text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
71. The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences that they had been incited by the police to commit and that their plea of entrapment had not been properly examined in the domestic proceedings, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. These complaints fall to be examined un... | 9 |
17. The applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 January and 14 December 1999 and that of 6 June 2000 violated his right of access to a court enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.... | 9 |
134. The applicant alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention on behalf of her son on the ground that he had not had a trial before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in the event that the Government were to claim that the arrest and detention of her son were lawful and that he was gui... | 9 |
47. The applicants further complained of the fact that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In this connection, they complained about the structure of the State Security Court and the links between the judges sitting on the bench of this court and the Supreme Council of Judges and ... | 9 |
116. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the charges against him and that he had been deprived of his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. Although he had been unable to defend himself, he had not been appointed a law... | 9 |
26. The Government admitted that the fact that the same judge had sat twice as a judge of the Supreme Court in the same criminal case was contrary to the domestic law. However they submitted that, having regard to the specific facts of the case at hand, the rights of the applicant guaranteed under Article <mask> of th... | 9 |
48. The applicant submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as neither the prosecution in seeking to adduce the tape recordings into evidence nor the judge in ruling them admissible had provided a good reason for Mr Pearman’s non-attendance at court. In Al‑Khawaja and Tahery v. the ... | 9 |
21. The Government argued that delays in the examination of the applicant's case had been caused by the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. According to them, the applicant had repeatedly amended and supplemented his claims with the result that the first-instance court had had to spend time on studying... | 9 |
24. The applicants argued that their case was the same as the case of Suda v. the Czech Republic, cited above, where the Court found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the account of lack of access to court. They maintained that they had also not consented to arbitration and that the arbitration procee... | 9 |
157. The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicant’s administrative case had complied with 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 three witnesses on his behalf and to present other evidence. The... | 9 |
75. The Government contested the claims. They proposed that the Court conclude that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. In addition, relying on several earlier judgments of the Court, including Dvorski v. Croatia [GC] (no. 25703/11, § 117, ECHR 2015) and Ibr... | 9 |
17. The Government did not contest the applicant's claims. They referred to insufficient funding of the social-security authorities as the reason for the failure to comply with the judgment of 6 March 2000. They admitted that the delayed enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour constituted a violation of ... | 9 |
117. The Government submitted that the applicant’s criminal case had been heard in compliance with the requirements of Section 51 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and that Article <mask> of the Convention in its criminal limb was inapplicable to these proceedings. In the latter connection, they referred to th... | 9 |
156. The Government of Cyprus made observations similar to those of the applicants. They submitted that given the existing legal and political context and the circumstances in which the first applicant had been abducted, detained and tried as a hostage as part of a State policy, it would have been unrealistic to expec... | 9 |
81. The Government maintained that the restrictions imposed on the applicant had been necessary in a democratic society. The means employed had been proportionate to the aims pursued. The authorities were under a positive obligation to provide an effective mechanism for the enforcement of judgments debts to be paid by... | 9 |
22. The applicant contested the Government’s argument. Relying on the Court’s case-law, he argued that Article <mask> of the Convention applied to all stages of criminal proceedings, including the proceedings whereby a sentence is fixed (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 39, ECHR 2001‑VII). In the ap... | 9 |
48. The Government reiterated that the case did not concern the determination of the applicant's civil rights or obligations within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Hence, she could not derive a right of access to a court from this provision. The Polish authorities had never accepted the obligation to ... | 9 |
34. The applicant maintained that the failure to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008 had constituted a violation of her Convention rights. By its judgment of 30 July 2008, the Administrative Court had obliged the Mayor’s office to conclude the agreement mentioned in the decision of 10 October 2002 no. 1785-A with the... | 9 |
65. The applicant also complained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 and 7 of the Convention about a lack of a fair trial and a violation of the legality principle in respect of the embezzlement charges. He complained that, as far as he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and bookkeeping crime as a representative of the co... | 9 |
39. The applicant complained of the lack of legal assistance during his questioning by the police on 17 December 2009 and of the lack of effective legal assistance before the investigating judge on 18 December 2009. He further complained that the Court of Appeal, and later the Court of Cassation, had failed to provide... | 9 |
