text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
35. The applicant submitted that the lack of clear regulations in international agreements between Russia and Kazakhstan in respect of release from serving a sentence on the basis of a foreign state court’s decision had adversely affected his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, according to the... | 8 |
11. The Government pointed out that, having been acquitted, the applicant could exercise his “right to rehabilitation” under Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The “rehabilitation” includes payment of compensation for the damage incurred on account of unlawful prosecution and unlawful application for a pre... | 8 |
125. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that Visadi Shokkarov’s detention between 6 and 22 January 2003 had not been authorised by court order. They argued that the decision authorising Visadi Shokkarov’s detention had been taken in the absence of the defence and that Visadi Shokkarov’s la... | 8 |
67. The Government raised a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They argued that according to the Bulgarian Constitution international treaties, including the Convention, were part of domestic law and took priority over the provisions of domestic law which went against them. More and more of... | 8 |
95. The applicants’ “transit” before reaching the Kitay-Gorod police station lasted for nearly six hours, in the absence of any record and without counting as administrative detention. Following the Government’s reasoning, it could have continued for even longer without breaching the law. In view of the above, the Cou... | 8 |
104. The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention pursuant to the court’s decision had been justified by the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, the fact that he had been convicted in the past and that, if released, he might abscond in order to avoid trial or obstruct the investigation. They... | 8 |
54. The applicant complained that his detention under section 28 of the Traffic Regulations Administrative Enforcement Act constituted deprivation of liberty not ordered by a competent court. When he had been committed for detention after failing to pay the fine, there had been no re-examination of the original decisi... | 8 |
133. The Government further stated that the length of the applicant’s detention pending preliminary investigation – nine months and twenty‑eight days – had been reasonable within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, taking into account the complexity of the case which involved four defendants accused of a ... | 8 |
114. The applicant complained, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, that his detention between 24 and 30 July 2013 had been unlawful. He further complained under that head that his detention pending administrative removal after 31 July 2013 had not been based on sufficiently foreseeable legal norms and that the expu... | 8 |
42. The applicant claimed that his preventive detention throughout the period at issue had failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention because that detention had been ordered on the basis of an expert report of 4 June 2010 which thus dated back some two-and-a-half years. Moreover, that report had only conce... | 8 |
33. The applicant complained that the police officer who investigated his criminal case instituted in 1997 had beaten him and threatened to kill him. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the outcome of the proceedings in the criminal cas... | 8 |
122. The Government submitted that the Chamber judgment had departed from the Court’s case-law concerning Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular the Kafkaris and M. v. Germany judgments cited above. They argued that in the present case there was a perfect causal link between the penalties imposed for the nume... | 8 |
230. The applicant’s submissions in the above-mentioned appeals and constitutional complaints contained arguments connected with his rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention, namely that the statutory maximum period for his detention had expired on 19 June 2008 and that the lower courts had failed to c... | 8 |
24. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his continued confinement in the hospital, as confirmed in the 2003 review, had been unlawful since the courts had wrongly based their decisions on police reports instead of on the findings of the hospital, as the only reliable evidence concernin... | 8 |
83. The applicant first complained that her arrest in northern Iraq was unlawful. She further stated that she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest and the charges against her in German. Finally, the applicant maintained that she was held in detention for nineteen days without being brought before a judge, du... | 8 |
70. The applicant argued that since the expiry of the last court order for his detention pending trial no other court decision had provided for his further detention. He considered that the legal provisions referred to by the Government were not foreseeable in their application, contrary to the requirements of Article... | 8 |
65. The Government submitted that the applicant had not appealed against his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention to a court. Therefore, he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. If, however, the Court were to dismiss that objection, his complaint would still be inadmissible, being manifestly ill-founded. The Gov... | 8 |
22. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that between 2004 and 2005 he had been detained without a warrant for his detention. The Court notes that the applicant made this allegation for the first time in application no. 32844/07, lodged on 14 July 2007. Consequently, the complaint was l... | 8 |
