text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
136. The applicants complained of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. They alleged a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The first and fifth applicants raised a further complain... | 9 |
27. The applicants complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions had been violated because of the domestic authorities’ continuing failure to decide on the expropriation of their plot of land and their consequent inability to make use of their property during that period. They relied on Article <mas... | 9 |
21. The applicants complained of the prolonged failure of the domestic authorities to comply with the binding judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, annulling the agreement to transfer Demirbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund and its subsequent sale by the latter to the HSBC bank. They alleged that the ... | 9 |
29. The applicant's heirs submitted that the CLEMC's decision was decisive for the applicant's right to a pension, the amount of which was directly dependent on his degree of disability, and for his right to a supplement to his pension, which was also dependent on the CLEMC's determination whether he was in need of an... | 9 |
28. The Government contended that the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention had been introduced out of time. In their opinion, the six‑month time-limit started running on 23 June 2006 (see paragraph 13 above), as that was the date of the final domestic decision concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s de... | 9 |
27. The Government further stated, with reference to Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Decision of the Constitutional Court of 14 February 2000, that the summoning of parties to a supervisory review hearing remained at the discretion of the relevant court provided the review procedure was not... | 9 |
34. The Government contended that the domestic courts had examined the evidence of the defence and properly assessed it in the cases of both applicants. In the Government’s view the fact that the domestic courts had emphasised the police officers’ statements could not as such be regarded as non-compliance with the req... | 9 |
35. The applicant maintained that the proceedings had been unfair in that a large part of the recorded telephone conversations relevant to his defence had been destroyed by the police. It was unlikely that the prosecutor had acquainted himself with any of the recordings before the case was transferred to him for the c... | 9 |
17. The Government argued that the Council lacked necessary funds for execution of the judgments in the applicants' favour. They further submitted that the judgments of 28 March 2001 and 20 November 2002 remained unenforced, and thus, the applicants' rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Proto... | 9 |
27. The applicant contended that the charges against him could be considered “criminal” for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that CAO cases were examined by criminal sections of the courts and that in the French legal system offences of this kind were part of the Criminal Code. He further... | 9 |
86. 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 |
141. The applicant claimed a total amount of 210,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He claimed EUR 20,000 for the alleged infringement of Article 5 § 2, EUR 50,000 for the ill-treatment to which he claimed to have been subjected on 18 August 2003, EUR 70,000 for the inhuman conditions of detention, EU... | 9 |
23. The applicant alleged violation of his rights under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention since the Supreme Court had rejected as inadmissible ratione valoris his appeal on points of law unlike its earlier judgments in the same proceedings in which it had considered on the merits the plaintiff’s appeals on point... | 9 |
15. The applicants complained that they 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 İzmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They alleged that they had been convicted solely on the basis of their st... | 9 |
81. The Government submitted that the proceedings brought by the applicant had been fair. They had been conducted in the usual way, with the participation of medical experts to elucidate points that required special knowledge. The independence and impartiality of those experts had been open to review by the courts, at... | 9 |
19. The Government claimed that the applicant had not submitted his bank details to the bailiff service and that he should have enquired about the state of enforcement after May 2001. They acknowledged, however, that a payment to an unauthorised person had been effected through the fault of the Bailiffs Office of the ... | 9 |
54. The applicant also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that the İzmir District Court had sought only the opinion of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, a public institution. In his view, that institution was not qualified to provide an opinion on Alevis since it was not sp... | 9 |
26. The Government did not raise any objection as to the admissibility of the application. However, the Court would like to make a preliminary observation on the issue of applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention to the legality review proceedings in the present case. Under the Court’s case-law, the legality r... | 9 |
27. The applicants originally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unlawful confiscation of their property. The applicants also complained that the domestic courts had denied them access to court to challenge the unlawful actions of the tax police. They invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Th... | 9 |
23. The applicant asked the Court to rule on the merits as he remained victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed compensation for pecuniary damages in the amount of DKK 350,000 and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of DKK 110,000. Accordingly, the High Court judgment did not provide adequa... | 9 |
82. 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 hearings, and the intensive schedule of the hearings, and alleged that he had not had adequate time and facilities for th... | 9 |
49. The Government considered that the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with in the present case, as the applicant had had access to court. They referred to the case of Silickienė v. Lithuania (no. 20496/02, §§ 48-49, 10 April 2012) where the Court had found that although the applican... | 9 |
18. The applicant submitted that his trial took too long and disagreed that the context of the jury trial was a relevant factor, States being obliged to organise their judicial systems so as to ensure compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the case was not complex and pointed to the fact that... | 9 |
56. The applicant company acknowledged that Article 814 of the COCP did not compel the same judges to examine a request for a retrial. However, it submitted that this provision violated Article <mask> of the Convention in so far as it failed to guarantee the right to a fair trial of the party applying for a retrial (“... | 9 |
