text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
15. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, relying on the same arguments as in the case of Štrucl and Others (cited above). In the latter case the Court joined the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. After f... | 2 |
112. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court p... | 2 |
76. The applicant complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, due to the excessive length of the proceedings, he had been time-barred from bringing a new application and, consequently, from raising his relevant property claims before the domestic courts. He further complained under Arti... | 2 |
103. The applicant, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and on Article <mask> of the Convention, complained about the excessive court fees in the proceedings for damages against the State and the alleged lack of effective remedies in that respect. He also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that the State... | 2 |
52. The applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 §§ 1-3 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's inability to effectively challeng... | 2 |
17. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that the panel had not given reasons for detaining him in prison and that the latter's decision of 14 February 2009 had been given in private following the public prosecutor's appeal, which had not been communicated to him. He also invoked Article <m... | 2 |
34. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to a fair hearing. In particular, he maintained that the judicial authorities, in adjudicating the case brought against him, had arbitrarily refused some of his procedural requests; had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the law. He relied on Articl... | 2 |
124. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in co... | 2 |
73. The Government submitted that the investigation into the killing of Asradiy Estamirov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge court complaints about any acts or omissions on the part of the... | 2 |
12. The Government submitted that the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 should be declared inadmissible since no complaint about non-enforcement has been raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect has been found by the Court. They further alleged... | 2 |
115. The applicant claimed EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage, of which EUR 5,000 was claimed for the breach of his right not to be detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, EUR 2,000 for the breach of his right to correspond with his mother and EUR 2,000 for the breach of his right to have contacts with his wife ... | 2 |
58. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. The Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 §§ 1-3 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's all... | 2 |
67. The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies ... | 2 |
40. The applicant complained that the authorities had lacked diligence in investigating the circumstances of Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death, and that as a consequence the investigation had been ineffective and the criminal proceedings against A.Y. had lasted an unreasonably long time. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Arti... | 2 |
159. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in co... | 2 |
155. The Government argued that the applicant had effective remedies at his disposal, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he had been granted victim status, which had enabled to him to participate effectively in the investigation concerning the alleged ill-treatment. Furthermore, the applic... | 2 |
39. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal dealing with his case had been biased. In his submissions dated 22 March 2011, the applicant further complained under the same provision about a violation of the principle of legal certainty as the judgments in his case had bee... | 2 |
118. The Government referred to the ongoing investigation into the murder and contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the act... | 2 |
177. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, t... | 2 |
138. The applicants did not however have available to them an appropriate means of obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority failed to protect them from serious ill-treatment or the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the damage suffered thereby. Consequently... | 2 |
29. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings on Z.’s claim had been unfair and she had been prevented from accessing courts in the Donetsk region. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, she complained of the lack of prosecution of K.Vi. and K.Vo. for taking her ... | 2 |
60. The applicant companies complained that the implementation of the New Regulations and the introduction of a completely new schoolbook management system by the State, without providing any opportunity for them to seek judicial review or redress, amounted to violations of their rights under Article 6, as well as und... | 2 |
381. The applicant complained under Article 13 that neither he nor the Orhans had an effective domestic remedy in respect of the Orhans' disappearance or in relation to the destruction of Deveboyu. The Government referred to the investigations conducted into the applicant's allegations. They also suggested that the ap... | 2 |
118. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had been granted victim status; moreover, they had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or o... | 2 |
52. The applicant maintained that a constitutional complaint about the non-enforcement of a final court judgment was not effective as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Constitutional Court’s judgments (see paragraphs 21–27 above) were limited to the finding of a violation of a declaratory nature. They ... | 2 |
60. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Khamzat Umarov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodg... | 2 |
34. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effe... | 2 |
100. The Government enclosed statements by several inmates who confirmed that cold water had always been available in the living premises and that hot water could be obtained from heating facilities. In support of their position they provided the statements by other inmates summarised above. They also challenged the w... | 2 |
90. The Government argued that the applicants’ reference to section 205 of the Civil Procedure Law was not relevant, as it provided an option for a party to request that a judgment be executed without delay. As the applicants had not requested it, the 23 May 2002 judgment did not contain such an obligation. In as far ... | 2 |
29. The applicant further complained that the prosecution authorities' refusal to institute criminal proceedings against A. (a pension expert) amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person is not, as such, gu... | 2 |
70. The applicant also complained that in the second case he had not had an effective remedy to protect his right to freedom of assembly, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, referring to Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention the applicant complained that the real reason or motive for his arrest an... | 2 |
27. The applicant company further complained that the Supreme Court had dismissed its appeal on points of law and that in its two decisions the Constitutional Court had refused to examine its complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court of 5 February 2002 and the Supreme Court judgment of 12 June 2003. It reli... | 2 |