28. The applicant contended that he did not have a fair trial in the proceedings before the supervisory review court. In his view, he had faced a new charge. He was informed of the proceedings and the contents of the Deputy President's request too late. The applicant stated that he had been deprived of an opportunity ... | 9 |
39. The applicant alleged under Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 13 of the Convention that he had been detained under a prison regime from 28 July to 9 August 2005 and from 22 to 30 September 2005 in contravention of the applicable domestic regulations. He further complained under Articles 5 § 1 (c), 8 and 13 of the Convention ... | 9 |
25. The applicants also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of unfairness of the supervisory-review proceedings. However, in their later observations they did not appear to maintain this complaint. Given the Court’s finding that the applicants’ right to a court was violated by the ... | 9 |
32. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by the final judgment of 4 December 2002 the domestic court incorrectly resolved her case and rejected her claim for non-pecuniary damage. She further complained that the courts had ordered that the award of the arrears should have been paid from... | 9 |
29. The applicant company complained that the domestic court’s retrospective application of legislation which had specifically aimed to protect the party unlawfully using its trademark had unlawfully restricted its use of its property, specifically its registered trademark. It alleged a violation of its rights under A... | 9 |
67. The applicant claimed that her husband's detention was not attributable to any of the exhaustive purposes listed under Article 5 and hence unlawful. Under the same provision, the applicant contended that none of the guarantees listed under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 were respected. The applicant stated under Article <ma... | 9 |
77. The applicants complained in the first place that they 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 Diyarbakır State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since... | 9 |
53. The applicant reiterated that her application only concerned the search of her law office, not seizure of items. There were no explicit or, for that matter, any provisions or case-law even suggesting that a person subject to a search could have access to a court in order to challenge that search. It was true that ... | 9 |
43. The applicant company complained that the judgments by which the Prosecutor General's actions were upheld had had the effect of infringing its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant argued that the interference was not provided by l... | 9 |
26. The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Family Court and Family Court of Appeal were unfair and thus in violation of her right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained that the failure of the Court of Appeal to properly consider her appeal meant she wa... | 9 |
2. The applicant newspaper Flux submitted complaints relating to two violations of Article <mask> of the Convention. The majority declared inadmissible the first complaint on the lack of independence and impartiality of Judge I.M. A second complaint regarding the alleged failure of the domestic courts to give reasons ... | 9 |
32. The Government submitted that the applicant's acquittal following the retrial meant that his application no longer raised a live issue and that he had ceased to be a “victim”. They asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in th... | 9 |
55. The applicant further submitted that the supervisory review court determined issues of both law and fact. In this connection, he claimed that, depending on the amount of drugs concerned, the unlawful procurement of drugs was punishable either as a criminal offence or as an administrative offence subject to a light... | 9 |
49. The applicant submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as the Court of Appeal had relied on the pre-trial statements of witnesses L.G., A.A., A.B. and A.At. in its judgment. This evidence, although used by the Court of Appeal to substantiate the finding of her guilt, had not be... | 9 |
39. The Government argued that the sum claimed by the applicant was excessive in view of the financial situation of the country. In the Government’s view, the mere finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. In any event, there was no causal link between the alleged violation of Article <mas... | 9 |
18. The Government did not dispute the applicability of Article 6 to the present case. For its part, the Court recalls that it has already established that “in principle, the general character of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“the CAO”) and the purpose of the penalties, which are both deterrent and punitive, su... | 9 |
46. The Government maintained that, in so far as the applicant complained about the length of the court proceedings, she could introduce a complaint concerning the delay in the proceedings with the Regional Court, relying directly on Article <mask> of the Convention, and the court would have to react to it. As an exam... | 9 |
51. The applicant appears to argue that she was compelled to assume liability for crimes allegedly committed by her late husband who had not been convicted. In this context, the Court recalls that it is a fundamental rule of criminal law that criminal liability does not survive the person who has committed the crimina... | 9 |
129. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to a fair and public hearing during the appellate proceedings had been restricted, that he had been unable to obtain examination of witnesses prepared to testify on his behalf, and that the court had been biased in favour of the prosec... | 9 |
