text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
94. The applicant also complained that his right to have his family life respected had been breached on account of delays in the proceedings concerning child custody and contact arrangements as well as in the criminal proceedings. He also complained that as a result of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings he could n... | 9 |
49. The Government considered that the applicant had suffered no “significant disadvantage” (see, among others, Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, §§ 21-23, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, §§ 37-39, 19 July 2011). The Court accepts that the fines imposed on the applicant were small... | 9 |
38. The Government submitted that the sums in question were excessive. They argued that the applicants could seek compensation only in respect of a possible violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus any claim in respect of pecuniary damage was unfounded since it was not for the Court to speculate as to wheth... | 9 |
16. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Malatya State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He claimed that in refusing his request for the examination of the signature on the deposition, and in relying on the statem... | 9 |
98. The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted available domestic remedies as regards this part of their application. The Government argued that in their submissions to the Supreme Court the applicants had not requested that the District Court judgment be quashed and the case be referred back for ... | 9 |
64. The applicant further complained of the fact that the civil proceedings in which he had challenged his conditions of detention in the IVS had been conducted in his absence on the ground that the domestic law did not provide for the participation of convicted detainees in civil proceedings. He relied on Article <ma... | 9 |
40. The applicant complained that he had not been allowed to be defended by counsel of his own choosing, with whom he could have spoken Finnish and whose pleadings he would have been able to fully understand. Describing his level of Swedish as “street Swedish”, he maintained that he had been able to communicate with H... | 9 |
19. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint did not fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. The court hearing held on 18 March 2005 concerned the execution of two sentences imposed earlier on the applicant. Under Russian law, a hearing of this type was not considered to be part of th... | 9 |
29. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried him. The applicant further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him... | 9 |
17. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They further complained under the same Article that the Court of Cassation, in its decision of 13 November 1984, had made a procedural mistake. Ar... | 9 |
21. The Government further referred to an earlier case, against Russia (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, §§ 40-51, 7 June 2007). In Nurmagomedov the Court had held that the proceedings concerning the bringing of an offender’s sentence in line with the amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ... | 9 |
75. The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, because neither the Constitutional Court nor the Administrative Court dealt with the first applicant’s complaints on the merits. They further complained under the same provision that the Independent Administrative Panel in its decision o... | 9 |
60. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. He stated that the President of the Regional Court lacked impartiality when lodging his protest against the ruling of 13 March 2001 and subsequently chairing its examination by the Presidium. The applicant also considered that the Presidium's decision of 27 Jun... | 9 |
25. The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 2 about the authorities’ failure to provide him with an interpreter at a certain stage of the investigation. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings against him. Under the same Article he complained t... | 9 |
31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial because the initial compensation proceedings before the Van Administrative Court had been dismissed erroneously on the ground that he had not paid some of the court fees, whereas he had duly made all the payments r... | 9 |
50. The Government contested the applicability of Article 6 to the dispute raised by the applicant. Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999‑VIII), they argued that the complaint brought by the applicant was outside the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention,... | 9 |
92. The applicant company disagreed and argued that the quashing of the judgment of 27 October 1999 had violated its right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The letter of the Prosecutor General's Office of 8 June 2004 had not disclosed any “new and essential facts or circumstances whic... | 9 |
51. The Government pointed out that no evidence of the alleged pecuniary damage had been adduced and that there was no causal link with the alleged violation. They argued, in particular, that although the applicant’s ex-husband had admittedly stopped paying her maintenance following the declaration of enforceability o... | 9 |
31. The Government argued that the case was of some complexity as the trial court had had to order an expert examination to determine the degree of the applicant's disability. They also stated that on four occasions the hearings had been adjourned because of the applicant's and his lawyer's failure to appear and once ... | 9 |
240. The applicants complained that, in addition to amounting to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, their conviction for “organising mass disorder” following an unfair trial had also constituted an unjustified interference with their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. They submitted that the main... | 9 |
37. The applicant complained that the five judges of the Constitutional Court who had been called upon to decide on his case had not been impartial for the reasons he had set out in detail before the Constitutional Court and, in particular, because each of the challenged judges had taken part in the decisions on the m... | 9 |
79. The applicant alleged that he had not been given a fair hearing in criminal proceedings, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that the courts had disregarded the arguments and evidence of excessive use of force by the police and had convicted him solely on the basis of the police officers’ s... | 9 |
125. The Government observed that the applicant had not availed himself of the possibility of withdrawing his request for adoption of the summary procedure, provided for in Article 8 § 2 of Legislative Decree no. 341 of 2000 (see paragraph 31 above). Under the terms of Article 8 § 2 the applicant had until 21 February... | 9 |
27. The Government contested that argument. They argued that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his personal presence in court was indispensable for the proper administration of justice. In any event, given the nature of his claims, his presence in court was not required. It was also open to him to assign a ... | 9 |
