of the Convention before the domestic authorities and to challenge the decision to extend his... | 8 |
42. The Government pointed out next that the applicant had not complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, and considered that it had been inappropriate for him to raise, with regard to his complaint under Article 8, an argument about unlawful detention (see paragraph 39 above). The Government also contended th... | 8 |
69. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his arrest on 14 April 2001 had been unlawful because he had not been informed about the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him until 27 days later, when he had been questioned; he had not been familiarised with the arrest order; his s... | 8 |
61. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to invoke Article <mask> of the Convention before the domestic authorities or challenge the decision to extend their custody. The Court has already examined and rejected the Government’s preliminary objection in similar cases (see, for example, Öcalan v. Turk... | 8 |
44. The applicant further argued that his preventive detention in Hamburg Prison, just as that in Lübeck Prison, equally violated Article <mask> of the Convention. He conceded that the conditions of detention in Hamburg Prison had been acceptable as he had been placed in a separate institution for persons in preventiv... | 8 |
136. The applicant argued, firstly, that his detention with a view to extradition had been in breach of the requirement of lawfulness under Article <mask> of the Convention. Secondly, the applicant complained that the authorities had not displayed sufficient diligence in the conduct of the extradition proceedings. The... | 8 |
19. The applicant complained that there had not been sufficient reasoning for remanding him in custody, and that the proceedings by which he sought to challenge his detention had not been in conformity with the guarantees provided under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court shall examine these complaints under A... | 8 |
116. The Government submitted that although the applicant and her sister had argued in their appeal against the first-instance decision of the R. County Court that the applicant’s involuntary internment in the hospital had been unlawful within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, they had subsequently fail... | 8 |
151. The Government argued that, as in the applicants’ allegations in Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011) and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013), the applicant’s allegations in the present case were too wide and far-reaching. He did not complain of an isolated... | 8 |
81. The applicants reiterated their argument that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been detained by representatives of the federal forces and argued that his detention had not satisfied any of the conditions set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, had had no basis in national law and had not been in accordance with a pro... | 8 |
21. The Government submitted that, having been acquitted, the applicant could exercise his “right to rehabilitation” under Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The acknowledgment of the applicant’s “right to rehabilitation” in the acquittal automatically implied that the State had acknowledged a violation of... | 8 |
72. The applicants further maintained that their deprivation of liberty had not followed a procedure prescribed by law and had therefore not been “lawful” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. More specifically, referring to the preparatory notes on the Police Act, the applicants submitted that secti... | 8 |
125. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that a number of his complaints concerning his detention had either not been examined speedily by a court or had not been examined at all. In particular, he referred to his complaints lodged on 25 April 2001, between 13 July and 21 November 2001 and ... | 8 |
61. The applicant's complaints which fall under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article <mask> of the Convention, meanwhile, relate to certain alleged deficiencies of the relevant provisions of the CCP, in force at the relevant time, as construed by the competent authorities and as applied to the applicant, which gave rise to a... | 8 |
55. The applicant complained that the decision of 16 September 2002, by which he had been ordered to undergo compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital under guard, had been unlawful. He cited two grounds: firstly, that he had never suffered from a mental illness, and, secondly, that the decision had lost ... | 8 |
39. The applicant complained, under Article 5 § 1 (c), that his detention pending trial had been unlawful, that the prosecutor’s order had not comprised the reasons for his detention, that there had been no reasonable suspicion of him having committed an offence, and that the facts under investigation had not fallen w... | 8 |
48. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the decision to remand him in custody had not been justified. The Court notes that the detention order was issued on 26 July 2003, whereas the applicant lodged his application on 17 January 2005, that is more than six months later. It follow... | 8 |
81. The applicant complained that his detention during the investigation had contradicted Article <mask> of the Convention. He complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not had sufficient time to examine the case file before the trial, the legal aid lawyer had failed to provide him with effective legal ... | 8 |
148. The Government submitted that the investigation had obtained no evidence that the applicant had been deprived of liberty by State agents in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They claimed that the fact that there were no records of the applicant's “arrest” and ensuing “detention”, and that there had been... | 8 |
71. 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 |
12. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 is that he was subjected to an arbitrary and excessive deprivation of liberty. In determining whether Article <mask> of the Convention is applicable, the Court must apply the criteria set out in the Guzzardi v. Italy judgment[33]. In order to determine whether someone has ... | 8 |
60. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted, in particular, that: (a) his detention between 15 November and 15 December 2014 had been unlawful as there had been no decision on detention for that period due to the failure of the domestic bodies to review his detention within the 30... | 8 |
79. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been provided with an interpreter when he was taken into police custody on 15 August 2006. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not had the assistance of an interpreter throughout the proceedings brought ... | 8 |
32. The applicant added that the measure in issue did not have any legal basis either in Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, since there was no causal link between the detention and the criminal conviction, or in Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention. In relation to sub-paragraph (a), he noted that Article <mask> of th... | 8 |
66. The Government submitted that the custodial measure had been imposed and extended in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article <mask> of the Convention. Extensions of the custodial measure were justified not only by the gravity of the charges but also by other “essential and re... | 8 |
38. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as regards her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. She should have challenged the allegedly unlawful escorting and arrest in accordance with the procedure set out in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She could have ... | 8 |
75. The applicants complained that their relative Mr Kamil Mutayev had been unlawfully detained by State agents in violation of guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed. Ar... | 8 |
168. The Government submitted that Kazbek Vakhayev had been detained as a person of no fixed residence. After his identity was established, he had been released. The Government also pointed out that the applicants had never lodged any complaints concerning Kazbek Vakhayev's detention before the domestic courts. They c... | 8 |
30. The applicant complained that his detention pending expulsion proceedings had been unlawful and unduly prolonged. The applicant furthermore complained that he had not had access to effective judicial review of his detention. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The relevant parts of ... | 8 |
58. The applicants maintained that the fact that they had been placed in the transit zone following their respective arrests on 30 January 2003 and 3 February 2003 and then placed in Merksplas following the order of 14 February 2003 infringed Article <mask> of the Convention, since those measures had been applied in b... | 8 |
40. The Government submitted: “... the acceptance of deprivation of liberty to which no other citizens are subject is the result of a voluntary decision on the part of those who embrace a career in the armed forces and consequently accept the discipline it imposes ... It is quite clear that such situations are not cov... | 8 |
135. The Government argued, first, that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the instant case. They submitted that the Kėdainiai Home was an institution for providing social services and not forced treatment under a regime corresponding to that of a psychiatric institution. Whilst admitting that cert... | 8 |
63. The Government argued that the proceedings before the Osijek County Court concerning the applicant’s detention had been conducted in compliance with all the procedural guarantees under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had had the opportunity to present all his arguments at the stage of proceedings b... | 8 |
89. The Government submitted that the applicants’ rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. They had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and the domestic courts had duly examined the material submitted by the prosecution authorities. In that connection, the j... | 8 |
69. The applicant complained that in the proceedings brought for release under section 64 of the 1984 Act it was for the patient to satisfy the sheriff that he was no longer suffering from a mental disorder requiring his detention in hospital for medical treatment, arguing that under Article <mask> of the Convention i... | 8 |
64. The applicant further complained that during that period there were no clear legal rules concerning the conditions of his detention, the internal guidelines issued in 1990 and 1996 being unpublished instruction which could change any time and did not provide an adequate regulation of the prison regime. In his obse... | 8 |
41. The Government submitted that this complaint should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They argued in the first place that the applicants could have, pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenged the length of their detenti... | 8 |
45. The applicant submitted that administrative detention, as a form of penalty, cannot be included among the grounds for detention permissible under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, because the application of this procedure was condemned by Resolution 1304 (2002) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe... | 8 |
134. The Government first submitted that Yusup Satabayev had been detained on 1 August 2000 under the Decree on Measures for the Prevention of Vagrancy and Mendicancy, placed in the detention facility of the Urus‑Martan VOVD and subsequently released. After the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the applicati... | 8 |
293. The Government also expressed the view that, apart from the applicant’s reference to her intensive political activity, she had failed to provide any evidence in substantiation of her allegation that she had been deprived of her liberty for purposes other than those prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. ... | 8 |
21. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about his pre-trial detention. Moreover, relying on Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he complained that the order to return the seized goods to him had only been made at the end of lengthy proceedings – and in... | 8 |
145. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful in that it had not been extended after 16 November 2006 and the related court decisions mentioned no time-limits for it. He also stated that the applicable legal provisions lacked clarity and precision and thus... | 8 |
67. 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 p... | 8 |
72. The applicant argued that the alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention stemmed from the lack of a procedural possibility for judicial review of her house arrest. House arrest amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, and for this reason she should have... | 8 |
34. The applicant made a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention relating to his pre-trial detention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant failed to... | 8 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.