text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
86. The Government asserted that the applicant's allegations had been properly investigated by the national authorities. The fact that the outcome of the criminal proceedings was not satisfactory for the applicant did not mean that he had been denied an effective remedy. Referring to the Court's judgment in the case o... | 2 |
67. The applicant further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of “victim”, which could have entitled him to compen... | 2 |
86. 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 close relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domes... | 2 |
56. The Government contended that the applicant could have applied to the domestic courts claiming redress for the length of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to Article 6.272 of the Civil Code, and indeed did have recourse to that measure. In particular, on 25 January 2006 the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Vil... | 2 |
20. The applicant went on to say that the rally planned for 30 September 2006 had had nothing to do with Ilinden. It had been planned by the Macedonian Initiative Committee, which was a separate organisation. He therefore maintained his complaints under Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention in relation to that rally. H... | 2 |
112. The Government submitted that the investigation into the unlawful detention and alleged ill-treatment of Tamerlan Suleymanov 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 concer... | 2 |
132. 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 |
24. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention at the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre had been unlawful and arbitrary. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective domestic remedy at his dis... | 2 |
44. The applicant also complained under Article 4 § 2 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He further alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Supreme Court did not examine the merits of his appeal on points of law of 12 August 2006. Lastly, in submissions dated 23 August 2008, he ... | 2 |
164. The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies ... | 2 |
40. The applicants alleged that the findings of the domestic courts in the two sets of proceedings had been contradictory and that as a result they had been deprived of effective access to court in respect of their alleged right to restitution of a plot of 329 or 391 square metres. They also complained that as a resul... | 2 |
39. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 July 2006 given in his favour against the State unitary enterprise and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He relied on Article 6 § 1, cited in paragraph 31 above, as well as on Article <mask> of the Convention and on Article 1 ... | 2 |
85. The applicant maintained that this case-law made it impossible in practice for her to make use of the only procedural remedy in Belgian law capable of leading to the automatic suspension of the order to leave the country that had been served on her. It was the policy of the Belgian Government not to arrest or detai... | 2 |
157. 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 |
304. The Government restated the arguments set out above in their objection to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and concluded that the applicants had had available effective domestic remedies which they did not pursue. In particular, they stated that Article 55 of the Constitution, Articles 248-1 to 248-9 of the C... | 2 |
58. The Government contended that the exception applied in French Guiana fell within the margin of appreciation afforded to States as to the manner in which they honoured their obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. The exception to the principle of a suspensive remedy was justified by the particular pres... | 2 |
57. The Government submitted that 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 an action in court complaining about any acts or... | 2 |
236. 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 no available do... | 2 |
125. 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 actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in... | 2 |
83. The applicants complained that there had been a two-fold violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Firstly, in that the enforcement of the 23 May 2002 judgment had been unreasonably long. Secondly, in that the compensation had been paid in instalments, contrary to what had been adjudicated. The applicants also... | 2 |
56. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of her property rights had disregarded her arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. She lastly complained under Article 14 of the Conventio... | 2 |
155. The Government’s objection is based on their view that such remedies exist in Russian law and that the applicants failed to exhaust them with the exception of Ms Kosyleva. The Court notes that this objection is closely linked to the issue of effectiveness of domestic remedies and alleged violation of Article <mas... | 2 |
146. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that the wording of the national courts when extending his detention following his indictment amounted to prejudging his guilt. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Conventi... | 2 |
41. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal whereby he could challenge the decisio... | 2 |
24. The applicant complained that the proceedings were unfair, submitting that the authorities did not give her an opportunity to adduce evidence in her favour, and in particular that the witnesses she had requested had not been examined at the only hearing held by the appellate authority. She relied on Article 6 § 1 ... | 2 |
114. The Government argued that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the first applicant was declared a victim and a civil claimant in the criminal case opened ... | 2 |
37. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the first set of proceedings were unfair and about their outcome. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the amount fixed to be paid to him pursuant to the ruling of 7 February 2007 was unreasonably low. The applicant ... | 2 |
28. The Government argued that the applicant did not raise the length issue until his appeal to the Supreme Court. The possibility to mitigate a sentence due to the lapse of a considerably lengthy period since the commission of the offence was available to him under Chapter 6, section 7 of the Penal Code already at th... | 2 |
42. The applicant complained that she had no effective domestic mechanism whereby issues of civil liability could be determined in respect of the alleged negligent care of her deceased son and through which she could have obtained compensation for the non-pecuniary loss sustained by her including grief, loss and distr... | 2 |
111. 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 actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in... | 2 |
35. 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 |
128. 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 referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedi... | 2 |
139. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 22 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Conve... | 2 |
37. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings in his case. He also alleged that the judges sitting in the domestic courts were biased and lacked independence. In his submissions lodged in 2007, the applicant also complained of a violation of his rights ... | 2 |
128. 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 actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in... | 2 |
27. The applicants alleged that the expulsion of the second applicant to Italy in 2012 violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. They alleged that if the second applicant were to be expelled again there would be another violation of Articles 3 and 8. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicants also ... | 2 |
21. The applicant complained that neither he nor his lawyer had been duly summoned to the appellate court and the Supreme Court. Although he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, the Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which reads as follows ... | 2 |
59. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings about his placement in the security cell violated his right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the decision given by the Gießen Regional Court was inconsistent with its own case-law and thus violated his ri... | 2 |
60. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. According to the applicant, the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the partiality of the courts involved. He also claimed that the Constitutional... | 2 |
57. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, by refusing his request to become a party to the liability proceedings brought against the public administration despite his having a direct interest in them, he had not been given the opportunity to defend himself against serious allegations of ... | 2 |
192. 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 referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedi... | 2 |
115. The applicant alleged a violation of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, in that (i) his pre-trial detention had been unlawful, arbitrary and not decided upon by an independent tribunal established by law; (ii) the decisions in respect of his pre-trial detention lacked adequate reas... | 2 |
122. 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 the actions or omissions of the investigating auth... | 2 |
104. 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 did not prevent her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions o... | 2 |
88. The applicant complained about the refusal of the Court of Cassation to examine his appeal on points of law of 9 February 2006. The applicant invoked Article 5 § 4, Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention... | 2 |
164. The applicant bank also complained that in the enforcement proceedings at issue it had not been given proper notice of the hearing held on 23 September 2003 (see paragraphs 42-43 above) and thus had not had an opportunity to comment on the Commercial Court’s qualification of the founding agreement as non-commerci... | 2 |
12. The applicant complained that the failure of the authorities to implement the final judgment in his favour, by virtue of which a State body owed to him a sum of money, breached his right to an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in... | 2 |
27. 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 |
91. 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 close relative and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no available domes... | 2 |
146. 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 |
59. The applicant maintained that he was a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged that as a rule he had not been summoned to the meetings at the Bankruptcy Court but that nevertheless several times, in vain, he had complained orally against the excessive length of proceedings. He pointed... | 2 |
72. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Appeal Court had not re-assessed the evidence in her case and under Article 6 § 3 (d) that her witnesses had not been given the possibility to testify and that, if they had, their testimonies had not been reflected in the Appeal Court's j... | 2 |
99. The applicants complained that the investigatory procedure in this case was not effective and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death of their relatives and that, for this reason, they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Co... | 2 |
25. The applicant complained that his removal to Iraq without an individual assessment of his claims, despite the real risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment there and the risk of his refoulement to Iran, where he was likely to be tortured and executed, had breached Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention... | 2 |
109. The applicants complained that it had been made impossible for them to have their identity established, to explain their individual circumstances, to challenge their immediate return to Morocco before the Spanish authorities by means of a remedy with suspensive effect, and to have the risk of ill-treatment they r... | 2 |
18. The applicants complained that no remedy had been available to them under the domestic law in force at relevant time, by which to challenge the disciplinary sanctions that were imposed on them. They relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court notes that this part of the application should be examined ... | 2 |
15. The applicant association complained that the fact that the judgment of 27 March 2003 given in its favour had remained unenforced for a considerable period of time had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that it had no effective remedies in respect of the complain... | 2 |
110. 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 could have brought a civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage or could have lodged cour... | 2 |
81. The applicant complained, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance and treatment during his detention. He also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had not had an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3. The Court is ... | 2 |
120. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or ... | 2 |
44. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the second set of proceedings had been excessive. He further submitted that by not enforcing the judgment of 6 June 2003, as amended by the decision of 13 October 2004, the State authorities had infringed his rights under Article 1 o... | 2 |
78. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure during his arrest, and that the conditions of detention in the Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre, in the SIZO and during his transportation had been inhuman and degrading. The app... | 2 |
112. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings. I... | 2 |
131. 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 first and second applicants had been granted victim status in the criminal case and could have taken full a... | 2 |
36. The Government contested that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the Constitutional Court examined complaints about the length of proceedings before the lower courts. According to the Constitutional Court's case-law, excessive length was also a mitigating circumstanc... | 2 |
