text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
106. The Government did not consider that any issue arose, in particular as no arguable claim of a violation was disclosed for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant could challenge the reasonableness of the Council’s actions in judicial review proceedings and require the Council... | 2 |
22. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 13), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic r... | 2 |
24. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 16), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic r... | 2 |
46. The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that they were not able to participate in the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court and that the latter had decided to suspend publication and distribution of the aforementioned newspapers without obtaining their submissions in defence. ... | 2 |
102. The Government also argued, albeit in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention, that an effective remedy did not necessarily mean one in which the State was a defendant. They underlined that the Court did not find a breach of Article 13 in Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, § 27, Series... | 2 |
98. The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had declared her constitutional complaint of 25 March 2008, lodged against the decisions of the Supreme Court of 22 February 2008 and the Zagreb County Court of 12 February 2008, inadmissible solely on the ground that a fresh decision extending her detention h... | 2 |
253. The Government conceded that prior to Mr H.K.’s statement the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy as required under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5. They further admitted that in the absence of any conclusions of the criminal investigation, the c... | 2 |
56. The applicant also considered that Article 5 § 4 had been violated in that he could not have his detention reviewed after he had been committed for trial in May 2000. He also complained about the fact that he could not appeal against the detention orders issued by the Senate of the Supreme Court. Finally, relying ... | 2 |
41. The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because his request for registration as a candidate had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint fall... | 2 |
66. The applicants complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court finds that the applicants’ complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, as this provision is the... | 2 |
143. The applicant maintained that neither of the investigations had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended, in particular, that the disappearance and ill-treatment of Cemal Uçar between 5 October and 2 November 1999 had never been investigated although his son had told the authorities ... | 2 |
43. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that in addition to complaining to a higher court the applicant could have complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Chancellor of Justice in the course of the proceedings, who may, as necessary, draw ... | 2 |
52. The applicant submitted that he maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention after having made use of the new domestic remedy in that regard. He alleged, in particular, that the new domestic remedy was not effective and that the proceedings before the complaints panel of the Federal Constitution... | 2 |
68. The applicants further complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the civil proceedings could not be considered an effective remedy in their attempt to obtain damages from the State. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the c... | 2 |
73. The Government noted that the applicant had asked the prosecutor’s office to provide information about the operational measures, their lawfulness and the subsequent actions by the KNAB. In their submission, the prosecutor’s office was an institution exercising judicial functions (they referred to section 1(1) of t... | 2 |
193. 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 or their close relatives had been granted victim status in the criminal case and could have take... | 2 |
115. 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 the opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in cou... | 2 |
20. The applicants further complained that the trial conducted by the Denizli Assize Court could not be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, they argued that the Denizli Assize Court was not an independent or impartial tribu... | 2 |
73. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings concerning the sexual assaults against her had been at variance with the respondent State’s positive obligation to provide effective legal protection against sexual abuse, as they had been unreasonably delayed, lacked i... | 2 |
30. The applicant, in his observations on the merits, repeated his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was deprived of an effective remedy in respect of his claims under the Convention. As pointed out to the applicant, this part of the application was rejected in a partial decision on admissibili... | 2 |
57. The applicant also complained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. He noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates for judicial positions in Azerbaijan was made by the J... | 2 |
25. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation, since the District Court had reduced his sentence owing to the length of the proceedings. In addition, the statute of limitations had provided an effective remedy in that the District Court had dismissed some charges ... | 2 |
22. The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with proper medical treatment. They also argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant whereby he could have complained about the lack of adequate medical care in detention, in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention... | 2 |
26. The applicant complained that the proceedings for a review of the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair. He alleged that he had not been informed of the date of the hearing before the Court of Cassation and complained about the dismissal of his applications for the judgment delivered by that court on 15 Febr... | 2 |
103. 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 those remedies. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating author... | 2 |
112. The applicants, for their part, submitted that in cases concerning a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 the available remedies had to have automatic suspensive effect in order to be deemed effective for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that they had not at any point been subj... | 2 |
33. The applicant complained that his right to an effective remedy was violated by the prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the Bailiffs dealing with his case. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a t... | 2 |
16. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the composition of the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He maintained that the failure of the Ministry of Defence to inform him of the charges against him... | 2 |
36. The Government also argued, in general terms, that the applicant could have exercised his so-called “right to rehabilitation” (see paragraph 21 above). The Court need not decide whether the procedure referred to by the Government constituted on the facts a remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convent... | 2 |
36. 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 contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Ramazan 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 lod... | 2 |
83. The applicant complained that he had had no effective remedy by which to examine the lawfulness of his detention following completion of the pre-trial investigation in his case. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Co... | 2 |