280. The applicant bank also complained that it had no remedy in the Croatian legal system to recover the sum seized from it in the enforcement proceedings, despite the fact that it had managed to prove that this enforcement had had no basis in law. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Art... | 2 |
165. The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. They lastly complained under Article 14 of the Co... | 2 |
31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not received any answer from the prosecuting authorities regarding her criminal complaint lodged with the Câmpina Prosecution Office in 1994 against A.M. and that the courts had lost her file. On 14 December 2007, in her observations in r... | 2 |
134. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating autho... | 2 |
110. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. ... | 2 |
12. The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to execute the judgment of 6 October 1998 of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa. He alleged that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and that he had had no effective remedies in respect ... | 2 |
21. The applicants complained under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers. They further alleged under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of their allegations ... | 2 |
40. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that no effective remedies had been available to him to challenge his conviction. As the judicial review had been inadequate, there had been no possibility to appeal; a constitutional appeal could have been lodged in exceptional circumstances ... | 2 |
35. The applicant also invoked Article 13 in respect of his complaint about the length of the proceedings. Having regard to its findings under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraphs 34 above), the Court concludes that this complaint is admissible, but considers that it is not necessary to rule whether, in this case, there has ... | 2 |
114. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants had received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of cr... | 2 |
86. The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their close relatives, who they claimed had been unlawfully detained. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic ... | 2 |
125. The Government further pointed out that the first applicant had availed himself of the opportunity to appeal before a court, under Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Prosecutor’s Office’s decision to extradite him. Under that provision a court must examine an appeal within one month and ei... | 2 |
72. The Government contested these arguments in general terms. They pointed out in particular that Article <mask> of the Convention does not require that recourse to a remedy always be successful irrespective of an unfounded claim. They argued that in the present case the applicant was able to raise her arguable claim... | 2 |
55. The Government raised an objection arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that the applicants must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concer... | 2 |
60. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 about the refusal by the Supreme Administrative Court to review the merits of the decisions of the STC and the NRTC. They also claimed that they had been denied an effective remedy on account of the need to go th... | 2 |
100. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They pointed out that the first applicant had made use of domestic remedies available pursuant to Articles 124 ... | 2 |
13. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further complained of the fact that in Turkey there was no court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of proceedings. He ... | 2 |
26. The applicants complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments taken in their favour in due time. In this regard they invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mr Shylkin also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in that respect. These provisions pro... | 2 |
105. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they had not applied to the law-enforcement bodies. Furthermore, relatives of the deceased persons had objected to the exhumation, which considerably impeded the conduct of t... | 2 |
15. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no domestic remedies available under Turkish law whereby they could challenge the unlawfulnes... | 2 |
80. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer immediately after his detention and that for fifteen days his lawyer’s access to him had been restricted. He also complained that the fact of being held in a “cage” with metal bars during the court hearings had violated his defence rights. He fur... | 2 |
97. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court an... | 2 |
45. The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. They lastly complained under Article 14 of the Con... | 2 |
98. The applicants complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could wo... | 2 |
71. The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against ... | 2 |
138. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principles of equality of arms, legal certainty and a “tribunal established by law” had been breached and that the requirement for decisions to contain proper reasons had not been complied with. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, th... | 2 |
102. The applicant also complained that the remedy she had resorted to in order to complain about the length of the enforcement proceedings had proved ineffective as the Varaždin Municipal Court had not complied with the Varaždin County Court’s order of 22 February 2012 to complete the enforcement within six months (s... | 2 |
31. The applicant made the following additional complaints. First, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he complained that the refusal of the Court of Session to grant leave for him to proceed without the necessary signatures on his summons violated his right of access to court. Secondly, under Article 6 § 1 he alle... | 2 |
130. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in co... | 2 |
49. The Government further maintained that the applicants had not made use of any remedies regarding their complaint that their right under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated. They held that a distinction must be made between a remedy within the meaning of this provision, taken together with Article 3 ... | 2 |
59. The applicants replied that the “complaint about delays” was not an effective remedy. They considered, firstly, that it was not effective in principle: the Government had not provided any example or statistical information in support of their contention that it could in practice serve to reduce delays. Secondly, e... | 2 |
195. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The investigation into their relative’s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applic... | 2 |
116. The Government contended that the applicant had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in cour... | 2 |
120. The applicant also alleged that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy by which to complain about his treatment during and after arrest (see paragraph 57 above), his treatment in Jelgava prison (see paragraph 63 above), the conditions of detention in Daugavpils prison and the specific condit... | 2 |
322. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domest... | 2 |
147. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In their submission, this was corroborated by the fact that the first and fourth applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged inaction of the investigating authorities were u... | 2 |