71. The Government further submitted that the administrative courts’ decisions finding that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s application had not infringed his right of access to a court for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. Pointing out that the State had a certain margin of apprecia... | 9 |
34. The Government argued that this complaint should be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae since Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to disciplinary proceedings under either its civil or criminal head. They referred in particular to the Court's case-law in Eskelinen Vilho Eskelinen and Othe... | 9 |
71. The Government submitted that the right of access to court was not absolute and that Article <mask> of the Convention did not prohibit the establishing of restrictions, including court fees. The courts had given the applicant company time to comply with the obligation to pay the court fees, but had had to refuse t... | 9 |
42. The applicant maintained that the length of proceedings was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention. She contended that the proceedings had been delayed by the domestic courts as they could have estimated T.G.’s income and, on that basis, fixed an amount of main... | 9 |
70. The applicant also complained that the proceedings against him had fallen short of the guarantees of a fair hearing within a reasonable time and that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated by virtue of the Supreme Court's decisions of 31 July 2001 and 30 January 2002. He relied on Article <mask> of th... | 9 |
20. The applicant complained of unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged that one of the judges at first instance had not been impartial; that his conviction had been based in part on his and his co-defendants’ statements which had been obtained under duress and in in breach of the... | 9 |
57. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings that she had brought before the administrative courts had not been concluded within a reasonable time. She further maintained under the same head that the domestic courts had delivered contradictory decisions in identical cases an... | 9 |
35. The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court cannot speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had the applicants’ action been examined in full compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. For these reas... | 9 |
326. The applicant contended that the Cypriot authorities violated his right of access to court under Article <mask> of the Convention by failing to ensure his participation in the inquest proceedings, by failing to grant him free legal aid and by failing to provide him with information on available legal remedies in ... | 9 |
66. The applicant also complained that he had not been able to participate in the supervisory review proceedings, and that the presiding judge was the very judge who had made the protest. In the light of its finding that the quashing of the decision of 13 March 2001 in supervisory review proceedings was incompatible w... | 9 |
33. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his trial was unfair. Firstly, he alleged that the trial judge’s ruling under Article 4 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (as to the desirability of his giving evidence) was improper and unfair. This was particularly so as th... | 9 |
43. The applicant complained that, in two respects, the procedure through which he challenged his provisional detention before the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints... | 9 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been deprived of the opportunity to present his case effectively. In this connection he complained that he had been given limited access to the security files, as the copies supplied to him had been redacted; that there had been no oral he... | 9 |
13. 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 Izmir State Security Court. They further alleged that the national courts had convicted them on the basis of the statements that ... | 9 |
48. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that she had been detained in appalling conditions; that she had been compelled through threats, unjustified detention and psychological pressure to make admissions. She also raised a number of other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention... | 9 |
43. The Government, referring to the relevant provisions of the Civil Servants Act concerning the Appeals Commission, asserted that this body qualifies as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, the applicant had waived his right to a public oral hearing as he had failed to request s... | 9 |
112. The Government observed that, in order to ascertain whether or not they came within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, it was first necessary to specify which civil rights were supposedly being restricted. In its only existing ruling on the subject, namely the admissibility decision in Musumeci of 17 ... | 9 |
82. The applicant alleged that he had not been given a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that the courts had disregarded the arguments about and evidence of excessive use of force by the police and had convicted him solely on the basis of police offic... | 9 |
17. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed, since the courts had not examined the alleged agent provocateur, whose active involvement had secured their conviction, or the detectives and police officers who had been present at the scene... | 9 |
157. The Government noted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, as such, which was primarily a matter for regulation under national law. They underlined their obligation under the Convention to apply the criminal law against a murderer. The public interest i... | 9 |
59. The applicant complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, he maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time and that he had ... | 9 |
48. The Government asked the Grand Chamber to endorse the Chamber’s finding that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. They stated, firstly, that the legislation had been changed in 2005. Furthermore, in their submission, the restriction imposed on the applicant’s access to a lawyer had n... | 9 |
36. The Government referred to the Court’s case-law in the case of Y v. Norway (no. 56568/00, 11 February 2003) in support of their statement that none of the three criteria to be taken into account when deciding whether a person was “charged with a criminal offence” for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Conventio... | 9 |
29. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the impugned proceedings, because the applicants had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. They further contended that the applicants had been given a fair opportunity to argue their cases before the ... | 9 |
44. The applicant further complained, referring to Articles 6§ 1 and 13 of the Convention about unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings in his case. He also alleged that lack of access to the expert report and refusal by the court to call experts and witnesses in his favour amounted to a violation of his defence... | 9 |
130. The applicant raised a number of complaints alleging breach of his rights. In particular, he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention complaining of overall unfairness of the proceedings against him that ended on 8 April 2002 and of lack of access to court as regards the civil proceedings against a private comp... | 9 |