15. The Government, relying on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999‑VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been... | 9 |
30. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the contested proceedings, because the applicants had been charged with an administrative rather than a criminal offence. They further argued that the applicants had not raised the jurisdictional issue before the trial court and/o... | 9 |
44. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant could have challenged the Kúria’s judgment before the Constitutional Court under Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which guaranteed the right to a fair trial. They referred to decision no. 7/20... | 9 |
36. The Government argued that none of the applicant’s requests lodged with the office of the Mayor of Bucharest District No. 5 had specifically asked for the identity to be established of the person who erected the fence. Also the applicant’s submissions to the domestic courts of 9 May 2008 had not mentioned the iden... | 9 |
151. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the criminal proceedings, alleging in particular that he had not been given adequate time to study the case and that counsel F. had been removed from the proceedings unlawfully. The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by th... | 9 |
30. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that the expropriation of their land had not been in the public interest and that they had suffered an excessive individual burden, in view of the failure to institute compensation proceedings and the... | 9 |
37. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of a public hearing before the Constitutional Court. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Republic of Austria, by repeatedly appealing against the decisions of the agricultural authorities, was trying... | 9 |
20. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied the right to a fair trial since the defendant’s observations in reply to his appeals had not been communicated to him, and since the courts had not considered his arguments and had decided solely on the basis of evidence submit... | 9 |
62. The Government observed that, when examining the applicant company’s case, the Supreme Administrative Court had considered that the matter was comparable in principle to criminal charges to which Article <mask> of the Convention applied. Both the Market Court and the Supreme Administrative Court had held an oral h... | 9 |
49. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the lustration proceedings had been unfair. He contested their outcome and alleged that the courts had refused to call all his witnesses. The applicant further complained that he had been required to formally undertake that everything which he ha... | 9 |
68. The Government pointed out that the applicant's request for legal aid for the purposes of legal assistance in connection with the cassation proceedings had been granted by the appellate court. The State had thereby discharged its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention to ensure effective access to a co... | 9 |
53. 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 supervisory review hearing remained at the discretion of the relevant court provided the review procedure was n... | 9 |
98. 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 |
130. The Government submitted at the outset that, under domestic law, the CSM was a management and disciplinary body for judges. Although it was not a judicial body, it nevertheless satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention in the exercise of its disciplinary powers. Hence, from the point at which... | 9 |
15. The Government submitted that given the particular circumstances of the case and the procedural guarantees provided by the domestic legislation with regard to various types of appeal, the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage. The applicant had had access to two levels of jurisdiction as regulated ... | 9 |
96. The applicant company complained about the length and alleged unfairness of the debt recovery proceedings initiated by it against LyNOS (named “the Lysychansk Oil Refinery” at the time) back in 1993 and continuing through 2004. It submitted, in particular, that the courts had breached the principle of res judicata... | 9 |
39. The Government argued that the applicant's case had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction. Neither the Convention nor domestic law guaranteed a right to have a civil case heard at three levels of jurisdiction. The right to a court was not absolute and could therefore be subject to certain limitations, in so ... | 9 |
47. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to give reasons for their judgments, that they had refused to hear defence witnesses and that they had been denied access to court on account of the imposition of fines at the rectification of judgment stag... | 9 |
23. The applicant also submitted other complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, she complained about the State's failure to provide her with a car, the length of the proceedings and the allegedly insufficient amount of compensation granted in 1998. Finally, she ... | 9 |
41. The applicant further complained of violations of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this connection, he alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing since the domestic court decisions were arbitrary and without reasoning. He also submitted that the compensation he had been orde... | 9 |
35. The applicant complained that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. He also complained that the trial court had convicted him on the basis of his police statements, which he alleged had been obtained by torture. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers tha... | 9 |
30. The applicant complains under Article <mask> of the Convention that she was not notified of the hearings on 30 October 2001 and 22 April 2003 and therefore did not attend them. She also complains about the length of proceedings in the first land dispute. Finally, she complains in general terms that the courts were... | 9 |
77. The applicant submitted that she had been deprived of her right of access to court, as she had not received the plaintiff’s claim or summonses to the hearings. Hence, she had been unaware of the divorce proceedings. As a result, she had been deprived of other procedural rights emanating from the right to fair tria... | 9 |
24. The applicants further complain under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Administrative Court decisions. Article 6 of the Convention does not require that an appeal court, when rejecting an appeal by reference to the reasoning given by a lower court, accompanies its decisio... | 9 |
43. The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of the quashing of the final judgment in their favour (see paragraph 12 above). The Court reiterates 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 p... | 9 |
