text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
41. The Government submitted that these complaints had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit established in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 9 September 2008 (see paragraph 36 above), on which the applicant had put much emphasis, had been the... | 6 |
23. The Government relied on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 21 June 2011, and considered that by virtue of that judgment the applicant had lost his “victim” status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation of his rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. It ... | 6 |
97. The Government maintained in their submissions to the Grand Chamber that the applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because the case was lodged with the Court before Law no. 273 had been promulgated. Relying on Očič v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 46306/99, ECHR 1999-VIII), they ... | 6 |
69. The applicant noted that he had received correspondence from the Court with significant delay and, further, that the envelope itself had already been opened by others. In this connection he suggested that this could either have been an “innocent mistake” on the part of the Serbian postal services or a deliberate h... | 6 |
24. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted that the applicant had obtained a decision of the Constitutional Court, which had found a violation of Article 5 of the Convention and ordere... | 6 |
99. The Government pointed out that in the judgment of 7 May 2003 the Constitutional Court had acknowledged that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court had ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimbur... | 6 |
34. The applicants emphasised the clear consequences of the contested proceedings on their civil rights. Firstly, they pointed out that they all lived in Itoiz, where their immovable property was situated. Construction of the dam would result in flooding of this area and, consequently, of their homes and other assets.... | 6 |
51. The Government submitted that the Regional Court had already expressly acknowledged that the period of inactivity between 30 January 2013 and 11 February 2015 had been in contravention of the principle of the rule of law. The applicant, however, had already been compensated for that delay by having had three month... | 6 |
61. The applicant complained that on many occasions the authorities had interfered with his correspondence with the Court. In particular, he alleged that his copies of documents concerning the criminal proceedings against him had been unlawfully confiscated by the prison administration, that the authorities had refuse... | 6 |
29. The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 21 July 2004 the applicant had lost his status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expr... | 6 |
22. The Government argued that the applicant company could not claim to be the “victim”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts complained of. They observed that the Constitutional Court had indeed acknowledged a violation of the “reasonable-time” principle and awarded the applicant compa... | 6 |
50. The Government contested the admissibility of this complaint on several grounds. First of all, they submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court because he had failed to provide relevant documents, to fill in an application form, and to i... | 6 |
99. The Government contended that there had been no hindrance of the applicant’s right of individual petition. Referring to the Court’s case-law, the Government stated that in order to find that the State failed to comply with requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant’s allegations should be supp... | 6 |
150. The applicant’s representatives complained that by repatriating the applicant or by aiding his repatriation to Tajikistan despite the interim measure issued by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Russia had failed to comply with its undertaking under Article <mask> of the Convention not to hinder the a... | 6 |
62. The applicant agreed that the complaint was to be examined under Article 8. He nevertheless considered that the incident was also incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention in that the reading by prison staff of letters from the Court which might concern allegations against prison authori... | 6 |
23. The Government stressed that, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/01,... | 6 |
49. The Government submitted that Mrs Sardaryan could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. In particular, they pleaded that no “civil rights and obligations” of Mrs Sardaryan had been determined in the ... | 6 |
55. The Government submitted that, in light of the agreement on post-adoption contact of 30 March 2007, the applicants were no longer victims for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. They had received contact on the terms recommended by Professor Triseliotis and had not been prejudiced by the approach take... | 6 |
61. The Government also noted that the Constitutional Court had concluded that the Convention had been violated, although in respect of a different provision of the Convention from Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The applicant had received certain satisfaction and therefore was not a victim of a violation of the Conv... | 6 |
136. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been prevented from exercising his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, he was able to do so only through his mother – his official guardian. Since his mother had never asked Mr Bartenev (the lawyer) to represent her son... | 6 |
24. The applicants submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 28 April 2004, they were still “victims” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases ... | 6 |
36. The Government argued that in so far as the Regional Court had already found a delay in the proceedings, the excessively long duration of the proceedings had already been acknowledged and redressed. In addition, the Regional Court had also taken into account the long duration of the proceedings when determining th... | 6 |
197. The applicant complained that he had been hindered in the exercise of his right of individual application in that his lawyers in Amsterdam had not been permitted to contact him after his arrest and that the Government had delayed in replying to the Court's request for information. He alleged a violation of Articl... | 6 |
24. The Government maintained that the application in the present case had not been lodged by the alleged victim of the Convention violation, namely the applicant’s husband, who had died on 15 April 2002 before the final decision of 24 April 2002 of the Supreme Court. The Government argued that the widow did not have ... | 6 |