86. The applicant (1) invited the Court to hold that he was entitled to appropriate remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention, referring to Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000‑XI). He (2) further asked the Court to award him an appropriate amount of compensation for the non‑pecuniary damage inflicted o... | 2 |
90. The applicant further argued that the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect his rights under Article 8 because he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the disclosures. The Government maintained that there was no breach of any positive obligation and, more particularly, they argued... | 2 |
26. The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint... | 2 |
204. 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, they had had no availabl... | 2 |
105. 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 a... | 2 |
60. The Government argued that the applicant had had at her disposal a remedy compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of that contention they relied on the finding of the Constitutional Court to the effect that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as it fell within the jurisdiction of th... | 2 |
63. The applicant maintained that he was a victim of a violation of Article 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention because the payment of compensation by the Government following the unilateral declaration did not represent adequate redress for the violations acknowledged in that unilateral declaration. He had never b... | 2 |
77. The Government further stated that the complaint was premature as the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives 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 lodge a complaint ... | 2 |
25. The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint... | 2 |
30. The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the application did not disclose a violation of Article 2. The Russian authorities had conducted a thorough investigation into Mr Antonov’s death and had established that he had committed suicide. There had also not been a violation of the applicants’ right... | 2 |
48. The applicant complained that there had not been an effective pre‑trial investigation into the circumstances of the traffic accident which had left him with severe injuries. He invoked Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the ... | 2 |
116. The applicant churches further complained that they had not had access to a court or an effective remedy as they had not been able either to challenge the Government’s Instruction of 23 December 2004 before the Constitutional Court, or to challenge the refusal of the Religious Communities Commission to grant thei... | 2 |
34. The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and ... | 2 |
105. 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 those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investiga... | 2 |
19. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings infringed his right to an effective remedy for his original, substantive claim. However, the Court observes that thereby the applicant complained essentially about the outcome of the proceedings. However, Article <mask> of the Convention is concer... | 2 |
31. The applicant complained that the Austrian Administrative Criminal Proceedings Act (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz) does not provide any legal remedy against a failure of the Administrative Court to decide within a reasonable time. Further, he complained that there was no legal remedy available to accelerate administrativ... | 2 |
59. The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that their removal to Iran or Iraq would expose them to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment. They further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby they could raise their allegat... | 2 |
135. 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 relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remed... | 2 |
62. 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 an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerni... | 2 |
264. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available dom... | 2 |
13. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 28 November 2002 as upheld on 25 December 2002. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol N... | 2 |
24. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they did not have effective access to court to complain about the exequatur decision ordering the search and seizure of banking documents referring to them. They further complained under Article 8 that the measure had interfered with their privat... | 2 |
57. The applicant complained that the domestic courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. He claimed that the domestic courts failed to examine his appeals of 20 May and 15 July 1999 and that his appeal of 15 April 1999 was not decided speedily as it had not been examined for more ... | 2 |
126. 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 |
221. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had had no available... | 2 |
18. The applicant also complained, relying on Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, that the mother of his child had failed to comply with the final court judgment regulating his access rights. He was therefore unable to see his son regularly until the beginning of 2005. He further complained that his request... | 2 |
47. The Government agreed that at the time of lodging her application with the Court the applicant had not had at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, they noted that on 4 December 2001 the Polish Constitutional Court gave judgment, in consequence of which ... | 2 |
21. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. They further invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and stated that, as the Court of Cassation had refused their unconstitutionality plea concerning the Decree in dispute, they had been denied an effective remedy. The applicants ... | 2 |
121. 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 could also have complained to courts or higher prosecutors or claimed civil damages, but had fai... | 2 |
94. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented him or his wife from using them. They submitted that Adam Ayubov’s relatives had been granted the status of victim and had received reasone... | 2 |
13. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the effective removal of her tobacco retail licence amounted to an unjustified deprivation of possessions. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domestic remedies in respect o... | 2 |
17. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention by the police had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He considered that the judicial review proceedings as to the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair because the national courts... | 2 |
117. 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 applicant also complained that he had had no effective remedy in respect of the breach of Article 6 § 2, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, and that if the case had been heard in a magistrates' court, the High Court would have had jurisdiction to consider an application for judicial review. In t... | 2 |
34. The Government observed that the third applicant did not raise this specific complaint before the domestic courts, namely, by challenging the judge(s) before the Audiencia Nacional or through the cassation appeal and the amparo appeal lodged with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively. The G... | 2 |
13. The Government submitted that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could be found separately from Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants' favour, because the finding of a violation of the former provision was based on conclusions regard... | 2 |
183. 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 actions or omissions on the part of the investigating au... | 2 |
27. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the courts’ refusal to present him with a copy of the materials in the case-file, which had been relied upon by the prosecutor in his application for remanding him in custody. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention t... | 2 |
137. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage occasioned by the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and EUR 3,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She submitted that the excessive length of the proceedin... | 2 |
79. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been able to obtain effective judicial review of his detention. As it has been the Court's constant approach to consider Article 5 § 4 as the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (s... | 2 |
53. The applicant company complained that the enforcement proceedings in its favour had been conducted incorrectly by the bailiffs and that the procedure for challenging the bailiffs' misconduct was ineffective. It relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant company further complained under Article 6 § 1... | 2 |
94. The applicants pointed out that the Government had not cited any examples showing the effectiveness of the remedies suggested by them. A claim under section 45 of the 1951 Act would not be available, because the 1988 Act was lex specialis in respect of claims against the authorities. As for a claim under section 1... | 2 |
41. The applicants complained under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 that there were no effective remedies in Moldova by which to complain of a lack of reasons for the first and second applicants’ detention and of the unlawfulness of the search of the applicants’ homes. The Court notes that it was... | 2 |
57. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings in respect of compensation for damage caused by his unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction were unreasonably long. The applicant further maintained that there were no effective remedies for his complaint under Article... | 2 |
93. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They added... | 2 |
31. The applicant also alleged a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in that she had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in her case. In this connection she complained that the domestic court which examined her length complaint had not taken under into consideration t... | 2 |
28. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to examine his principal request (to order the TCA to approve the detailed area plan) and that by doing so they had failed to follow the Supreme Administrative Court’s binding judgment of 15 February 2008. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of... | 2 |
53. The Government holds that Article <mask> of the Convention has not been violated. Referring to its argument elaborated in the context of its objection to the admissibility of the application, it asserts that the applicants could have brought an action for annulment before the administrative courts under Articles 4... | 2 |
58. The applicant also lodged a number of substantively similar ancillary complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, Article 6 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which were communicated to the Government. However, having regard to its above findings under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court does not find it necessar... | 2 |
48. The applicant submitted that, in accordance with the domestic law, the reopening of the proceedings and referral of the case to the Plenum was within the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court’s President. Any additional cassation appeal was to be submitted to the Supreme Court’s President and not directly to t... | 2 |
37. The applicant complained that her extradition to Belarus would expose her to a risk of torture and unfair trial, contrary to Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, and that she had no remedy with respect to these complaints as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention re... | 2 |
228. The Government submitted that under Finnish law decisions concerning the treatment of a patient, such as the administering of medication, were considered administrative measures and could not be appealed against. An appeal was possible where the law required a separate decision to be made, for instance if a perso... | 2 |
65. The applicant also complained that, as the majority of the House of Lords found, he had been unlawfully excluded from school in circumstances which wholly denied the protection afforded to him by domestic law. He had therefore been denied an adequate remedy for a breach of his rights under Article 2 of Protocol No... | 2 |
89. 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 |
34. The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint... | 2 |
56. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the impossibility to have his claim determined by a court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He said that the absurd manner in which the domestic courts had approached his action had caused him frust... | 2 |
46. The Government have, therefore, not shown that any form of effective relief was available for the substantial delays caused by the domestic authorities. Accordingly, their objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the len... | 2 |
43. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while he had been detained. In particular, he alleged that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been debasing with regard to the size of the cell in which he had been detained, the number of persons in the ... | 2 |
95. 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 those remedies. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investig... | 2 |
67. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with legal-aid counsel during the appeal hearing of 13 September 2002. He further alleged that his hearing impairment had prevented him from participating in the appeal hearing and from defending himself adequately, especially with regard to the video link by ... | 2 |
287. The applicants claimed the sum of GBP 40,000 per victim, in relation to all the violations suffered by the dead men, to be held for the benefit of their heirs. Zülfi Akkum also claimed GBP 10,000 in relation to the violations of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention and Hüseyin Akan and Rabia Karakoç each claimed GB... | 2 |
146. 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 |
15. The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, complained about the refusal of the national courts to examine his claim for damages against the State on the merits. The Court observes that the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention are less strict than, and are in such situatio... | 2 |
44. The Government contended that the State Language Centre was the only authority empowered to determine the level of a candidate's knowledge of the State language. They submitted that the applicant had been able to exercise without hindrance her right to a remedy by means of an appeal to the Riga Regional Court. At ... | 2 |
67. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the manner in which the courts had dealt with their enforcement petitions, and the impossibility to have an adjudicated claim enforced and to obtain compensation for the unjustified use of their l... | 2 |
195. The applicants submitted that their appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board against the order to leave the country was not an effective remedy satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 for two reasons: firstly, the appeal did not suspend their possible r... | 2 |
128. The Government averred that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. In particular, she had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and received replies to al... | 2 |
59. The Government submitted that an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention had been available to the applicant, namely, challenging the decision before the Central Electoral Office, a body meeting the requirements laid down in the Court’s case-law. They pointed out in that co... | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.