190. The applicants also complained that they had neither had access to court nor an effective remedy to complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention because of the refusal by the domestic authorities to allow them to pursue criminal proceedings against the first applicant’s father ... | 2 |
42. The Government pointed out that in its judgment of 16 May 2012 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision of 28 April 2011 as unlawful. In their view, this should have provided the applicant with an action for damages under the State Liability Act. Moreover, should the applicant have any complaints in relation ... | 2 |
15. The applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment of 8 April 2003 in due time. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further complained that he had no effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints as required by Article <mask>... | 2 |
35. The applicant complained that as a result of the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings and the consequent non-examination of her civil‑party claim, she had been denied effective access to a court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained about the length of the cr... | 2 |
84. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of her right to respect for her home. She also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in respect of her related... | 2 |
141. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in c... | 2 |
149. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8, that the domestic courts had refused to examine his complaints concerning restrictions on family visits and correspondence. He pointed out that on 21 December 2001 the Constitutional Court had confirmed its establ... | 2 |
83. The applicants also claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their submission, the formal manner in which the courts had reviewed the decision to expel the first applicant had aroused in them feelings of injustice and had humiliated them. The first applicant further claime... | 2 |
63. The applicants also complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that they were de facto denied access to a court, because (1) they could not challenge the continued seizure of their possessions before ... | 2 |
89. The applicants complained that Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention had been violated as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also claimed that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domesti... | 2 |
113. The applicant further argued that, quite apart from the discriminatory practice of forced disappearances, members of the Kurdish population in south-east Turkey were discriminated against in respect of the investigation of such disappearances. In support of this argument the applicant referred to a number of judg... | 2 |
112. The applicant complained that the domestic authorities, both administrative and judicial, had failed to consider effectively his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, and that the domestic courts had confirmed the validity of the expulsion order before the completion of the asylum proceedi... | 2 |
65. The applicant also complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully arrested, that no record of his arrest had been drawn up, that there had been a delay in charging him, and that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) an... | 2 |
130. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had not been able to join the criminal proceedings against the police officers Zharov and Volkov as a civil party, that their acquittal had not been justified and that the proceedings had been marred by procedural defects. The Court ob... | 2 |
108. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal p... | 2 |
41. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the “effective remedy” mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the “TRNC”. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the “TRNC” nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under d... | 2 |
100. The applicant company complained, in its original application of 22 March 2005 which was subsequently amended on 21 June 2005, of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that after the 2004 election the proceedings concerning the 2004 bidding competition before the courts of gen... | 2 |
23. The applicant argued that the domestic regulations referred to by the Government were of restricted use and therefore unavailable in any official sources of legal information. He had had no criminal record, had been charged with non-violent crimes and had demonstrated orderly behaviour throughout the proceedings. ... | 2 |
70. The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused her by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in res... | 2 |
216. The Government submitted that, in view of the well-established case-law of the Bulgarian courts in conditions-of-detention cases brought by prisoners, a claim under section 1 of the 1988 was an effective remedy with respect to the material conditions of the applicants’ detention. In any event, no issue arose unde... | 2 |
30. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effe... | 2 |
35. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the trial court cannot be considered as impartial, as the judges sitting on the bench of the court had been changed several times. She also complained under the same article that the trial court failed to collect all relevant evidence and ... | 2 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy available to defend his right to freedom of expression. The Court notes that the applicant was found guilty of defamation as a result of court proceedings instituted against him by V.P. He had been able to appea... | 2 |
91. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. They stated that the applicant had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating autho... | 2 |
153. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in co... | 2 |
25. The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that they had been unable to participate in the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court and that the latter had decided to suspend the publication and distribution of their newspapers without obtaining their submissions in defence. They fu... | 2 |
52. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Rizvan Aziyev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lo... | 2 |
89. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of his freedom of assembly. He alleged in particular that he had not had at his disposal any procedure which would have allowed him... | 2 |
104. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedy against the interference (search) other than the possibility of seeking a review of the lawfulness of the seizure. Even if the District Court did order the seizure to be revoked in response to such a request, that d... | 2 |
50. The applicants submitted that the German legal system had not provided them with an effective remedy to review the effectiveness of the investigation. At the outset they submitted that, given the hierarchical structure of the public prosecutor’s office, the general public prosecutor had not been sufficiently indep... | 2 |
177. The applicant submitted that he and his family had taken every reasonable step possible in order to ensure that the abduction, detention and murder of his brother was properly and thoroughly investigated by the national authorities. However, the response of the various authorities to their complaints and petition... | 2 |
23. The applicant complained that the length of two sets of her civil proceedings, including their enforcement stage, had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Additionally, she complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgments given in her favour bre... | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.