text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
111. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against in prison and before the domestic courts on grounds of language (as a Russian speaker), ethnic origin and his pecuniary and prisoner status. In his observations, he emphasised the alleged language discrimination... | 3 |
130. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 on account of the difference in the statutory treatment of members of families of Russian military officers who were required to leave Latvia, and that of other Russian-speaking residents of Latvia who ... | 3 |
88. The applicants complained that the dissolution of HADEP had violated their rights guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with the above Articles, the applicants alleged that HADEP had been dissolved because it was regarded as a Kurdish party, a... | 3 |
126. The applicants also complained that they had been discriminated against by the social authorities since the children had been prohibited from speaking their maternal language, Assyrian, between themselves or with the second applicant. They had also been refused contact with their relatives on their mother's side ... | 3 |
85. The Government did not contest the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, they argued that the applicant’s income as a prisoner was insufficient for him to pay contributions to the old-age pension system: following deduction of the mai... | 3 |
53. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his preventive detention was unlawful as he had been refused a social therapy or relaxations in the conditions of his detention in view of his future expulsion. However, at the same time his sentence was not suspended because the prosecution autho... | 3 |
62. The applicants complained that the custody decisions had been taken on the ground of their status as disabled persons, and that the State had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide them with adequate conditions in order to preserve their family. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunct... | 3 |
45. The applicant party complains under Article 13, in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, of having been denied an effective remedy against the violation of its Convention rights. The applicant party complains, in particular, that the Lower Saxony Parliament lacked impar... | 3 |
85. The applicant alleged that in relation to a civic obligation that had been imposed on him he had had to face criminal proceedings, had been ordered to pay a fine and had been threatened with imprisonment in default. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6. The relevant par... | 3 |
100. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts which had examined the issue of his pre-trial detention had lacked impartiality and independence as, in particular, on several occasions the same judges had been involved in considering whether to extend the custodial measure. ... | 3 |
90. The applicants complained that the domestic courts’ rejection of their civil claims and the simultaneous acceptance of identical claims lodged by other claimants had resulted in a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 and Article... | 3 |
73. The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings had been instituted against him only because of his political opinions and his participation in the anti-government demonstration. In addition, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with his other... | 3 |
15. The Government made a number of objections to the admissibility of the present application. Firstly, they requested the Court to dismiss the application as an actio popularis because it was lodged by three persons. They construed the right of individual petition in Article <mask> of the Convention as requiring eac... | 6 |
23. The Government argued that the applicant company could not be considered a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The District Court had rejected the public prosecutor’s request that the court declare the criminal proceeds forfeit to the State. This decision had been upheld by the Appeal Co... | 6 |
20. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court had pro... | 6 |
16. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of her constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awar... | 6 |
154. The applicant submitted that there had been no reason for the prosecutor to come to his flat. Firstly, he had not concealed the information about his remarriage to his former wife and the birth of their fourth child from the authorities. On the contrary, he had informed the head of his military unit about these f... | 6 |
70. The applicants also submitted that the Government’s former representative Mr Matyushkin was biased. According to the applicants, M.’s father was Mr Matyushkin’s personal aikido trainer and a close friend. They submitted a photograph featuring Mr Matyushkin and M.’s father together and claimed that it had been take... | 6 |
80. The Government submitted that the complaints of the applicants Ms Zamorozda and Ms Golovatenko should be found inadmissible since they were not participants in the civil proceedings concerning the invalidation of the OM's property transaction. For this reason, their complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Co... | 6 |
30. The Government submitted that the applicant had no standing to bring the case before the Court. The applicant had not inherited the claim in respect of the judgment debt since he had not registered succession as required by the Civil Code. Moreover, the applicant’s representative had recovered the judgment debt on... | 6 |
38. The applicant argued that the Government’s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated his right to individual application.... | 6 |
37. The Government submitted that Mr Crepulja could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention following decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Kiseljak Municipal Court of 25 June and 29 November 2013, respectively, and the p... | 6 |
77. The applicant alleged that, following communication of his complaints under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, his family had been subjected to persecution by the Russian authorities. In particular, on 7 February 2010 an official at the prosecutor’s office in Grozny had made threats to his mother and on 8 Feb... | 6 |
113. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the LIU-10 authorities had put illicit pressure on him in relation to his complaint to Strasbourg. In particular, he alleged that the LIU-10 authorities had demanded that he disclose the contents of his letters to the Court and that they had imp... | 6 |
43. The applicant disagreed. He referred to principles established by the Court in cases pertaining to Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. He further pointed out that the authorities had failed to comply with the Court’s request under Rule 39 that he should be subjected to an examin... | 6 |
118. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was manifestly ill-founded and unsupported by any evidence. The Government further argued that the search of the office of the applicant’s representative had been lawful, had not been intended to exert any pressure on t... | 6 |
41. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention for the following reasons. First, following a friendly settlement, the applicant had been exempted from liability for the remainder of his debts subject to the debt recovery procedure. Sec... | 6 |
22. The Government argued that the applicant can no longer be considered a “victim”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the Government referred to the settlement reached between the State Attorney's Office and the applicant in another applicant's case (no. 21147/03) struck out ... | 6 |
142. The applicants maintained his complaint. The first and fifth applicants insisted that they had never denied having applied to the Court. According to them, the investigator had put in the transcripts the statements they had never made and then had misled them into signing the transcripts. They also pointed out th... | 6 |
22. The applicant company disagreed, stating that according to Ukrainian law it was a private company, whose aim was to receive profit through business operations and to divide it among its shareholders. The applicant submitted that it acted according to its articles of association which were of an ordinary private-la... | 6 |
50. The Government did not demonstrate any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, § 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in brea... | 6 |
19. The Government asserted that the settlement of 20 November 2006 had deprived the applicant of victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention or, alternatively, resolved the matter within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. According to the settlement of 20 November 2006, the ... | 6 |
29. The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicants granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, they could no longer be considered “victims” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the appl... | 6 |
20. The Government submitted that the applicant cannot claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because she obtained a favourable ruling of the domestic court. They maintained that “the alleged violation of Article 6 was rectified by (...) dismissing the plaintiff's claim”. The Gov... | 6 |
26. The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 28 June 2004, she was still a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. She argued that the Constitutional Court had not responded to her complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to her length complaint... | 6 |
22. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer be considered “victims” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because domestic courts had acknowledged violations of their rights and had provided them with redress. The Government argued that the amounts awarded to the applicants had be... | 6 |
25. The Government submitted that the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants could not claim to be “victims”, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts of which they complained. In support of their objections, the Government claimed that these applicants had not taken part in the previous ... | 6 |
173. The applicant also submitted that his representative had been refused permission to meet with him in the prison. The impossibility of meeting his representative had amounted to an infringement of the effective exercise of his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also ... | 6 |
28. The Government opened their argument with an assertion that it could not be inferred from Article <mask> of the Convention or “from any other source” that the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was legally binding. They further stressed that the Rules of Court, and accordingly the interi... | 6 |
18. The Government pointed out that the domestic proceedings had ended with a settlement which had been accepted by all parties and had been confirmed by the District Court. According to the terms of the settlement, the applicants had agreed to pay to the plaintiff EUR 17,000 each and had agreed not to take any legal ... | 6 |
55. The applicant complained that the Government’s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Art... | 6 |
42. The Government submitted that the applicant had originally lodged his application against the Federal Republic of Germany. They were of the opinion that the application should have been communicated to the German Government with a view to enabling the Court to examine it in a comprehensive manner. The present case... | 6 |
23. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Co... | 6 |
57. The Government argued that the application was already inadmissible. The applicant’s complaints relating to the prosecution’s failure to apply Article 456a of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2002/2003, raised in his initial application to the Court, were declared inadmissible by the Court on 20 February 2007 (ap... | 6 |
24. The Government contested that argument. As regards the first proceedings, they claimed that the applicant could not be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this respect they pointed out, that the domestic courts not only accepted that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable t... | 6 |
92. The applicant unions observed that their constitutions provided that they should defend the interests of their members, professional athletes who, by definition, were included or liable to be included in the testing pool. FNASS and the unions stressed their legitimate claim to assert the interests of all athletes,... | 6 |
66. The applicant further maintained that he had not lost his status of victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Even though the Federal Court of Justice had found that his detention on remand had lasted an unreasonably long time, national law did not provide for adequate redress in this respect.... | 6 |
153. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had interfered with their ability to communicate with the Court effectively. They also pointed to a lack of interpreting services, which had further hindered their effective p... | 6 |
107. The applicants complained of several violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 99-101 above). They also noted that the Government had failed to present a copy of the investigation file into Mr Bekirski's death. The applicants argued that, had the file been presented to the Court, the latter... | 6 |
18. The Government made a preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to submit “any documents demonstrating that he had ever complained to the competent national authorities of the alleged violations of his rights and what [had been] their reply”. They considered that he had thereby failed to comply with Arti... | 6 |
41. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this regard, they referred to a document issued by the director of the medical department of Grīvas prison, which indicated that the applicant had b... | 6 |
197. The applicant further stressed that the extraordinarily precipitated enforcement of the deportation order against him and the fact that the authorities hid him from his lawyer on that day strongly contradicted the Government’s assertion that the domestic bodies had not intended to act in breach of the interim mea... | 6 |
65. The Government appear to consider that this refusal has not been detrimental to the applicant branch. The Court recalls in this connection that the existence of a violation is conceivable even in the absence of prejudice or damage; the question whether an applicant has actually been placed in an unfavourable posit... | 6 |
69. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Supreme Court, when dealing with his cassation appeal, had acknowledged that there had been a violation of his right to marry within the meaning of Article 12. In its judgment of 27... | 6 |
20. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Co... | 6 |
156. The Government argued that the applicant’s lawyers had not lodged any request with the Psychiatric Hospital for information concerning the applicant’s state of health and about the medical assistance provided to him. As regards an examination by a private doctor, the Government reiterated that the applicant recei... | 6 |
17. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because on 4 January 2000 she obtained a favourable ruling of the domestic court. They further maintained that “after 4 January 2000 there was no longer a causal link between th... | 6 |
75. The Government asked the Court not to grant any pecuniary damage to the applicant, since no plausible pecuniary damage could have been caused from the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their view, should the Court find a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 34 in the prese... | 6 |
68. The Government stated that the applicant had not complained that the search of her house had been unlawful or disproportionate, and thus arbitrary (contrast Ratushna v. Ukraine, no. 17318/06, §§ 70-72, 2 December 2010). In the Government’s submission, she had complained about the use of force against her, about he... | 6 |
152. The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The Government f... | 6 |
35. The Government’s argument may be interpreted as a claim that the applicant is no longer a “victim” of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, or that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). In both cases, the Court must ascertain that, in additi... | 6 |
45. The Government argued that the complaint under Article 5 § 1 was inadmissible on several grounds. Firstly, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as he had not claimed compensation for his detention under the State Liability Act 2003. Secondly, the application was manifestly ill-founded, as the gua... | 6 |
95. The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case t... | 6 |
64. The applicant complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the monitoring of his correspondence had amounted to a hindrance in the effective exercise of his right of application. He also complained, relying on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention, that he had not been allowed to contact his lawyer ... | 6 |
38. The Government argued that an effective investigation had taken place and that, subsequently, the applicants were awarded compensation. Thus, they considered that the applicants were no longer victims under Article 2, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government further maintained that Ka... | 6 |
40. The Government did not show that there was any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, § 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39, in breach of its obli... | 6 |
24. The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 25 November 2004, she was still a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. She argued that the Constitutional Court had not responded to her complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to her length compl... | 6 |
26. The Government argued that the first applicant’s complaints should be declared inadmissible, since the Constitutional Court had awarded her a certain amount of money as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. They also implicitly indorsed the Constitutional Court’s arguments in respect of the rejection... | 6 |
40. The Government did not demonstrate any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, § 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in brea... | 6 |
85. The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s judgments of 27 October 2003, argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of any delays in the proceedings covered by those judgments. They argued that the just satisf... | 6 |
24. The Government raised an objection that the applicant cannot be considered a “victim”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Court notes that this issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under t... | 6 |
49. The Government submitted that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the prosecuting authorities had never instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. On the contrary, they had issued a non-p... | 6 |
43. The Government maintained that the applicant lost his status as a “victim” of an alleged violation of his right under Article 6 § 1 within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in its decision of 20 July 2000, the Federal Constitutional Court had found that the proceedings before t... | 6 |
37. The Government opened their argument with an assertion that it could not be inferred from Article <mask> of the Convention or “from any other source” that the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 was legally binding and that, accordingly, their failure to submit answers to the questions raised by the Court had ... | 6 |
21. The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 24 March 2004, he was still a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (see ... | 6 |
102. The applicant submitted that she was subjected to threats in relation to her complaint to the Court, as a result of which she was forced to seek asylum abroad. She also argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a f... | 6 |
21. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 31 July 2003 the Liability Act entered into force, which provided that the proceedings stayed under the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed. Moreover, the Constitutional Co... | 6 |