64. The Government submitted that the applicant’s administrative detention between 1 and 4 May 2005 had been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been based on a provision of domestic law (Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences) and had resulted from the suspicion that the applicant ... | 8 |
66. The Government argued that the applicant’s confinement in the psychiatric hospital had been ordered in compliance with the domestic law and the principles enshrined under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that notwithstanding the fact that in February 2003 the Constitutional Court had found the lega... | 8 |
60. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a number of procedural defects in the proceedings concerning his detention on remand. In particular, the hearings before the Basmanniy District Court of 3 July, 26 December 2003 and 8 June 2004 had been held in private, his lawyers could not par... | 8 |
168. The applicant further complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that narcotic substances had been administered to him against his will between 13 March 2000 and 30 January 2002. He also complained, citing Article <mask> of the Convention, about his compulsory admission to the psychiatric hospital in Rīg... | 8 |
95. The applicant also raised a number of other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, namely that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion, that his detention during the pre-trial proceedings lasted more than the maximum one-year period permitted under Article 138 § 5 of the CCP and that ther... | 8 |
33. The Government argued that the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention ought to be declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In that regard, the Government submitted that the final decision taken at the do... | 8 |
135. The applicant complained that her right to liberty had been breached in that as from 17 February 2005 she had been unlawfully confined to a mental hospital, though she had not been in need of involuntary care. She also complained that her detention in the hospital for the purpose of conducting a psychiatric asses... | 8 |
56. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he had been de facto detained on the morning of 26 May 2011 in Kintsvisi, while his arrest had only been documented with an official record of the detention at 6.12 a.m. on 27 May 2011 in Tbilisi. Article <mask> of the Convention in its relevant p... | 8 |
36. 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 |
41. The Government submitted that the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. He had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and the Nasimi District Court had duly examined the material in the case file when it had ordered his detention. In that con... | 8 |
123. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his arrest and detention had been unlawful. The Court considers, noting that the application was lodged with the Court on 26 July 2002, that this complaint was introduced outside the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Conve... | 8 |
41. The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention pursuant to the above-mentioned decision had been lawful within the meaning of the domestic law and had been justified by the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. They added that there had been “adequate” and “sufficient” grounds for the applic... | 8 |
85. The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that his son had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty since his detention had not been recorded and that there had been no prompt or effective investigation into his allegations. He maintained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that his son had... | 8 |
46. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the fact that neither he nor his defence counsel had been informed of a panel session of the Zagreb County Court on 6 November 2009 at which his detention had been extended. He also complained under... | 8 |
58. The applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 400,000 Swedish kronor (SEK), equivalent to 44,305 euros (EUR)[1], on account of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of his claim, he submitted that not only had he been deprived of his liberty for a tota... | 8 |
36. The applicant argued that since the expiry of the last court order for his detention pending trial on 14 August 2004 no other court decision had provided for his further detention. He considered that the legal provisions referred to by the Government were not foreseeable in their application, contrary to the requi... | 8 |
91. The applicant emphasised the importance of the proceedings before the court of criminal inquiry, a stage during which it was decided whether there were sufficient grounds for issuing a bill of indictment and during which the defence became aware of the prosecution's evidence and arguments. It was also the stage wh... | 8 |
134. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention required compliance with domestic law. The applicants had breached the law by wilfully abandoning the places of their service. Since they were subject to all the obligations prescribed by the Constitution, the investigating authority, based on a reaso... | 8 |
151. The Government referred to Constitutional Court decision no. IV. ÚS 3439/11, which confirmed that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was considered as directly applicable (“self-executing”) and that it was necessary to proceed also in accordance with domestic law, namely sections 31a and 32(3) of the State Liability... | 8 |
50. 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 |
35. The Government, while accepting that the impugned measures “restricted the applicant's liberty” for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Article <mask> of the Convention, maintained that the various instances of detention were “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, were “lawful” and justified under sub-para... | 8 |