17. The Government submitted that, in line with the Court’s case-law, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/01, 17 S... | 6 |
48. The Government submitted that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violation of the Convention because he had not requested that the national authorities recognise him as a victim during the domestic criminal proceedings even though he was not precluded from doing so and such recognition would have signif... | 6 |
14. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints should not be examined by the Court, as he had not observed the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. They contended that although the applicant had sent a letter to the Registry on 30 August 2006, he had never sub... | 6 |
110. The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be “victims”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the events of which they complained. They disputed the existence of a genuine risk that the applicants would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of their... | 6 |
60. The applicant lastly complained that on 20 January 2006, when delivering him a letter from the Registry of the Court, a prison guard had started opening the envelope, and when the applicant objected had made the applicant open the envelope himself in the presence of the guard, who had threatened him with having hi... | 6 |
141. The Government contested the applicants’ submissions. They stated that in the course of the investigation the first and fifth applicants had been questioned with regard to their application before the Court. During the questioning on 25 October 2005 the first applicant had stated that neither he nor other members... | 6 |
87. The Government submitted that on 17 June 2015 the Constitutional Court had found a violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the period of the applicant’s detention between 21 March 2013 and 14 March 2014 (see paragraph 43 above). The applicant could therefore no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation wi... | 6 |
28. The applicant argued that the Government’s failure to ensure he have a medical examination to answer the 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. He relied on Article <... | 6 |
24. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because the domestic courts had acknowledged the violation of Article 8 and had granted her adequate redress. The Government also contended that the complaint had the nature of an actio ... | 6 |
52. The Government submitted that the applicants had entered Turkish territory illegally and had been deported to Iraq, where they had come from, pursuant to the national legislation prior to their arrest on 21 June 2008. They maintained that, despite this, the applicants did not have victim status within the meaning ... | 6 |
14. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants' constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and aw... | 6 |
24. The Government argued in the first place that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant had failed to lodge an appeal against the Buca District Governor’s decision, dated 28 December 2001, not to prosecute the gendarme officers. They also maintai... | 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 his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Consti... | 6 |
140. The applicant complained that his extradition to the United States had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court in accordance with Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, and that the extradition had therefore amounted to a violation of his right of individual petition. He relied on Article <mask> of t... | 6 |
51. The Government submitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the applicant had requested leave from the Hague Regional Court to join a pending civil action in tort brought by another former EBI detainee claiming, inter alia, compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of having been sub... | 6 |
15. The Government relied on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 September 2014, and considered that by virtue of that judgment the applicants had lost their “victim” status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as the applicants claimed to have been awarded insufficient compensation ... | 6 |
62. The applicant argued that, as in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien], cited above, he could still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to him, the alleged violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8 had already occurred by the time the Administrative Court ... | 6 |
24. The applicant submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 7 July 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 Ku... | 6 |
28. The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court’s judgment (nález) of 29 April 2004 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They pointed out that the Constitutional ... | 6 |
26. The applicant argued that it was unjust for the Government now to seek to rely on a point that they had agreed not to advance during the domestic proceedings, during which they had conceded it was irrelevant to the issues of principle at stake. She objected strenuously to the attempt to re-introduce the issue befo... | 6 |
94. The applicant also complained under Articles 5 §§ 1(a) and (c), 6 §§ 1, 2, 3(b) and (d), 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he had been detained arbitrarily and unlawfully, that the proceedings had been unfair, and that he had been discriminated against due to his status. He also sub... | 6 |
86. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violation of Article 6, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as it was the Voskhod company, and not the applicant in his personal capacity, who had been a claimant in the proceedings before the commercial co... | 6 |
30. 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. They further stressed that the Rules of Court, and accordingly the interim measure applied, did... | 6 |
131. 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 ... | 6 |
101. The applicant claimed 65,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage in relation to the suffering and mental distress caused to her by her husband’s disappearance and the violation of her right to respect for her home. In addition, in the event that the Court found a breach of the State’s obligations under... | 6 |
