text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
24. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Khabarovsk courts lacked impartiality and independence and that the proceedings on his claims had been unfair and excessively long. He further complained under Articles 9, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Protocol No. 12 that he had b... | 9 |
15. The applicant complained that the non‑communication of the principal public prosecutor’s written opinion to him infringed the right to a fair trial, resulting from the failure to respect the principle of equality of arms. He further alleged that the fairness of the proceedings had been undermined by the attendance... | 9 |
60. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. In particular, they complained that costs had been unfairly ordered against them, in view of the fact that they had not been responsible for the errors committed by the first-instance court. Furthermore, they com... | 9 |
42. The Government submitted that the applicant had expressly waived his right to a lawyer and the waiver had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The domestic courts had lawfully relied on the self-incriminating statements made by the applicant and the absence of the lawyer at that time had not affe... | 9 |
31. The Government maintained that the judgment of 23 October 2000 had been reviewed by the Supreme Court by way of the cassation appeal procedure provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure and that such review therefore complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further insisted that... | 9 |
45. The Government argued that the two decisions cited above were in contradiction with each other in that the complaint under Article 6 about the fact that the applicant had been convicted under the summary procedure had been rejected by means of a decision against which no appeal lay, that being surely incompatible ... | 9 |
23. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the alleged failure to provide him with the relevant decisions concerning his son's case. The Court considers that this complaint raises essentially the same issue as that raised under Article 2 of the Convention, namely, whethe... | 9 |
73. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention. He alleged that on all seven occasions the proceedings in which he was convicted of an administrative offence fell short of the fair hearing guarantees, in particular the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceeding... | 9 |
77. The Government submitted that, in any event, the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention had not been violated. The Court of Appeal had taken evidence in compliance with the requirements of that provision. Pursuant to Article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in particular, the... | 9 |
99. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptl... | 9 |
87. The Government submitted that face-to-face meetings were prohibited in order to protect the identities and the safety of the police officers responsible for the investigation. That prohibition was offset by the verification of lawfulness carried out by the Indictments Division. The latter drew on the confidential ... | 9 |
26. The Government submitted that the applicant was not precluded from lodging an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation but there was a certain procedure envisaged by the law at the material time which should have been respected by a person willing to apply to this court. They argued that procedural requ... | 9 |
42. The applicant argued that, whenever the court authorities transmit the summons solely to counsel, the latter will bear the burden and risk of delivery, which, in the applicant’s view, would run counter to Article <mask> of the Convention. A request by counsel that the applicant be summoned in person would have bee... | 9 |
52. The applicant observed that, at the relevant time, the Constitutional Court in several restitution cases quashed judgments which had been adopted without a public hearing pursuant to section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Invoking Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article <ma... | 9 |
71. The applicant submitted that prior to July 1999 in Bulgaria there had not existed any formal remedies against the unreasonable length of civil proceedings. He further submitted that the remedy created in July 1999 – the “complaint about delays” – was not an effective one. In particular, the applicant argued that f... | 9 |
89. The Government further alleged that no evidence originating from X’s case had been used in the proceedings against the applicants. In any event, the use of evidence from the disjoined proceedings would have been lawful under Article 154 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to Article 240 of the Code whic... | 9 |
83. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptl... | 9 |
42. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, in the domestic proceedings which concluded in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 July 2002, they lacked access to a court having full jurisdiction because the domestic courts refused to review the valuation of the Prope... | 9 |
30. The Government submitted that the applicant’s failure to object to postponements of the hearings prevented him from claiming a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 337‑A). However, the Court considers that the circumstances of the pres... | 9 |
53. The Government submitted that during the hearing of 12 October 1992 Mrs M. did not complain that she had not been given an opportunity to make submissions, nor did she lodge a request to make further submissions. Similarly, she did not challenge the judge at any stage of the proceedings and during the same proceed... | 9 |