69. The applicant complained that his detention in the Simferopol ITT had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention since that facility was not appropriate for a long-term detention of a person. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his criminal case had been unfair. ... | 8 |
70. 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 maintained that the applicant had been detained on the ground of suspicion of having ... | 8 |
137. The Government submitted that the applicants’ administrative imprisonment had been ordered by the Sunzhenskiy District Court in a decision of 24 September 2001, of which the applicants had been immediately informed. In their observations submitted prior to the Court’s decision as to admissibility of 15 November 2... | 8 |
18. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to respect the six-month time-limit, laid down by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant’s initial conviction of 3 July 2002 turned his “pre-trial detention”, which had started on 17 November 2000, into a detention following a con... | 8 |
135. The applicant questioned the availability of judicial review in respect of his detention pending extradition. He submitted that the Russian legislation had no mechanisms for such review, as the courts had refused for over one year to consider his complaints, alleging that they had no jurisdiction to do so. He had... | 8 |
43. The applicant also lodged other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, having regarding to the above finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, the other complaints under Article 5 of the Convention ... | 8 |
108. The applicants stated that there had been no grounds for their relatives' arrest or detention, and in particular, no reason to believe that they had committed any criminal offence. At the time of their apprehension, the Musayev brothers had been at home with other family members, had identity papers, had no firea... | 8 |
36. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a “victim” of the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention because the domestic courts had declared his detention on remand unlawful and had awarded him compensation of RUB 100,000. They stated, in particular, that the courts had found ... | 8 |
149. The Government further submitted that the domestic authorities had been obliged to hold the applicant in custody because the Strasbourg Court had applied Rule 39 and indicated to them to suspend his extradition. Referring to the Chahal case (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments... | 8 |
59. The applicant took the view that his preventive detention had violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, it had not been justified under sub-paragraph (a) of that provision. He argued, firstly, that the developments which had occurred after he had lodged his application in 2004 had to be taken into a... | 8 |
55. The Government submitted that on 12 June 2004 the District Court had taken a decision to remand the applicant in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the commission of a particularly serious criminal offence and having concluded that the applicant might abscond or otherwise obstruct the ... | 8 |
91. The applicants contended that Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by the abductors and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this connection. The applicants further contended that their relative had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in... | 8 |
269. The applicants in all cases except for Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies... | 8 |
55. The Government submitted that the Court had never found the exercise of a power to stop and search to constitute a deprivation of liberty within Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, in a number of cases the Convention organs had refused to find that restrictions on liberty far more intrusive than those at i... | 8 |
120. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be declared inadmissible, because he failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, namely to appeal against the decisions concerning the extension of his detention of 19 February, 20 March, 18 April, 14 July an... | 8 |
42. 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 |
115. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the national courts by wrongly finding that her claim for damages had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired, deprived her of the right of access to court because they had not examined her claim on the merits. She also invo... | 8 |
31. The applicant complained in general under Article <mask> of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful. The applicant maintained that he had had to enter into a written undertaking not to abscond, which violated his right to freedom of movement. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. He further complai... | 8 |
106. The Government submitted that the second applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the Constitutional Court had expressly recognised a violation of his right to liberty related to his continued pre-trial detention. According to the Government, it... | 8 |
92. The Government denied that the applicant had ever been “detained” because he had not been “arrested in procedural terms” and because no formal “detention measures” had been taken. Rather, the applicant had not been permitted to cross the Russian border and had been offered the possibility of staying in the transit... | 8 |
97. 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 |
132. The Government took the view that the Bremen Court of Appeal’s assessment of the relevant facts and interpretation of the applicable provisions of national law had not been arbitrary and that the proceedings had therefore not been unfair. They referred in this connection to their submissions concerning Article <m... | 8 |