89. 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 |
44. The applicant submitted that neither the Administrative Court nor the Constitutional Court held a public oral hearing, even though he had asked for one. In this connection the applicant submitted that the essential question, namely, the modification of the area zoning plan, had been examined not by the Administrat... | 9 |
34. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair hearing before the domestic courts inasmuch as the said courts dismissed his action seeking the removal of the fence erected by an unknown neighbour on V. Street (thus obstructing his access to his property) without properly examining the evidence submitted to th... | 9 |
23. The applicant maintained that the general scope of application intended by Article <mask> of the Convention could not be ignored or reduced. In her submission, the restrictive effect of Article 575 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a civil party's right to appeal to the Court of Cassation was unfair in a democr... | 9 |
31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention that that both sets of the proceedings to which she had been a party had been unfair in that the domestic courts had incorrectly assessed the evidence, dismissed her arguments, failed to give reasons fo... | 9 |
72. The Government also argued that the procedure set out by Article 2781 of the former Romanian Criminal Procedure Code does not limit the applicant’s right of access to court to such an extent as to breach Article <mask> of the Convention. The aforementioned procedure is different from the ordinary criminal procedur... | 9 |
13. 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 Ankara State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since the... | 9 |
139. 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 and the intensive schedule of those hearings, and alleged that he did not have adequate time and facilities for t... | 9 |
45. 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 and have the police officers cross-examined. The Government claimed that the hearings had be... | 9 |
108. The Government did not forward any formal objections to the admissibility the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissi... | 9 |
41. The Government further submitted, referring to the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009), that the Court had previously found that it had been competent to deal with relevant “new information” in the context of a fresh a... | 9 |
67. The applicant complained that his trial had been unfair and that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed since neither he nor his lawyer had been granted an opportunity at any stage of the criminal proceedings to examine O. and P., the only direct witnesses to and victims of the offence allegedly comm... | 9 |
24. The Government acknowledged that the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 18 October 2004 had breached Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, they argued that the applicant company had not been entitled to claim enforcement of the judgments of 23 July 1998, 22 April 1999 and ... | 9 |
74. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging lack of a fair hearing in the proceedings before the Pereslavl District Court on 9 July 2004 and before the Yaroslavl Regional Court on 17 December 2004. In these proceedings he had challenged the refusal of the prosecutor’s offi... | 9 |
22. The Government stated that in their opinion Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the present case. Firstly, referring to the case of Pellegrin v. France, a civil servant working in the financial administration of a government must be considered a “civil servant exercising specific public activiti... | 9 |
43. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair in that the domestic authorities did not assess the evidence properly. Under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 he complained that his right not to be punished twice had been violated because, even though the penal order was ... | 9 |
33. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies by not bringing an action in tort (onrechtmatige daad) against the State before the civil courts on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s judgment was unlawful. According to the Government, since the alleged violation of ... | 9 |
73. The Government first noted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had not submitted any allegations concerning Article <mask> of the Convention, even in substance, before the domestic authorities. He should, they argued, have used the remedies available in ordinary law, such as actions d... | 9 |
74. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the Austrian courts’ decisions had made it impossible for her to assert her claims and constituted unjustified interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. Furthermore, she complained under Article 14 taken in c... | 9 |
60. The Government further maintained that even though the applicant company was not a party to the share surrender proceedings, it was considered a party in the following stages of the proceedings concerning the interim measures. It could have lodged an appeal upon learning of the existence of the interim measure, an... | 9 |
38. The Government submitted that the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage had no causal link to the alleged restriction on the applicant's right of access to a court. They further argued that the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was highly excessive. The Government drew the Court's attention to a number of ... | 9 |
77. The applicants maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they were denied a fair trial on the ground that the impugned injunction had been ordered in their absence, without any proper examination of the documentary evidence and without any reasoning, and that the ban had remained in force for an exces... | 9 |
37. The applicant alleged that the refusal of the Supreme Court to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU upon his request violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that it follows from the Court’s case-law that the Supreme Court had a duty under Article 6 of the Convention to provide r... | 9 |
20. The Government also objected to the admissibility of the applicants' first complaint, that their right of access to court guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention was violated by the refusal to hold a hearing at which they could challenge the section 4(2) order made by the High Court of Justiciary on 15 Febr... | 9 |
25. The Government considered that the applicant’s complaint fell outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their opinion, it did not concern the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him. In any event, they discerned no violation of the applicant’s rights ... | 9 |
25. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the domestic proceedings in their cases (the first set – as regards the first applicant). The first and the fourth applicants additionally relied on Article 13 in this regard. The Court considers that the complaints must be examine... | 9 |