30. The applicant complained that neither the Istanbul State Security Court, nor the Istanbul Assize Court had met the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further argued that he had been denied an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention as he h... | 2 |
12. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Commission could not be considered an independent and impartial tribunal and that, since no appeal lay against its decision, they had been refused access to a court. On the same grounds they argued that they had been denied the right to an ef... | 2 |
44. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court had refused to scrutinise the validity of the assessment of his mental fitness for work. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that as a result of the classification of the proceedings the Supre... | 2 |
82. The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violati... | 2 |
98. The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the undertaking not to leave the town that had been imposed on her in the second set of criminal proceedings had been a disproportionate and lengthy restriction on her freedom of movement. She also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention tha... | 2 |
88. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention of lack of access to a court with respect to his complaint about the actions of the prosecutor’s office; under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention of unfairness in the criminal proceedings against him; under Artic... | 2 |
195. The applicant submitted at the outset that she is a very vulnerable individual. She is legally incapacitated with a history of mental health problems and has been admitted to a psychiatric institution against her will for an indeterminate period. The applicant’s guardian, who has the power to take decisions on al... | 2 |
117. 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 relative, who they claimed had been unlawfully detained. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic ... | 2 |
37. The Government maintained that the applicants had not alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with the fairness and length of the proceedings, having challenged the domestic restitution legislation, in particular the Land Ownership Act. The Government considered therefore that the app... | 2 |
84. 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 domesti... | 2 |
94. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They submitted that the investigation into the abduction of the applicants' relative had been instituted s... | 2 |
25. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that she had not been duly notified of the proceedings against her and had not been able to participate in them. In addition, after becoming aware of the judgments against her she had been unable to seek the re‑opening of the proceed... | 2 |
72. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had been granted the status of victim and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the criminal proceedings, and in particular, the right to gi... | 2 |
56. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the relevant provisions preventing him from being paid tax credits in respect of maintenance payments had constitutional status and were therefore excluded from the review of the Constitutional Court. He made a further complaint under Article 6 t... | 2 |
90. 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 cou... | 2 |
134. The Government argued that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, but had been unwilling to make use of them. They submitted that the first and seventh applicants had been granted victim status and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the c... | 2 |
31. The applicant alleged that the prosecutors and police had forced her to register her residence in Zaporizhzhya contrary to Article 2 Protocol No. 4. Referring to Article 1 Protocol No. 1, she in substance complained of the assessment of evidence in the civil proceedings. Finally, she complained that since 1976 the... | 2 |
104. 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 p... | 2 |
55. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair. He also contended that he had had no remedy at his disposal to complain effectively about the ill-treatment, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant... | 2 |
63. The applicants further argued that the approach adopted by the Court in the Norkin decision specifically concerned a structural problem relating to the lack of effective remedies in respect of conditions of detention. No similar findings had ever been made by the Court in relation to issues arising under Article 5... | 2 |
122. 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 any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities i... | 2 |
94. The applicant, invoking Articles 5, 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention, complained that he had been unlawfully arrested and detained, that he had not been brought to a court immediately after his arrest, that he had been unable to challenge effectively the detention orders, that the trial court h... | 2 |
20. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings. The... | 2 |
38. 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 |
64. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention the applicants further complained that no remedy had been available to them under the domestic law in force at relevant time, by which to ch... | 2 |
19. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the damages which she had been awarded had been too low. She further complained under the same provision that following the amendment to the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure her case had ceased to be reviewable by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Final... | 2 |
29. The applicant complained that, if extradited, he would face a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and an unfair trial by the Belarus authorities, which would constitute a violation of Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the absence of ef... | 2 |
121. 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 |
24. The applicant complained that his expulsion to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of his right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had not had at his dispos... | 2 |
18. The applicant complained that the length of his compensation proceedings, including their enforcement stage, had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he had no effective remedies in respect of this complaint as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Add... | 2 |
103. 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. She had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or ... | 2 |
114. The Government contested the applicant’s view essentially repeating their arguments concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They observed that the Albanian legal system provided a specific remedy whereby the applicant could claim the restitution of and compensation for property which had been... | 2 |
227. 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 |
112. 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. She had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in cour... | 2 |
143. 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 referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings ... | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.