77. The applicant submitted that special police supervision fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention and pointed out that failure to observe the rules of conduct attaching to that measure was punishable by a custodial sentence (section 9 of the 1956 Act). The restrictions imposed on him during the per... | 8 |
93. The applicant submitted that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 did not require the United Kingdom to hold him in internment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In Resolution 1546 the Security Council conferred on the United Kingdom a power, but not an obligation, to intern. As the Internat... | 8 |
153. The Government found the claim excessive and stated that no compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be awarded since neither the applicant’s nor his successor’s rights had been violated in the present case. They further submitted, however, that should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Conve... | 8 |
44. The Government contested the applicant’s argument that house arrest had constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They suggested that the measure should be examined as a restriction of freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. In any... | 8 |
52. The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention had been lawful within the meaning of the domestic law and had been justified by the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. They added that there had been “adequate” and “sufficient” grounds for the applicant’s continued detention. They thus cons... | 8 |
61. The applicant complained that the supervisory review of his release on bail conducted on 15 June 2006 and his ensuing remand in custody on 20 June 2006 had, as such, been unlawful, and that the procedure followed, in particular, the authorities’ failure to ensure his presence at the hearing, had been incompatible ... | 8 |
16. 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 proc... | 8 |
116. The applicant’s submission was that his placement in the Īle Centre together with people with mental disorders did not fall within any of the grounds on which deprivation of liberty could be justified under Article <mask> of the Convention. The domestic authorities had based their decisions to place the applicant... | 8 |
85. The Government further submitted that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of any incorrect application of the national law. The applicant had not attempted to institute criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for her detention in Dr Heines’s clinic. Her civil acti... | 8 |
19. The applicant complained that, contrary to Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, her remand in custody had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence and that the courts had failed to give any relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision. The relevant part of Article <... | 8 |
55. The Government argued that a degree of friction between the capacity available in custodial clinics and the capacity required should be regarded as acceptable, having regard to the need to manage and balance public spending. Given the twofold purpose of a TBS order, namely to provide the person concerned with care... | 8 |
65. The Government further submitted that appeal prohibitions could be set aside, in accordance with the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court (see above § 26), if a decision that was excluded from appeal concerned a person’s civil rights or obligations under Article <mask> of the Conventi... | 9 |
19. The Government submitted that, as a result of a bailiff's error in the course of the enforcement proceedings conducted in 2001, the amount of RUR 30,084, instead of being transferred to the applicant, had been used to cover the bailiffs' fees. The mistake had been rectified on 9 March 2006, when the amount was tra... | 9 |
66. The applicant submitted that once a warrant of prohibitory injunction was issued, it continued to have effect until the final outcome of the proceedings, unless it was revoked before that date. Thus, the injunction proceedings in which the warrant was granted affected the civil rights of the parties, albeit provis... | 9 |
40. The applicant complained that she had not had access to the Austrian courts in connection with her claim for payment of salary from September 1996 onwards arising out of her employment contract with the embassy of the United States of America in Vienna. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant ... | 9 |
24. The applicant company submitted that the decisions in the present case did not concern obvious mistakes. The addition of costs which had not been included in the original decisions cannot be regarded as evident. The applicant company relied on the case of Beer v. Austria in which the Court had found that the failu... | 9 |
27. The Government argued that at this preliminary stage there was no objective need for more complex reasoning by the judge rapporteur, apart from a reference to the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Law. In support the Government relied of the cases of Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) ([GC], no. 12686/03, 20 March... | 9 |
44. The applicants referred first of all to the principle established in the Court’s case-law concerning the application of Article <mask> of the Convention, to the effect that the accused must be given the opportunity to be confronted with witnesses against them and to examine them. They argued that this principle wa... | 9 |
72. The applicant complained under Article 6 that he did not understand the charges against him during his deportation. The Court notes that there were no judicial proceedings concerning the applicant’s removal from the territory of Ukraine and that any such proceedings would fall outside the scope of Article <mask> o... | 9 |