52. The Government also disputed the applicability of the civil limb of Article 6. They pointed out, primarily, that the Court could not create a substantive right which had no legal basis in the country concerned. Luxembourg domestic law did not recognise any “right” on the part of the applicant which could bring Art... | 9 |
22. The Government contested the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the proceedings on the postponement of enforcement. According to the Court's case-law, a “civil right” exists if there is a genuine and serious dispute which relates to the existence, the content or the conditions of a right and whic... | 9 |
17. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since he had ... | 9 |
82. The applicant organisation complained of a violation of a right to a fair hearing. In particular, the applicant organisation complained that the principle of equality of arms had not been respected as regards the extension of the limits of the counterclaim in the second set of proceedings. They relied on Article <... | 9 |
36. The applicant complained that lack of diligence on the part of the competent Romanian authorities in assisting him in the enforcement procedure of a judgment in his favour had infringed his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and also his right to property as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No.... | 9 |
28. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the law did not allow them to seek an increase in rent to reflect market values, thus it made them bear an excessive burden which could not be justified by any legitimate interest. Under Article <mask> of the Convention they complai... | 9 |
24. The applicant complained that in the appeal hearing of 24 April 2003 he had not been represented by counsel. As regards the new appeal hearing of 1 October 2008, he alleged that the defence provided by State-appointed counsel had not been effective; that the video link had been of poor quality and he had been unab... | 9 |
23. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue because, at the time of the events, the Court's judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007‑IV), had not yet been given and under the Pellegrin test (Pellegrin v... | 9 |
47. The applicant replied, with reference to Article 131 (f) of the Constitution and the practice of the Constitutional Court, that in order to exhaust all domestic remedies, individuals had to file a complaint with the Constitutional Court if and when they alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Indeed,... | 9 |
25. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 7 had not been brought before the constitutional jurisdictions, as the complaint before such courts had been raised solely under Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that, while it was true that the applicant had tried to amend his application befor... | 9 |
117. The applicant contended that compulsory questioning by police officers engaged the right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the purpose of the investigation was to enable the police to determine whether the person being questioned appeared to be a “terrorist”. Although the definition of... | 9 |
16. The Government further submitted that the judgment of 15 March 2004, by which the applicant had been awarded arrears in respect of food and disability allowances, and the judgment of 9 September 2004 had not been enforced because the Ministry of Finance had not allocated necessary funds to the local department of ... | 9 |
35. The Government maintained that the applicant’s representative had submitted his appeal in person to the first instance court, and that the date stamp on the appeal showed that the appeal had been submitted on 23 March 2001. The courts had therefore rejected the appeal as having not been submitted within the time-li... | 9 |
32. The applicant complained that the courts had refused his request for an alternative expert examination concerning the quality of the poppy-tar and that they had based their decisions on the expert reports produced by the same Ministry as had brought the criminal charges against him. He further complained that he h... | 9 |
90. The Government argued that according to Article 217 § 1 of the new Civil Code, the absolute nullity of an act can be invoked by any person without any limitation in time. According to them, the absolute nullity of the sale and lease was an essential premise for the admission of the Prosecutor General’s action and ... | 9 |
17. The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999‑VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been... | 9 |
53. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the Supreme Court’s refusal of 12 November 2001 to examine his cassation appeal (see paragraph 28 above). He submitted that the May 2000 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided for the possibility to leave a cassation ap... | 9 |
20. The Government submitted that the judgments of 30 June 2003, 24 March 2004 and the judgment of 8 June 2004, by which the applicant had been awarded RUB 9,494.52, had been enforced in full. They further submitted that the judgments of 1 April and 8 June 2004 had not been enforced. They acknowledged that the lengthy... | 9 |
25. The Government argued that, in the assessment of the relationship between the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and the obligation to withhold information pertaining to ongoing police operations from the parties to court proceedings, a difference should be made between the withho... | 9 |
35. The Government maintained that based on an overall assessment and in the light of the specific circumstances of the cases, the criminal charges against the applicants were determined within a reasonable time as prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They agreed that the cases were uncomplicated as concern... | 9 |
50. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgment of 3 December 2003 had been given in her absence. She further alleged that the examinations of experts had been carried out in breach of the national law, that the domestic courts had refused to assist her in collecting the evidence ... | 9 |