41. The Government submitted at the outset that Article <mask> of the Convention under its “criminal head” was not applicable to the confiscation procedure at issue. In the criminal proceedings against the criminal organisation led by M.S., in which the confiscation of the applicant’s property had been imposed, the ap... | 9 |
40. The Government also contended that legal aid had been granted to both applicants when they had complained of a violation of their right to a fair trial and about not being provided with legal aid. Moreover, they stated that the requirement to be assisted by a lawyer in the cassation proceedings was not contrary to... | 9 |
57. The applicant further argued that the Supreme Administrative Court should have granted him a hearing since the Administrative Court of Appeal had refused him one and it was in the interest of the fairness of the proceedings that he be granted one. In his view, an oral hearing would not have been unnecessary and th... | 9 |
60. The Government distinguished the present case from that of P.S. v. Germany (no. 33900/96, 20 December 2001), the four victims having given statements independently of each other concerning the same suspect and similar acts, which statements corroborated one another. In the opinion of the domestic judicial authorit... | 9 |
27. The Government argued that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. As regards the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention, they referred to the cases of Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands (dec. nos. 19005/91 and 19006/91, 9 December 1994); Pančenko v.... | 9 |
29. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the final appeal judgment of 3 August 2004 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 7 October 2004. Mr Kucherov also complained that the judgment of 6 July 2004 and the appeal judgment of 17 August 2004 were quashed via supervisory revie... | 9 |
60. The Government argued that the applicant's “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention were not at stake in the proceedings in question. Referring to the Court's judgment in Ferrazzini v. Italy ([GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001-VII) and previous judgments by the Court concern... | 9 |
47. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair in so far as his conviction had been based on the confession of 22 March 2005 obtained from him under duress and when he had had no legal representation. The Court will examine his complaint un... | 9 |
65. The applicant argued that at the time of the facts, police practice was not to admit solicitors to attend with an accused person during police interviews. To vindicate his Constitutional right to a trial in due process of law and his right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention, the State ought to ... | 9 |
40. The applicant submitted that his application had been originally based on Article <mask> of the Convention and that, from this point of view, his wife’s salary had no significance for revocation of his retirement pension. He further noted that he had lodged the application himself, without the assistance of a prof... | 9 |
26. The applicant submitted that the present case resembles the case Yavuz against Austria (no. 46549/99, 27 May 2004) where the Court found a violation because of a lack of personal hearing of the applicant before the IAP. The facts of the present case were even more blatant, as the applicant not only did not know ab... | 9 |
29. The applicant raised several complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the criminal proceedings against him. He firstly alleged that the Gabrovo Regional Court had appointed counsel for him with such short notice before the hearing that she had been unable to defend him effectively. He secon... | 9 |
57. The applicants complained that the courts decided arbitrarily in the 1997-2000 proceedings, disregarding the judgments of 1995 and 1996 and thus in violation of one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law – the final nature of judicial decisions. The applicants also submitted that they had been deprived o... | 9 |
22. The applicant submits under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing as the domestic courts erred in their assessment of the facts. The applicant argues that the same court, namely the Supreme Administrative Court, examined both the requests for leave to appeal and for rectification of th... | 9 |
49. The Government agreed with the applicants that the fines in question had constituted penalties and that the offences committed by the applicants should be considered “criminal” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. This had also been acknowledged by the Supreme Court. The Government furthermore a... | 9 |
99. The Government submitted that the applicant had not been subjected to ill-treatment while in custody and that his statements could therefore not be considered as having been obtained under duress. They noted in this connection that at the end of the criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers, it h... | 9 |
56. The applicant considered that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. He contended that meeting the conditions for the reopening of the proceedings as suggested by the Government would be possible only if he came to Croatia and sought a retrial, which would mean that he would be arrested and impri... | 9 |
19. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention inter alia that the Court of Appeal was biased, in that the Chairman of the Court of Appeal made a comment which displayed actual or apparent bias in favour of the prosecution; that it failed to conduct a full oral hearing, re-hearing only eight ... | 9 |
100. The Government argued that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had not been upset. They submitted that the decision to close the trial to the public was aimed at ensuring the safety of the victim of the applicant’s crime, and was justified by the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. ... | 9 |