58. The Government submitted that the applicant’s ill-treatment had been the subject of a thorough investigation which resulted in the identification and punishment of the perpetrators. The punishment received by the police officers was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes which they had committed. Moreover,... | 9 |
48. The applicants complained that they had been unlawfully denied access to court and that the rejection of their claim for trespass had interfered with their property rights. They belatedly submitted comments, which, for that reason, were not admitted to the case file. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention... | 9 |
46. The Government submitted that the applicant had enjoyed full access to a court. He had been able to challenge the order for his dismissal, and the Supreme Administrative Court had, within the limits of its competence, ruled on that order’s lawfulness. The psychological assessment underpinning the order had not bee... | 9 |
45. The Government further argued that the applicant had not complained of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in the proceedings before the domestic courts. In particular, in his constitutional complaint the applicant had only complained of violations of his constitutional rights to equa... | 9 |
78. The applicants complained that the forest authority had launched a campaign against them and had fined some of them for having used their own land. Mr Aliosman Kehaya complained, in addition, that he had not been summoned to the 1998 proceedings concerning the fines against him. Mr Kestendjiev complained that he c... | 9 |
20. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention because of the refusal of the domestic courts to suspend or adjourn the criminal proceedings initiated by C.T. against him for false accusation, perjury and slander until the end of the criminal proceedings ... | 9 |
24. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that in the District Court’s decision of 18 June 2009, by which his pre-trial detention had been extended, it had been taken as established that he had committed a criminal offence, which violated his right to be presumed innocent. The relevant part of... | 9 |
27. The Government submitted that the right of access to a court was not absolute and the requirement to pay fees in connection with civil claims could not be regarded as incompatible per se with Article <mask> of the Convention. They further maintained that the fee required from the applicant in the present case had ... | 9 |
44. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in the assessment of the facts of the case and their legal qualification. He also challenged the assessment of evidence and testimony of the prosecution witness and the expert. Lastly, relying on Article 7 of... | 9 |
19. The applicant company submitted that the quashing of the judgment of 18 July 2007 had violated its right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The letter of 13 July 2007 of the Department for the Execution of Judgments had not disclosed any “new and essential facts or circumstances whi... | 9 |
25. The applicant complained that the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention had been violated and submits that the Independent Administrative Panel had applied a reversal of the burden of proof. The applicant further complained about the Austrian authorities’ failure to hear J. Z. ... | 9 |
116. The applicant complained that she had not been able to initiate compensation proceedings against the State authorities in respect of the ill-treatment and death of her son in the army because of a jurisdictional conflict between the national civil and administrative courts. She therefore complained that she had b... | 9 |
43. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied a fair trial with regard to their civil rights, as they had been refused a full legal review of the Government’s decision to permit the construction of the railway, which was situated on or close to their properties. The lat... | 9 |
37. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to the imposition of the custodial penalty on him. In particular, the applicant complained of a lack of impartiality on the part of judges in that the judges who had witnessed the impugned incident had late... | 9 |
31. The applicant contested the argument that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. He argued that even though he had not explicitly referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, he had raised such a complaint in substance before the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. The domestic courts had been aware of t... | 9 |
18. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that her right to a fair trial had been violated stating, inter alia, that she was unable to lodge an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 15 October 2007 since she could not afford the services of an advocate license... | 9 |
57. The applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court had changed its interpretation of the Salduz judgment in 2012 and 2013 (see relevant domestic law) and that different conclusions had been arrived at in such cases. He noted that these conflicting judgments ran counter to the principle of legal certainty. It wa... | 9 |
59. The Government submitted that, although the applicant had not been given the opportunity to follow the interviews of the four victims by the police and had not been able to have questions put to them, the use in evidence of these four victims' statements was not contrary to his rights under Article <mask> of the C... | 9 |
22. The Government disagreed. They emphasised that the extent to which the duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. Although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understo... | 9 |
54. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings initiated at his request were unfair and that therefore, there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to pursue criminal proceedings against third persons and that Article 6 ... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.