71. The applicant submitted that a complaint to a court about the unlawfulness of her detention would have been ineffective because the Prosecutor General's Office had a two-fold duty of making a case for holding her in custody and ensuring respect for her rights. She further complained that she had not been taken to ... | 9 |
43. The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the compensation proceedings against the law-enforcement authorities were unfair. Relying on Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants alleged that the harvest of sunflower seeds belonging to Mr... | 9 |
16. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that his guilt had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that the presiding judge had exerted undue influence on the jury and that witness Sh. had not been questioned in court. The applicant relied on... | 9 |
104. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages concerning her proprietary interests had no causal link to the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In relation to the claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Government argued that a finding of a violation would in itself con... | 9 |
38. The Government submitted that the applicant had not raised the complaints of a violation of his right to be assisted by a lawyer and of the Odessa Court’s non-compliance with the requirement of a “tribunal established by law” before the Supreme Court and had therefore not exhausted domestic remedies in that respec... | 9 |
74. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 20 November 1973 had not been enforced and that the Moldovan authorities were responsible for the non-enforcement of the 2003 judgment. He further complained under Article 2 of the Convention t... | 9 |
71. The Government contended that the complaint made under Article 6 that the constitutional jurisdictions had taken an unreasonably long time to decide the case had never been brought before the domestic courts as the applicants had failed to institute a new set of constitutional proceedings in this respect. Arguing ... | 9 |
44. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings initiated at his request were excessively long 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 parties and that A... | 9 |
60. The Government further maintained that the applicants’ employment contracts did not provide for the jurisdiction of national courts in case of a dispute. Pursuant to the Vienna Convention the Embassy had its seat in a foreign State, which had its own legal personality. They referred to section 29 of the Civil Proc... | 9 |
80. The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicants’ administrative cases had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that each applicant had been given a fair opportunity to state his case, to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf, to cross-examine the witnesses for the... | 9 |
24. The applicants complained in their submissions of 29 March 2005 that the Court of Cassation’s decision was not reasoned. They also complained that due to the fact that they were detained three hundred kilometres away from İzmir, their representative did not have the possibility to visit them regularly during the c... | 9 |
61. The applicant raised additional complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out ... | 9 |
44. The applicant contended that throughout the investigation and the court proceedings there were several periods of inactivity or almost no activity, in particular from March 1995 until June 1998; from May 2001 until September 2002; and from May 2005 until June 2006. Moreover, although not formally objecting to his ... | 9 |
27. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been given the opportunity to examine and comment on the extracts from the electoral rolls of 2006, 2008 and 2010 submitted as evidence by the Ministry of Justice and cited in its reasoning by the Administrative Court. Under the same A... | 9 |
14. The applicants complained that the authorities’ failure to comply with the binding and enforceable judgments of 27 December 2006, 2 August 2006 and 11 October 2006 had violated their right to a court under Article <mask> of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article... | 9 |
22. The applicant emphasised that the claim he had attempted to lodge against the Ministry of Finance had contained references to many procedural and substantive violations committed by the Tverskoy District and Moscow City Courts during the examination of his claim against the Savings Bank. The domestic courts may no... | 9 |
62. The Government added that it was not reasonable to require that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the higher courts had to hold an oral hearing on the specific question of whether leave to appeal should be granted in order to comply with the requirement of fairness in Article <mask> of the Conve... | 9 |
69. The Government contested the applicant’s claim, submitting that the amount was unsubstantiated and excessive. The Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction (see Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 117, ECHR 2015). It further considers that the most appropriate fo... | 9 |
33. The applicant in case no. 3159/10 also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure of the domestic authorities to enforce the judgment of 28 February 2007 providing her with a plot of land for the construction of a house. She also complained... | 9 |
22. The Government submitted that the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention should be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since tax disputes did not fall within the scope of Article 6 under its civil head (they cited Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98... | 9 |
