text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
72. The Government disagreed with these statements and submitted that the possibility to set aside an appeal prohibition, if the decision concerned a person’s civil rights or obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, was firmly established in the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative C... | 9 |
18. The applicant complained about the unfairness of the lustration proceedings, the infringement of his right of defence and the lack of equality of arms. In particular, he alleged that the material in his case had been classified as confidential, which had limited his right of access to it. Before the institution of... | 9 |
44. The Government maintained that the impugned proceedings were both factually and legally complex, requiring a number of witnesses and expert witnesses to be heard. In particular, five expert opinions had been given during the period of the Court’s competence ratione temporis, all of them upon the applicant’s propos... | 9 |
55. The Government maintained that the facts in dispute had no bearing on the applicant's civil rights; they concerned criminal proceedings against him. As those proceedings had been stayed, there could be no question of any violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial. That being so, at this stage in the domest... | 9 |
80. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right not to incriminate himself had been violated. He also complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) that he had been denied access to a lawyer during the first two days after his arrest and that his lawyers had not defended his rights properly. Las... | 9 |
24. 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 |
32. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the trial court had not been independent and impartial. They further complained about the failure of the domestic courts to suspend the pronouncement of their conviction and to provide reasoning for their decisions. The applicants also complaine... | 9 |
31. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had assessed the evidence in an arbitrary manner and had failed to resolve contradictions in the testimonies. She also complained under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention that she had been refused access to her crimin... | 9 |
95. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she suffered an inequality of arms during the civil proceedings because the courts, without sufficient reasoning, dismissed her request that they order a forensic assessment of a piece of evidence; that the decision of the Senate of the Supr... | 9 |
17. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the fact that the written opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had never been served on him and of the decision to discontinue the proceedings, as he had thereby... | 9 |
13. The Government contested the applicants' assertions. They argued that for the purpose of Article <mask> of the Convention the criminal proceedings commenced only when the applicants were charged on 5 and 12 February 2002. Thus, the Government considered that they had lasted for a little less than two years. Accord... | 9 |
58. The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court had actually re-examined his case, despite not being empowered to do so under the extraordinary review procedure envisaged by Article 400 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stressed repeatedly that the sufficiency of the evidence could not be assessed independe... | 9 |
52. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. He submitted that the courts did not properly assess the evidence before them and that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court did not correct the wrong decisions by the First Instance Court. He also sub... | 9 |
71. The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention of various irregularities in the proceedings concerning his requests to have criminal proceedings instituted against the witness who had given allegedly false oral evidence incriminating him. He also alleged that in its lette... | 9 |
47. The Government first argued that the Supreme Administrative Court satisfied all the requirements of a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They asserted that in the case under consideration the scope of judicial review, limited under the applicable domestic legislation to ensuring tha... | 9 |
49. The Government agreed that the offence of which the applicant was accused qualified as “criminal” for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they disputed the applicant's contention that she had not been summonsed to attend the hearing of her appeal and sent the Court a letter dated 21 May 2005... | 9 |
87. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which tried him. He further alleged under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he had been deprived of... | 9 |
34. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly applied substantive law. She finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts had refused to index-link the amount of compensation for the delayed payment of her salary. Having regard t... | 9 |
66. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that the domestic courts had violated his right not to incriminate himself and had had regard to his confession given under duress, that the trial court had not provi... | 9 |
89. The applicant considered that the proceedings in which the Criminal Court had been asked to convert the fine into a term of imprisonment fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged furthermore that a violation of the latter provision taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention,... | 9 |
32. The Government, relying on the Court’s judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999‑VIII), argued that the applicants’ complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention were incompatible ratione materiae because the applicants were former police officers and the awards made by the cou... | 9 |
38. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the length of their detention in police custody. Under Article <mask> of the Convention they further maintained that the first-instance court had been unduly influenced by prejudicial reports prepared by the police and that the indictment contained... | 9 |
15. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic judicial authorities had not assessed the facts of his case thoroughly and they had only taken into account the arguments of the administrative authorities. The applicant further contended that hi... | 9 |
31. The applicant maintained that his acquittal should not prevent the application from being examined. The acquittal had no bearing on the fact that the Italian procedure in such matters, as applied in the initial set of proceedings in his case, was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, the da... | 9 |
64. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings before the national courts had been unfair. She claimed, in particular, that, whereas the Moscow Housing Department had explicitly acknowledged that she had bought the flat in good faith (see paragraph 28 above), the domes... | 9 |
34. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property and had not received adequate compensation for the violation of this provision upheld by the Constitutional Court. They alleged a violation of their right under Article <mask> of t... | 9 |
40. The Government maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s exceptional appeal. They argued that the Supreme Court’s decision of 14 March 2008, rejecting her first appeal, had been an interim one and had not determined her civil rights or obligatio... | 9 |
29. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the principal of the school classified him in the wrong pay grade. He also complained that by upholding the principal’s decision the domestic courts were biased and the proceedings unfair. He further complained that as a consequence his rights un... | 9 |
32. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that no oral hearing was held before a “tribunal” and that the Administrative Court had wrongly applied its own case-law. The applicant further complained under Articles 13 and 14 that neither the Constitutional Court nor the Administrative Court had ... | 9 |
18. The applicant company submitted that the quashing of the judgment of 19 June 2002 had violated its right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Interpretation Act had not been able to have retroactive effect and the use of it by the Supreme Court of Justice for the purpose of review... | 9 |
23. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention that their conviction following the publication of a newspaper article had not been fair and had amounted to unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers th... | 9 |
108. The applicant claimed 150,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which he argued to have suffered because his conviction in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention had resulted in the loss of his apartment due to the fact that he had not been able to pay the bank loan, and because he also had had to p... | 9 |
21. The Government submitted firstly that this complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant association had failed to demonstrate the “economic nature” of the dispute which it had brought before the Conseil d’Etat, with the result that the dispute co... | 9 |
31. The applicants complained that different conclusions reached by different courts were not compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that the inability of the children to see each other, and that ordering the first applicant to pay maintenance to his ex-wife in respect of his daughter becau... | 9 |
47. The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention concerned the execution of the judgment delivered by the Court in the case of Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1) (nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, ECHR 2001‑VIII). They submitted, with reference to the cas... | 9 |
122. The applicant submitted that his inability to question some of the witnesses was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. According to the applicant, the evidence given by witnesses R. and B. was clearly inadmissible as it was unclear which authority, when and on what grounds had ordered to interrogate these... | 9 |
27. The applicant also claimed that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that under Moldovan law it was impossible for him to adduce evidence in support of his claim to have his ethnic origin changed from Moldovan to Romanian. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far ... | 9 |
73. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the voice identification was ordered and carried out in breach of the relevant procedural rules. They also complained that the trial court refused to hear a further witness and to examine further material evidence. The applicants maintai... | 9 |
28. The Government, relying on the Court’s judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII), argued that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible ratione materiae. The applicant had been a military officer and the dispute concerned an allowance p... | 9 |
45. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and submitted that in the circumstances of the case she had been deprived of access to court. There had been over the years successive changes in the case-law of the civil and administrative courts as to which authorities, judicial or administrative, were comp... | 9 |
103. The Government claimed that the court of appeal had had to comply with the requirements of Article 376 of the CCrP before starting the examination of the case. They appear to have been referring to the duty of the court to give the parties two weeks’ advance notice of the upcoming appeal hearing. However, the fac... | 9 |
38. The Government stated that the proceedings in the applicant’s case were administrative and that the domestic law made a clear distinction between a criminal and an administrative offence. They submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case, as the proceedings against the app... | 9 |
49. The Government argued that the recent case-law of the Court suggested that the severity of a penalty was the decisive element in determining whether related proceedings fell under the criminal limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant, who was running a business, had not incurred any particular disad... | 9 |
32. The Government built their argument along two lines. They firstly submitted that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had petitioned the appeal court for their personal attendance at the appeal hearing. Relying on Article 376 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the Government stressed that in the absence of... | 9 |
21. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that State-appointed counsel, P., who had represented him before the trial and appeal courts, had failed to carry out her duties properly. In particular, she had not appealed against the verdict of 1 March 2005 and had not attended the appeal hearing ... | 9 |
76. The Government noted that there had been no causal link between the pecuniary damage accrued and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. No compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded under this heading. In the event of a violation being found under Article 10, the Government pointed out... | 9 |
23. The applicant also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, together with Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the forced redemption of her 1982 USSR bonds in 1992. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its co... | 9 |
32. The Government, however, maintained that a judge’s status and right to stay in office were unique and could not possibly be equated with “ordinary labour disputes”, as pointed out by the Court in the above-mentioned judgment (cited above, § 62). Moreover, it could be argued that the right of access to a court unde... | 9 |
60. The Government argued that, in so far as the applicant could be said to be wishing to challenge the enforcement proceedings under Article <mask> of the Convention, his complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the requirements of the Convention and its Protocols. Moreover, as regards all of these remaining ... | 9 |