66. The applicants complained in reply that the fact that the Representative of the Russian Federation had concealed his close acquaintance with M.’s father and had distorted relevant facts had amounted to a lack of cooperation and a hindrance to the exercise of his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of... | 6 |
52. The Government raised several preliminary objections in their observations. First of all, they noted that the applicant had lived for one year in Northern Finland but had been back in his home town for more than eight and a half years. He had not raised the idea of moving away from his home town for a long time. T... | 6 |
146. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the administration of the Simferopol SIZO had refused to dispatch his letter of 30 August 2006 to the Court containing his complaints about the conditions of detention in that SIZO. He also complained under the same provision that the au... | 6 |
41. The applicant complained that the authorities had not reacted to his request for copies of documents which the Court had asked him to provide. He further complained that the prison administration had reviewed his letters to and from the Court in his presence, had failed to send or delayed in sending some of his le... | 6 |
80. The Government contended that Ukraine had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicant could have obtained copies of the necessary documents with the help of his relatives, with whom he had maintained contact, and that the situation in the present case was analogous to that of Cha... | 6 |
56. The Government maintained – and the applicants disagreed – that Mr Marinić and Mr Hadžić could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violations of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention following the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Constitution... | 6 |
242. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that on a number of occasions State officials had threatened him in connection with his complaints concerning the conditions of detention and medical assistance in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. In particular, he alleged that he had been approached... | 6 |
30. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that since the charges against the applicant were dismissed on appeal and the applicant received no criminal record, neither his professional life... | 6 |
92. The Government submitted that the individual applicants' property rights were limited by the contractual agreement they had concluded with the applicant company. The individual applicants' complaint about a breach of their property rights should have been directed towards the applicant company within the framework... | 6 |
52. The Government challenged the applicant’s victim status. They pointed out that, by a decision of 3 October 2011, the Court of Impeachment had upheld the applicant’s claim for dismissal in respect of counts 1.1 and 1.2 of the indictment and that, by its judgment of 23 April 2012, the court had acquitted him of coun... | 6 |
58. The Government submitted that the applicant had ceased to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, by virtue of the fact that he had collected his entire claim for supplementary and indexed-linked pension, together with statutory interest and ... | 6 |
158. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that on a number of occasions State officials had exerted pressure on him in connection with his application lodged with the Court. In particular, he claimed that the officials had tried to force him to settle the case in return for a promise that he... | 6 |
37. The applicants submitted that, following the Court's admissibility decision in the present case, the Austrian Constitutional Court declared Article 209 of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional and that subsequently Parliament decided to repeal this provision. However, the Constitutional Court's judgment, which ... | 6 |
29. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because he himself had decided not to go to the funeral and had therefore not been affected by the conditions of transport in the prison van. The mere potential for a violation and the... | 6 |
79. The applicant further complained that he was hindered in the effective exercise of his right to make an application to the Convention organs. In this respect he noted that his letters of 8 October 1998 and 2 June 2000 had not been sent to Strasbourg. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the ... | 6 |
67. The Government maintained that the applicant had lost the status of victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in its judgment of 11 September 2003, the Federal Court of Justice had expressly established and recognised a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on acco... | 6 |
94. The applicant’s inability during his treatment in hospital for several months to communicate in any way with his representative before the Court was found to amount to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05, § 140, 27 March 2008). The Court concluded that the restric... | 6 |
60. The Government referred to the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 January 1997 in which it had refused to grant a further extension of the applicant’s detention on remand on the ground that the previous period of his detention had been excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. They further referred to the... | 6 |
70. The Government submitted that there has been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had not been pressured, directly or indirectly, by the State in order to be dissuaded from pursuing his application before the Court. The delay referred to by the applicant was of a purely technical natu... | 6 |
56. The Government opened their line of argument with the assertion that the legally binding force of the interim measure issued under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may not be drawn from Article <mask> of the Convention or “from any other source”. They further stressed that the Rules of Court and accordingly the inter... | 6 |
36. The applicant pointed out that his wife had been prevented from ending her life within the privacy of their family home, as originally planned by the couple, and instead he had been forced to travel to Switzerland to enable his wife to commit suicide. The Court had previously considered closest family members to b... | 6 |
49. The Government emphasised that in the domestic proceedings before the County Court, the applicant’s explicit position was that she intended in any event to leave the site when her parents left. In their view, it therefore followed that she was neither directly affected nor at risk of being directly affected by the... | 6 |
25. The Government accepted that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour had taken place and submitted that at the relevant time there had been systematic delays in payments of similar payments due to the nation-wide changes in the system of distribution of budgetary allocations. They al... | 6 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.