13. The applicant complained that the appeal lodged by the State Licensing Chamber against the judgment of the Court of Appeal was late and that its upholding by the Supreme Court of Justice breached its right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, Article <mask> of the C... | 9 |
85. The applicants argued that, although they had made use of that remedy, it had finally proved to be ineffective because the examination of the applicants’ complaints was procedurally flawed. The Court would observe, however, that not every procedural shortcoming results in the “ineffectiveness” of the remedy in que... | 9 |
14. The Government submitted in the first place that the application should be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. In this respect, they referred to the Court's case-law (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 67, ECHR 1999‑VIII) and maintained that disputes relati... | 9 |
22. The Government argued that a hearing held in the absence of the defendant did not violate Article <mask> of the Convention if the defendant was not punished for his absence in the proceedings and if his right to legal assistance was not restricted, on account of the fact that the defendant was represented in the p... | 9 |
67. The Government submitted that under the Court's case-law, the guarantees contained in Article <mask> of the Convention applied less stringently to civil proceedings than to criminal proceedings and that in appellate proceedings restrictions on publicity were permissible if the circumstances of the case required. T... | 9 |
101. The applicant further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that the criminal proceedings against him had been instituted unlawfully and that his representative, B., had not been allowed to represent him. The applicant also complained, under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, that his requests to ... | 9 |
88. The applicant complained about the delayed enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. She also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings for compensation, stating that in the absence of any specific knowledge regarding military equipment or access to any information about the details of the military op... | 9 |
113. The Government contended that there was no causal link between a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the loss of income which the applicant alleged he had sustained as, in view of his financial situation, he would have been declared bankrupt in any event on account of the taxes assessed by the Tax A... | 9 |
95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptl... | 9 |
43. The Government submitted, secondly, that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings before the Supreme Court for granting a review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 December 2007 and that the present case involved no factual or legal issues liable to trigger a fresh examination by... | 9 |
61. The Government contested the applicant’s claims. They asked the Court to dismiss the applicant’s just satisfaction claims as not related to the alleged breach of the “reasonable-time requirement” under Article <mask> of the Convention. They invited the Court to consider that the finding of a violation would consti... | 9 |
38. The applicant complained that he had been unable to attend some of the civil court hearings where he was a party owing to the refusal to escort him to those hearings. He also complained of a refusal by the domestic courts to examine some of his court actions in the absence of a preliminary decision by the Complain... | 9 |
105. The Government commented that the applicant's Article 14 complaint added nothing to her complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that, if privileges are compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention alone, then they must be equally compatible wi... | 9 |
16. The Government argued that the Court could apply in the instant case the same reasoning as in the cases of Korolev v. Russia ((dec.) no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010) and Holub v. Czech Republic ((dec.) no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010) and examine the disadvantage the applicant had suffered following the alleged breach of... | 9 |
27. The Government alleged that the applicant’s right to a fair trial had not been breached. They noted that the right to take part in proceedings was not absolute. Article <mask> of the Convention did not guarantee a right to appear in person before a civil court but rather a more general right to present one’s case ... | 9 |
41. The applicant maintained that his summary trial did not comply with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. He denied that he was offered an opportunity to choose trial by court-martial. In any event, even assuming he had chosen a summary trial, he did not accept that he could be considered to ... | 9 |
47. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing. In this connection, they claimed that the domestic courts had failed to take into account the evidence in their favour and had relied solely on the incident report. They further criticised the fact that they ... | 9 |
37. The Government further argued that the Constitutional Court’s task was to determine issues of constitutional law, rather than those of civil rights and obligations. On that ground, they requested the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione materiae with Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as i... | 9 |
60. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with an interpreter to enable him to understand the accusations against him. Furthermore, the appeal proceedings had lasted an excessively long time. Moreover, the presiding judge had not conducted the hearings in an impartial manner and that the trial court h... | 9 |