22. The applicant complained that he had been denied effective access to the Supreme Court, in that his legal-aid lawyer had refused to lodge a cassation appeal in his case and he had not had a possibility to have a cassation appeal lodged by another lawyer. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant... | 9 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings concerning her initial dismissal were unfair. She stated in particular that the District Court, when hearing her case in the second set of proceedings, was, contrary to domestic law, composed of the same single judge as in the fir... | 9 |
48. The Government submitted that the lustration proceedings in the applicant’s case had been in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had used all available means in the administrative proceedings to contest the initial findings of the Commission. That the courts had not given ... | 9 |
11. The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 September 1998 given in his favour, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedies in respect of the abov... | 9 |
52. The Government argued that the Supreme Court had acknowledged that the District Court procedure had been flawed and not in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the applicants’ access to the appeal procedure before the Supreme Court had not in any way been limited on the gr... | 9 |
49. The Government further contended that the applicants had merely repeated the objections already presented in the course of the administrative proceedings, without submitting any new evidence, which they had also failed to do at the hearing before the Varaždin County Court. The County Court, finding that the admini... | 9 |
19. The Government considered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been conducted in strict compliance with the domestic rules of criminal procedure and disclosed no violation of the applicant’s rights set out in Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Government pointed out that the applicant h... | 9 |
37. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court, instead of referring the case to a trial court for fresh consideration, had reassessed the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do so. The applicant further complained under the same provision that h... | 9 |
60. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing as he had not been properly defended by a lawyer and that he had not been able to question certain witnesses or to obtain the appearance of witnesses on his behalf. The relevant parts of Articl... | 9 |
41. The Government considered that Article <mask> of the Convention was only applicable in the present case from the moment when the applicant had been formally charged with the murder of Mrs K. on 25 February 2002. In their opinion, the investigative procedures that had been conducted with the participation of the ap... | 9 |
14. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the appeal judgment of 2 April 2004 had been quashed by way of supervisory review on 23 September 2004 and that the supervisory-review hearing had been unfair because he had not been informed about it and the... | 9 |
26. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the judicial authorities’ failure to inform him of the date and place of the appeal hearing and the resultant violation of the principle of equality of arms. He also complained that the reclassification of the offence by the trial court from acc... | 9 |
34. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings before the Croatian Health Insurance Fund. Those proceedings had not involved any contentious issue between two conflicting parties. In the Government’s view, Article 6 of the Convention could be applicable to proce... | 9 |
23. The Government submitted that all four applicants had been duly notified of the forthcoming appellate hearings, and that Article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 16 above) allowed the courts to proceed with examination of appeals in their absence. By contrast with criminal proceedings, civil dispu... | 9 |
149. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about a denial of access to a court on account of the suspension in the functioning of the courts in Chechnya from October 1999 until January 2001, the unreasonable length of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 14 February 2001 ... | 9 |
84. The Government of Serbia and Montenegro added that the underlying explanation for Article <mask> of the Convention was to be found in the principle of the rule of law enunciated in Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. They said that it would be difficult to envisage that principle being applied witho... | 9 |
29. The applicant complained that his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been infringed by the use of the confession extracted from him as a result of coercion in police custody, during which he had been denied access to a lawyer. He further contended that his conviction had bee... | 9 |
15. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that while assessing the disciplinary proceedings, the domestic courts had delivered their decisions on the basis of the case files without holding hearings. He maintained that he had been deprived of his right to defend himself in person or t... | 9 |
71. The Government argued that the applicants' “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention were not at stake in the proceedings in question. Referring to the Court's judgment in the Ferrazzini case (Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, to be published in ECHR 2001-VII) and ... | 9 |
47. The applicant argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in that she had not been invited to take part in the court proceedings involving the determination of her civil rights and obligations. As she had been a minor at the time when the criminal proceedings had been brought before the court, t... | 9 |
26. The applicant disagreed. He argued that the relevant regulation applicable to court record keeping was not the list of standard documents relied on by the Government, but the instructions governing documentation and record keeping at the administrative courts (see paragraph 15 above). He referred to provisions of ... | 9 |