80. The Government contested that argument. They firstly submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Government noted that the applicant ought to have lodged complaints with a prosecutor’s office or with the Prison Administration. In this regard, the Court observes that a complaint under ... | 6 |
30. The applicant argued that the situation was analogous to the case of Amirov (cited above) in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention following the Government’s failure to comply with an interim measure imposed under Rule 39. As in the Amirov case (ibid.), the Russian authorities h... | 6 |
21. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims 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 |
54. The applicant further maintained that the case-law of the Court was clear on the point that the concept of “victim” under Article <mask> of the Convention should be interpreted broadly. The Government’s argument that he had not been sentenced to punishment was unfounded, as his conviction of a criminal offence had... | 6 |
86. The Government contended that there was no breach of the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention since his application had been accepted for examination by the Court. They further argued that they had complied with their obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a), as they had furnished the Court with c... | 6 |
27. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out, in view of the fact that the civil proceedings had been stayed pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings, that the domestic courts had acknowledged a violat... | 6 |
43. The applicant disagreed and insisted that her application, together with the enclosed documents, had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. She had submitted the relevant available documents which, according to her, were the search warrant and the final decision dismissin... | 6 |
17. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because, despite his allegations to the contrary, he had seen his lawyer on 13 March 2003 prior to his questioning by the police, albeit briefly. In the alternative, the Government asked t... | 6 |
142. The Government submitted that Mr Voskoboynikov had applied to the Court on behalf of the applicant on 9 February 1998. According to the Government, the applicant had said that he had not met Mr Voskoboynikov a single time in his statement of 27 October 1998 to the Prosecutor General. Moreover, in his of 25 Februa... | 6 |
64. The applicant complained that the authorities had refused to provide him with the copies of the documents which he needed to substantiate his complaint before the Court. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 227... | 6 |
178. The applicant’s representatives reiterated their submission that the applicant’s forcible removal to Uzbekistan would not have been possible without the authorisation, or at least acquiescence, of the Russian authorities; thus, that removal had been performed in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Cour... | 6 |
72. The applicant complained that in February 2006 domestic authorities had questioned him in connection with his application to the Court and urged him to testify that his submissions to the Court had been untrue. He further complained that the authorities had put pressure on Mrs Gasanova, his mother, Mrs Lisina, his... | 6 |
32. The Government argued that the time to be taken into in consideration in the present case should be only as regards the part of the proceedings conducted against the applicant and not the company. In the Government’s view the continuation of the proceedings against an owner of a company constitutes “singular legal... | 6 |
25. The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, he could no longer be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applic... | 6 |
17. The Government argued that Ms Ljiljana Simović, Mr Kazimir Jurić, Mr Abdulah Burek, Mr Amer Sunulahpašić, Ms Nasira Kurtović, Mr Nidaz Ugarak, Mr Jasmin Hodžić and Ms Jasmina Mezildžić had submitted their applications outside the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The final decisio... | 6 |
63. The applicant complained that the Government had not complied with its obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention in the context of the interim measures indicated to it under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to provide the applicant with adequate medical care. However, in the light of the Court’s findings con... | 6 |
103. The Government further objected that the first and second applicants had lost their victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in view of the redress which (i) the second applicant had obtained in the context of the civil proceedings, and (ii) both the first and second applicants had o... | 6 |
18. 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 his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awar... | 6 |
162. The Government reiterated their submission (see paragraph 121 above) that the essence of the applicant’s complaints had been his relationship with his wife and not “his continued incapacitation”. He could not therefore claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, he ha... | 6 |
52. The applicant submitted that he was a victim under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the revocation of his Maltese citizenship threatened the very basis of his ability to reside in Malta. He was directly affected by the impugned measure, in line with the Court’s case-law. In this connection, he referred to G... | 6 |
18. The Government argued that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 16 April 2003, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been ex... | 6 |
108. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of its rights under the Convention to the extent that its complaints were directed against the CRTA’s decisions in cases nos. 18/2000(3) and 113/2000(3), which had bee... | 6 |
48. The Government argued that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's judgments of 8 December 2004 and 14 January 2005, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period th... | 6 |
22. 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 |
80. The applicant asked the Grand Chamber to uphold the Chamber's judgment, which had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He considered that by transferring him to the prison hospital, the respondent Government had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. The Government Agen... | 6 |
46. The Government contended that Ukraine had complied with Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that while a copy of the judgment convicting the applicant had been issued to the applicant’s wife upon her request (see paragraph 32 above), neither the applicant nor his relatives had lodged a written request wi... | 6 |