20. The applicant averred that the Neryungri Town Court's judgment of 16 March 2001 had not been executed since she had not accepted the sum transferred to her on 9 March 2006. She claimed that the reopening of the enforcement proceedings in 2006 had been illegal and considered that she had therefore had no right to a... | 9 |
10. The applicant alleged that the length of the administrative proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further maintained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the default interest paid on the compensation awarded by the İstanbul Administrative Court ... | 9 |
30. The Government asserted that requiring the defendant to express a positive intention to appear was not in breach of the Convention. In that connection they pointed out that, under Italian law, the participation of the defendant in the hearing was a right rather than an obligation. In the instant case, the applican... | 9 |
68. The applicant companies further submitted that in its judgment no. 274 of 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court had not examined the constitutional legitimacy of the law on the basis of Article <mask> of the Convention, namely the principle of a fair trial as also laid down in the Italian Constitution, and therefor... | 9 |
42. The Government admitted that, in certain circumstances, the Court had indicated that the re-examination of a case or the reopening of proceedings would constitute the most effective, if not the only, means of achieving restitutio in integrum. However, they stressed that the majority of cases in which the Court had... | 9 |
15. The applicant complained that from November 2006 onwards the authorities had failed to honour the judgment of 27 October 1999 by applying a new method of index-linking in respect of the awarded amount, and from August 2009 had discontinued the payments. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 ... | 9 |
28. The applicants complain that the administrative proceedings in their cases fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing, including the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, independence and impartiality of the tribunal, and also that they had been prevented from calling and examining key witne... | 9 |
35. The applicant made several complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. In particular, he complained that (1) the record of the hearing of 5 February 2002 had been falsified, (2) he could not question witnesses K. and B. because he had been removed from the court room on 22 March 2002, (3) the tria... | 9 |
26. The Government submit in the first place that Article <mask> of the Convention does not confer the right to an appeal or an appeal in cassation. However, if such an appeal is provided for in domestic legislation, such proceedings should comply with the requirements of Article 6. In the present case, the applicant ... | 9 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the considerable loss in the market value of his apartment, caused by the inactivity of the administr... | 9 |
43. The Government, firstly, noted that enforcement of the judgment of 21 November 2001 was still possible, as the Company had not yet been liquidated. They asked the Court to dismiss the complaint as premature under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Having extensively relied on the Court’s case-law, the Government fu... | 9 |
72. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Migration Board and the Federal Administrative Court violated his right to a fair trial. The Court notes that this provision does not apply to asylum proceedings as they do not concern the determination of either civil rights or obligati... | 9 |
32. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings in her case and that they were unfair. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention she complained that in March 2002 her advocate had refused to represent her before the Court of Appeal. She also complained under ... | 9 |
49. The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment delivered in her favour on 21 September 1993, in which the authorities had been ordered to pay her salary arrears, had breached Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She also complained that she did not have an e... | 9 |
22. The applicant complained about non-enforcement of the judgments of the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region of 23 July 1998, 22 April 1999 and 20 January 2000, and the judgment of the Federal Commercial Court of the Far-Eastern Circuit of 18 October 2004. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Arti... | 9 |
27. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of... | 9 |
27. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgments of 18 December 1997 and 12 February 1999 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 13 December 2000. She asserted that she had not been informed about the supervisory review proceedings, or present at the subsequent hearings ... | 9 |
19. The Government claimed that the applicant had not exhausted relevant domestic remedies. First, he had never raised before the domestic courts allegations regarding the unfairness of the proceedings as presented in his subsequent application to the Court. In particular, the applicant had not questioned the alleged ... | 9 |
244. The applicant argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that, as a result of the absence of an impartial and effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband's death, she had been denied effective access to the courts to determine her civil right to compensation for his murder allegedly committed... | 9 |
16. The Government maintained that the additional compensation had been fully paid on 4 November 2002 and 22 May 2007 whereas the applicant had omitted to mention the second payment in his complaints. In addition the applicant had not suffered any material loss as a result of the interest rates applied and the authori... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.