77. The applicant alleged that not a single witness called on behalf of the defence was heard in the proceedings before the National Judicial Council. The Court reiterates that while Article <mask> of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence... | 9 |
31. The applicants complained that they had been tried and convicted by the Ankara State Security Court which was not an independent and impartial court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because of the presence of a military judge on the bench. They further complained that they had been deprived of... | 9 |
39. The Government contended that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they did not complain about the alleged unreasonable length of the proceedings before the national courts. The applicants’ argument before the domestic courts had been that the Crown Court had lost its jurisdiction to impose co... | 9 |
99. The applicant contended that he had not had a fair trial in the proceedings before the supervisory-review court. The applicant stated that he had been deprived of an opportunity to appear in person and to submit arguments. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the prosecution had participated in ... | 9 |
36. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been convicted on the basis of statements extracted from her under duress and alleged that she 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 ... | 9 |
134. The applicant also claimed that she had been denied a fair trial in that the expert appointed by the Court of Appeal had proved to be incompetent and in that the Court of Appeal had wrongly assessed his opinion. With respect to this, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or ... | 9 |
33. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the respondent State, by expropriating the plot for the company’s benefit, deprived them of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Dolenec v. ... | 9 |
25. The applicant argued that, in the absence of express exclusion of access to a court for legal disputes of civil servants, the issue was not excluded from the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, she submitted that a labour dispute related to the dismissal of a civil servant inevitably carried pe... | 9 |
62. The applicant contended that Article <mask> of the Convention had been engaged as from 15 January 2010 when the PRC had first met. At that point he had de jure become a suspect in an investigation which could result in a proposal from the PRC to Parliament to indict him. Alternatively, he maintained that Article 6... | 9 |
34. The Government argued that for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention the criminal proceedings commenced only on 25 February 2003 when the applicant was charged for the first time and that the signing of the declaration for the applicant’s income and possessions was not sufficient to consider that crimin... | 9 |
110. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been deprived of the right to a fair trial in the criminal and civil proceedings, stating that the domestic courts had erred in their assessment of the evidence and had refused to examine further evidence in his favour. He also complained... | 9 |
98. The Government further stated, with reference to Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by a Decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 February 2000, that the summoning of parties to a supervisoryreview hearing remained at the discretion of the relevant court, provided the review procedure was ... | 9 |
60. The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention referring to various aspects of his trial. He referred to his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearing, the intensive schedule of hearings, and alleged that he had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparat... | 9 |
26. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings at issue and the discontinuation of criminal proceedings instituted against the defendant doctor. Relying on Articles 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention she also complained that the Regional Court had not ... | 9 |
80. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 14 taken either in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or taken in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. She maintained that the reasoning underlying section 53(3)(a) of the General Social Security Act, namely that claims against employers en... | 9 |
32. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a number of procedural irregularities. In particular, he complained about the failure to conduct an expert medical examination on him during the preliminary investigation so as to determine whether he could have committed the offence, taking int... | 9 |
45. The applicants complained under Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention about the refusal of the domestic courts to recognise the applicant association as a religious entity in both the recognition and registration proceedings. They also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as no oral hearing ha... | 9 |
35. The Government submitted that the refusal to take evidence in the proceedings was in compliance with both the relevant requirements laid down by Polish law and with the requirements of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government's submission, and as regards the evidence... | 9 |
59. The Government observed that the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in cases where a defendant's failure to appear at the trial had been governed by the former Code of Criminal Procedure (they cited Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; T. v. Italy, 12 October 1992, Seri... | 9 |
85. The Government contested the allegation that the proceedings in this administrative case had been conducted in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity to state his case, to obtain the attendance of thirteen witnesses on his behalf, to cross-exami... | 9 |
87. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. They referred to the absence of legal counsel during their initial interrogations; the trial court's reliance on the second applicant's confession allegedly made under duress at the pre-tria... | 9 |
22. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings at issue were unfair in that he had not been summoned to the hearing before the District Administrative Authority and could, therefore, not sufficiently prepare his case. Furthermore the Administrative Authority did not record all... | 9 |
42. The Government submitted that the proceedings at issue did not determine any criminal charge against the applicant within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing issues relating to the execution of se... | 9 |
42. The applicant argued that his right to fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated on account of his inability to examine the prosecution witness, Ms K., and the use of her pre-trial testimony for his conviction. In his opinion, her testimony should not have been read out and used in view o... | 9 |
5. The applicant complains, inter alia, about a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 58 of the judgment suggests that the main reason for finding a violation is a lack of clear rules concerning the enforcement of final judgments delivered by the administrative courts. I note in this respect that the enforcement of judgme... | 9 |