70. The Government finally submitted that the applicant himself did not wish to have a lawyer, despite the fact that the police officers explained to him his right to have a lawyer and advised him to avail himself of this right. Moreover, the applicant did not wish to have a lawyer during the entire procedure, includi... | 9 |
327. The applicant highlighted the importance of the right of access to court in a democratic society. Such a right entailed an opportunity for an individual to have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which interfered with his rights. The applicant pointed out that there had been no trial in respect of... | 9 |
36. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. The Court further refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of t... | 9 |
82. The Government maintained that the proceedings in the applicant’s administrative cases had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant had been given a fair opportunity on each occasion to state his case and to have the relevant witnesses called and cross‑examined. The Government... | 9 |
45. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that because of his unlawful conviction, he had been obliged to pay an administrative fine and compensation to the victim. The Court cannot speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had the applicant’s case been examined in full complia... | 9 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unable to participate in the proceedings in which he had been deprived of his membership of company A’s supervisory board. Under Article 13 the applicant also complained that the Ljubljana Higher Court had not considered his appeal on... | 9 |
26. The Government submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The trial had been adjourned once, to ensure the presence of officers S. and A.; the authorities had made reasonable efforts in this respect but to no avail. The appl... | 9 |
50. The Government argued that the applicant’s case had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction. Neither the Convention nor domestic law guaranteed a right to have a civil case heard at three levels of jurisdiction. The right to a court was not absolute and could therefore be subject to certain limitations, in so ... | 9 |
18. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention numerous breaches of law allegedly committed by the domestic courts in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged that State-appointed lawyers, who had represented... | 9 |
24. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue, because the applicant, as a judge, exercised State authority and therefore belonged to a group of public servants excluded from the scope of Article 6. Moreover, they submitted that the proceedings did not concer... | 9 |
28. The Government argued that the charges against the applicant were not “criminal” but “administrative”. They emphasised the necessity of keeping administrative offences independent of the criminal justice system, and they considered that a dividing line had been drawn between disciplinary and criminal charges in a ... | 9 |
45. The applicant complained that she had lost her source of income, previously secured by the disability pension, because under the new system, in place as of 2012, she was no longer entitled to that, or a similar, benefit, although her health had not improved; and she submitted that this was a consequence of the ame... | 9 |
117. The Government submitted that the trial court’s judgment of 24 April 2003 had been set aside because of the unlawful composition of the trial bench. The Russian court had thus acknowledged that there had been violations relating to the trial. That acknowledgment, together with the fair retrial the applicant had r... | 9 |
19. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in her favour. She further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. Both provisions, in so far a... | 9 |
43. The applicants complained that they had not had access to a court as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the Supreme Administrative Court did not have full jurisdiction over questions of fact and law in respect of the part of the proceedings which concerned their application lodged in 19... | 9 |
64. The Government disagreed with the claim. They contended that the second applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had sustained any non‑pecuniary damage. Alternatively, the Government submitted that if the Court were to find a violation, that in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. However, shou... | 9 |
29. The Government underlined that the admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation by national law and that the use of evidence obtained at the pre-trial stage was not in itself incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the present case, the decision of the first‑instance court had bee... | 9 |
40. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted despite the fact that there was no evide... | 9 |
34. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that his conviction had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence, in particular his fingerprint found in the cellar, in respect of which no search warrant had been issued; the domestic judgments had been based on the expert reports produce... | 9 |
33. The applicant company complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of its right to defend itself in the proceedings terminated by the final decision of 18 March 2005 (see paragraph 17 above), about the outcome of those proceedings and that the domestic courts had failed to assess the facts corr... | 9 |
37. The applicants complained that they had been unable to prepare their defence on account of lack of access to the secret surveillance file containing the complete transcripts of their telephone conversations; the secret surveillance file had not adequately been adduced and discussed at the trial in their presence, ... | 9 |
53. The applicant complained that the judgment by which her company had been awarded compensation for pecuniary damage had remained unenforced for approximately two years, and that this delay had been due to the State’s inactivity. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the C... | 9 |
88. The applicant complained that she 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 Van State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further complained under the same head that her right to a public hearing ... | 9 |
77. 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 ill-treatment in police custody, when he had no access to a lawyer. The Court will examine his complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 an... | 9 |
31. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that, in the criminal proceedings against him, the appellate court had failed to deal with his appeal on the merits because he had not attended the hearing, despite the fact that his counsel had been present and ready to defend him. He claimed that... | 9 |
23. The applicant contested the Government’s submissions as giving misleading, erroneous interpretations of domestic and Convention law. According to the applicant his case required, both under the domestic legislation and under Article <mask> of the Convention, a mandatory oral hearing owing to his need for legal pro... | 9 |
31. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted on the basis of his statements extracted... | 9 |
52. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings at issue and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was not able to purchase the flat at issue. She also relied on Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, without substantiating those co... | 9 |
24. The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing had not been ensured by the court. In particular, the courts had failed to give sufficient reasons for their findings and had not taken the requisite steps to procure and assess the evidence which was relevant to his civil claim. He relied on Article <mask>... | 9 |
17. The Government asked the Court to reject the complaint raised under Article <mask> of the Convention for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that the applicant had failed to raise his complaints before the domestic courts. In the alternative, the Government claim... | 9 |
24. The Government submitted that the judgment of 3 February 2004 had been fully enforced on 21 February 2006. They believed that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment was compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as far as the debtor had been reorganised and the applican... | 9 |
35. The Government argued that the search and seizure had indeed been in accordance with the law. Referring to the Court’s finding in Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria (no. 74336/01, § 65, ECHR 2007‑XI) that the search of a lawyer’s premises and his professional and business activities could have an impac... | 9 |
69. The applicant alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that the criminal proceedings were unfair because the additional security measures had prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury and therefore breached the principle of the presumption of innocence and/or his right to a public hearing... | 9 |
30. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. He further complained in his application form, dated 7 January 1998, that the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal were not served on him,... | 9 |
198. The applicant also submitted that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against her had exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day o... | 9 |
56. The applicant also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that she had not been a party to the adoption proceedings, that she had not given her consent to the adoption and that she had never even been informed that such proceedings had been instituted. In this connection, the applicant complained that... | 9 |
37. The Government first submitted that under domestic law there was no civil right or claim to be appointed a liquidator, nor the State’s corresponding obligation to appoint someone in this capacity. The commercial courts were granted discretionary powers in this respect. Moreover, whereas it could be accepted that t... | 9 |
62. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the imposition of compulsory administration on the applicant bank and to any extension thereof since neither involved the determination by a tribunal of a dispute (“contestation”) concerning civil rights and obligations. The Prague ... | 9 |
22. The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair, namely that she, unlike the public prosecutor, had been deprived of the opportunity to be present at the Court of Appeal's session of 16 November 2004. She further complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy; that her conviction had b... | 9 |
34. The Government submitted that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had complied with the requirement of fairness set out in Article <mask> of the Convention: they had been carried out in accordance with the domestic law on criminal procedure; the applicant was assisted by counsel of his own choosing; the defenc... | 9 |
27. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the awards made by the Ankara Administrative Court in respect of compensation and his lawyer's costs and expenses were insufficient and disproportionate. He finally alleged under Article 14 of the Convention ... | 9 |
29. The applicant, referring to his constitutional complaint, submitted that it was apparent from the documents available to the domestic courts that in 1952 he had been in a situation under pressure, which had been used to turn him into an informant against his will. He claimed that if he had been heard in person he ... | 9 |
50. The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto, that the domestic courts’ refusal to examine their civil claims on the merits deprived them of their right of access to court. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any ... | 9 |
25. The applicant complained that the trial judge, R., had not been impartial, that the trial court had relied on the statements of five witnesses given earlier in the course of the investigation without questioning them in person, and that the appellate court had refused to accept his twelve additional statements of ... | 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 had been... | 9 |
27. The applicant complained that she had been incited to commit the crime of accepting a bribe and that the domestic courts had not given sufficient reasons in their decisions. She also complained that her right to be presumed innocent had been breached by the prosecutor in charge of the case, who had stated in an in... | 9 |
57. The Government considered that the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation had properly analysed the applicant’s plea under Article <mask> of the Convention, but had dismissed it on the ground that he had never been refused legal assistance. Given that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Court of Cassation had ... | 9 |
72. The Government also argued that there had been no evidence that the applicant had actually paid the awarded costs and expenses to the respondents. The amount of costs and expenses awarded was the sole responsibility of her predecessor, who had committed errors in indicating the value of the subject matter of the d... | 9 |
27. The applicants stated that even if Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to a decision to postpone enforcement until a final decision on the action under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act was taken, Article 6 of the Convention was applicable to the final decision which ordered the applicants to pay t... | 9 |
41. The applicant, on the other hand, considered that as the Constitutional Court had set aside the judgment of the Madrid Employment Tribunal, no court had examined the merits of her claim. She referred to the Hornsby case cited above, and submitted that the fact that the Constitutional Court had set aside the judgme... | 9 |
54. The applicant bank complained that its rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in that it had no remedy in respect of the administrative decision of the CNB to place it in compulsory administration or in respect of the subsequent decisions of administrative and judicial organs. It submitted... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.