97. The applicants replied that had the Agency acted in accordance with the law they would have had the building permit by 8 August 2005 at the latest and there would have been no need for the court proceedings which followed. They also maintained that the 2006 DUP no longer provided for construction of the initially ... | 9 |
47. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the quashing of the judgments of 27 June and 15 August 2001 by way of supervisory review. The Court observes that the supervisory review took place on 14 October and 11 February 2002 respectively, while the above complaint was first raised ... | 9 |
14. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 September 2001, as upheld on appeal on 9 January 2002, violated his right to a court under Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts o... | 9 |
56. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the respondent State had failed to enforce a final and enforceable decision of 16 May 1994 rendered in his favour and that he had been unable to obtain payment of the difference between the pensio... | 9 |
42. The applicants contested the Government’s public policy argument, asserting that the interests in an effective prosecution of traffic offences could not justify curtailing the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, which were core contents of the notion of a fair trial. Moreover, the exampl... | 9 |
39. The Government did not explicitly contest the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention. They rather argued that the text of the police decision reflected a state of suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence and could not in the circumstances be considered to be a statement of fact or o... | 9 |
34. The applicant claimed that Article 6 was applicable to her case. In particular, her case concerned a “dispute” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as with her claim she challenged the legality of the decisions and actions of the public authority. Furthermore, such dispute related to a civil rig... | 9 |
51. The Government emphasised that Article <mask> of the Convention did not grant the accused an unlimited right to secure the appearance of witnesses in court. It was normally for the national court to decide whether it was necessary or advisable to call a witness. In the present case the court had conducted fair, ex... | 9 |
30. The Government added that neither the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court nor the prefect’s decision to reafforest had violated the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In deciding the admissibility of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court had held that the Supre... | 9 |
26. The applicant complained that her right of access to a court had been violated as a result of the District Court’s refusal to examine her counter‑claim on the ground that the power of attorney submitted by her representative did not comply with the requirements of the law. She relied on Article <mask> of the Conve... | 9 |
47. The Government contested the applicants’ position and submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention required accused persons to be given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the evidence, which had to be pres... | 9 |
78. 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 relied on a confession that he had only given under duress and that he had been deprived of the right to defend himself through legal ass... | 9 |
125. The Government contended that there was no causal link between a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and the loss of assets or income which the applicants alleged they had sustained. The Government contended that the first applicant had had hardly any assets at all at the time of the declaration of bank... | 9 |
18. The Government argued that the Katowice Court of Appeal had informed the applicant about his legal-aid lawyer's refusal and held that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal would start to run anew, starting on the date on which the refusal had been served on the applicant. They reiterated that the mere fact... | 9 |
56. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the contested proceedings, because the applicant had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. They further argued that the applicant had been able to argue her case in the domestic courts. In particular,... | 9 |
22. The applicants complained, notably, under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the supervisory review of the judgments. Mrs Gladkova complained under these provisions that she was not notified of the supervisory review hearing and could not be present at the examination of her cas... | 9 |
107. The applicant alleged in his original application that he had had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaint about the courts’ refusal to examine his complaints involving a disciplinary reprimand he had received at the Rasų Prison (Article <mask> of the Convention also being invoked ... | 9 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to equality of arms had been infringed as a result of his inability to consult the criminal file submitted by the prosecutor to the Râşcani District Court before its decision of 14 June 2004. He also complained, under the same Article, ... | 9 |
41. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the judgment of 3 July 2001. The Court recalls that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a reopening of the proc... | 9 |
31. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial ‒ because he had not been provided with a legal aid lawyer at any stage of the criminal proceedings ‒ and that the trial court which convicted him had lacked impartiality to the extent that a substantial part of his trial had been conducted in the absence o... | 9 |
12. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the quashing of the judgment in her favour on supervisory review and the issuing of a new decision by which her claims had been dismissed in full. She also invoked in this connection Articles 13 and 17 of the Conv... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.