33. The Government considered that there had been no violation of the applicant company’s rights. Article <mask> of the Convention left a wide margin of appreciation to States in organising their judicial systems. Article 6 did not guarantee an absolute right of access to court and it could legitimately be restricted,... | 9 |
115. The applicant’s case was examined in an expedited procedure under the CAO: in cases concerning an administrative charge for an offence punishable by administrative detention, the police were to transmit the administrative offence file to a court immediately after having compiled it, and the court was to examine t... | 9 |
12. 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 was a mi... | 9 |
17. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the act of quashing of the final judgments of 24 August and 17 October 2000 had violated her “right to a court”. She also complained that she had not been able to effectively participate at the supervisory-review hearing. The relevant part of Arti... | 9 |
49. The Government considered that the bench of the Court of Appeal that declared inadmissible the applicant company’s request for a retrial had been an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They underlined that there were no elements to call into question the personal impartiality... | 9 |
44. The Government also submitted that the civil aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in respect of the relevant domestic proceedings under the CAO. The criminal limb of Article 6 was also inapplicable, since Russian law made no provision for free legal assistance in CAO proceedings. However, th... | 9 |
43. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had not ensured his attendance at the hearings in the proceedings against the Bayil Prison authorities concerning his complaint of lack of adequate medical assistance. He maintained that his presence would have been particular... | 9 |
103. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) that the criminal proceedings initiated against him on 18 July 2005 for forgery of documents had been unfair. The Court observes that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention wh... | 9 |
18. The Government further pleaded that the quashing of the judgment in the applicants’ criminal case for reasons of the differences between the two copies of the judgment would not be justified. It would involve summoning witnesses, victims and other participants to the proceedings for the fresh examination of the ca... | 9 |
39. The applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial on account of the absence of a lawyer during their time in police custody and the use by the trial court of their statements and other evidence taken in the absence of a lawyer to convict them. They also complained that the criminal proceedings against t... | 9 |
110. The applicant organisation alleged that there had been a number of separate violations of Article <mask> of the Convention in the 1998-2000 proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. It also considered that the events complained of disclosed discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention since ... | 9 |
22. The Government acknowledged that there was a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in favour of Mr Timofeyev. As regards the situation of Mrs Kiryushkina, they accepted their liability only for the period of non-enforcement lasting until 10 March 2005, ... | 9 |
36. The applicant complained that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to duly notify him of the date and place of the appeal hearing in the civil proceedings relating to the conditions of his detention. He also co... | 9 |
55. The applicant company said that the reduction in value of its shareholding had been an ongoing process. Although the first two stages in that process had taken place before 11 September 1997, the third had not begun until 18 November 1997. From that date onwards, its shareholding had fallen in total from 49% to 20... | 9 |
73. The Government, however, maintained that the applicant had had access to a court affording him a fair hearing that satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and in which his right to be presumed innocent in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Article was respected. They claimed that even in th... | 9 |
31. The Government submitted that the judgment of 1 June 2001 had been enforced by 23 March 2003 and that the judgment of 27 April 2002 had been enforced on 13 May 2003. They admitted that the delayed enforcement of the judgments constituted a violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention ... | 9 |
18. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing was breached since he was tried and convicted by a State Security Court. He further submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus deprivin... | 9 |
68. The Government objected that the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply ratione materiae to the proceedings commenced by the mother’s petition of 31 August 2010 for an order governing the exercise of parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child (see paragraphs 8 to 10 above) a... | 9 |
15. 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 |
85. The Government invited the Court to conclude that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular having in mind the time elapsed after the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Croatia. They submitted that the cases disclosed factual com... | 9 |
50. The Government lastly submitted that although in the past the Court had not excluded that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article <mask> of the Convention by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive had suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting... | 9 |
44. The Government accepted that Article 6 § 1 is applicable to the proceedings where the applicant had sought the return of his passport. In this respect they agreed that the applicant's claim concerned a determination of his civil rights since it had been directed at a return of the applicant's property, i.e. his pa... | 9 |
17. The Government argued in all but two cases (Sobakar and Sereda) that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the domestic litigations at issue as the applicants were on service in the Russian military forces at the material time. They supported their argument by reference to the special jurisdiction... | 9 |
28. The Government submitted that the applicants had lost their victim status following the Constitutional Court judgment which found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which in their view the latter court had been examining together, and owing to its awa... | 9 |
32. The applicant first complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. Secondly, he claimed that the court had been influenced by the Army si... | 9 |
37. The Government pointed out that it was in the first place for the national judicial authorities to ensure that the requirements of a fair hearing were satisfied. They submitted that, in the circumstances of the present case, the refusal to take evidence did not amount to a disproportionate restriction on the appli... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.