64. The applicant further alleged that, for the sake of a fair trial, a confrontation should have been held between him and the President in the presence of the investigating judge or during the court proceedings. The Court notes that the President is precluded from an obligation to testify by virtue of his protective... | 9 |
78. The Government contested that argument and considered the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant compatible with the “reasonable time requirement” set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They acknowledged that the applicant’s conviction had been quashed twice on appeal, and that the trial co... | 9 |
20. The applicant submitted that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was breached where a person was refused compensation for pre-trial detention imposed for a reason which implied his or her guilt when there had been no formal finding to that effect and when the claimant had not had the opportunity to exercise the rights... | 9 |
54. The Government submitted that the case of Sigurþór Arnarsson v. Iceland (cited above) reflected that it does not constitute a categorical breach of Article <mask> of the Convention if a procedure before an appeal court is somewhat more limited than the procedure at first instance and that this also applied in case... | 9 |
18. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no evidence that she represented a threat to national security and that she had not been given an opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment on any such evidence. Furthermore, the authorities had not provided reasons for their... | 9 |
28. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the courts had decided his case arbitrarily; that they had erred in fact and law; that their decisions had not been reasoned; and that he had not been allowed to cross-examine the court-appointed expert. He also complained under Article 1 ... | 9 |
127. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and their excessive length, the unsatisfactory work of his state-appointed lawyers, and the violation of the presumption of his innocence. He also claimed violation of Article 8 of the Co... | 9 |
35. The Government submitted that the court proceedings initiated by the applicant had sought to obtain information about the identity of the fence’s owner and to compel the administrative authorities to take against that person the measures provided for by Ordinance no. 43/1997. They considered that the outcome of th... | 9 |
32. The applicant maintained his complaints. He submitted that after being removed from the courtroom he was unable to participate in the examination of witnesses and the assessment of other evidence, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nor had the court appointed a lawyer to represent him during the tri... | 9 |
153. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He further argued that as a result of a trial conducted in breach of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention he was ordered to pay damages to the victim in the amount of AMD 23,063,108 and USD 119,000. Furthermore, because of ... | 9 |
58. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had principally and essentially based his conviction for participation in a terrorist organisation on evidence that was vitiated and obtained in conditions that were incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. Alleging a violation of his right to a fair t... | 9 |
43. The applicant acknowledged that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing the proceedings at issue did not allow the court to review the factual basis or the legal characterisation of the offence. However, they allowed the interested party, including the convict, to make submissions to the court. ... | 9 |
22. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted them and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus... | 9 |
78. The Government conceded that the Constitutional Court had found in the present proceedings that the principle of a public hearing was a vital aspect of the right to a fair trial. Thereby, that court closed a gap in the Liechtenstein catalogue of fundamental rights which did not expressly protect that principle. It... | 9 |
58. The Government disputed that any causal link had been demonstrated between the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the one hand and the conclusion reached in the Supreme Court's judgment on the other. In their view, the claim for pecuniary damage should be rejected. As regards non-pecuniary da... | 9 |
19. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a breach of their right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, arguing that Judge V.B. could not be impartial because his son had been expelled from the school. They also complained that the entire panel of judges of the Supreme Court of Just... | 9 |
31. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (e) of the Convention of the excessive length and unfairness of the proceedings. In respect of the latter, he complained that he had not been given the right to use Hebrew, the only language which he understood; that the evidence had been admitted in... | 9 |
37. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial court, that he had not been represented by a lawyer during the trial stage until 22 September 2005, that he had been unable to question, confront and examine a key witness, ... | 9 |
120. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of various irregularities which had rendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair. In particular, he complained that the trial court had unjustifiably based his conviction on the expert reports by Ms T., dated 18 February 2005 and submitt... | 9 |
60. The Government maintained that the domestic courts had conducted the proceedings in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention and with section 52 of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (see “Relevant domestic law”, paragraph 54 above), as they had promoted and secured the conclusion of interim agreements. T... | 9 |
362. The applicants claimed that almost the entire male population of Ormaniçi had been arbitrarily taken into detention in that, except in the case of those villagers who were taken to Şırnak, there had been no reasonable suspicion that they had been personally involved in any crime, as required by Article 5 § 1. The... | 9 |
56. The Government argued that the claim was unsubstantiated and excessive. They further invited the Court, should it decide to make an award of damages in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, not to depart from its previous rulings; they referred to Constantin and Stoian (cited above)... | 9 |
97. The Government argued that the applicants’ requests were speculative, excessive and not proven. They considered that should the Court find a violation of Article 3, the acknowledgement as such could constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They further invited the Court, should it decide to make an award of damage... | 9 |
60. The Government finally submitted that on both occasions the applicant herself did not wish to have a lawyer, despite the fact that the police officers explained to her her right to have a lawyer and advised her to avail herself of this right. Moreover, the applicant did not wish to have a lawyer during the entire ... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.