23. The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their opinion, the domestic courts had acknowledged that there had been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by ... | 6 |
277. The applicant’s representatives contested the Government’s arguments, pointing out that the facts of the present application were different in crucial respects from the aforementioned case of Cruz Varas and Others, since in Cruz Varas the applicant had remained at liberty and had been able to contact his represen... | 6 |
51. The Government further disputed the applicant’s victim status as regards his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued with reference to the certificates of 20 March and 13 June 1996 (see paragraph 27 above) that the mill complex and petrol station had been registered in the company’s name rather th... | 6 |
19. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because the domestic courts had acknowledged a violation of his rights and had provided him with monetary compensation. The Government argued that the amount awarded to the ... | 6 |
37. The applicant also complained under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that the courts had incorrectly determined the merits of her counterclaim, that the lay judges had been appointed in violation of Russian law, and that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Lastly, she alleged under Article 1 o... | 6 |
151. 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 |
23. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims 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 |
51. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim” in terms of Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that an applicant could be considered a victim only if the State had already decided to take steps against him, and interference would come about only upon the execution or impl... | 6 |
59. The applicant argued that pursuing civil proceedings would not be effective in her case. To date, there had been no final judgment of a Polish court in a case in which compensation had been awarded for damage to a woman’s health caused by a refusal of a therapeutic abortion allowed under the 1993 Act. She emphasis... | 6 |
53. The applicant argued that the Government’s failure to provide her with immediate access to the entire range of drugs available for cancer patients or to transfer her to a civilian medical institution was a breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated... | 6 |
27. The applicants replied that the constitutional complaint was not an effective remedy for alleged violations of the right of access to a court. In particular, the Constitutional Court had not responded to the first applicant's complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to his length complaint. Furthermore, t... | 6 |
44. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be the victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the alleged violation of her property rights on account of the investigating authorities’ negligence. They pointed out that the domestic commercial courts had examined the applicant... | 6 |
132. The applicant’s representative complained that, by expelling the applicant before the examination of his appeal against the removal order, and despite the measure indicated by the Court on 24 October 2006 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under the Convention. T... | 6 |
91. The applicant further complained that on 17 October 2007 the administration of correctional colony no. IK-7, where he was serving a prison sentence, had failed to dispatch his application form to the Court. He relied on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> ... | 6 |
56. The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be “victims”, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts of which they complained. The applicants had asserted, without providing official identity papers in support of their claims, that they had taken part in the assault on t... | 6 |
139. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to provide him with copies of the documents from his case file which he had wished to submit to the Court in substantiation of his application. The applicant also complained that the authorities had blocked his correspondence with the Court. He relied on Ar... | 6 |
47. The Government observed that the applicant complained that she had been obliged to pay both the employer’s and employee’s social security contributions. However, in so far as her obligation to pay the employee’s contributions was concerned, she could not be regarded as a victim of the alleged violation within the ... | 6 |
21. The Government submitted that the applicant had ceased to be a victim of a violation, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as on 24 September 2003 he had received the entire amount which had been due to him under the judgment of the Pleven Regional Court. Unlike the situation obtaining in the ca... | 6 |
34. The Government argued that the applicants were not victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants by the University had been annulled by the domestic courts and that following the first-instance courts’ decisions to stay th... | 6 |
13. The Government mentioned that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no... | 6 |
37. The Government noted that the applicant had been “fully compensated” by S.B. and that the Municipal Court had sent her an official apology for the excessive length of the impugned proceedings. She was therefore no longer a “victim”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Faulkner v. United Kin... | 6 |
39. The applicant argued that the situation was similar to the case of Amirov, cited above, in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention following the Government’s failure to comply with an interim measure imposed under Rule 39. As in the Amirov case (ibid.), the Russian authorities had... | 6 |
77. The Government took the view that the applicant had suffered no actual adverse consequences as a result of the facts complained of. There was, after all, no doubt that the applicant was aware of the sanction taken against him and the reasons for it: the Court of Appeal had explained the reasons for the order in qu... | 6 |
79. The Government argued that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention given that the Regional Court had found in respect of the Expert Panel that the applicants’ right to equal treatment and education had been violated by... | 6 |
24. The Government further maintained that the first applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, because the amount of compensation he had claimed before the domestic courts (MDL 0.1) had been so low as to suggest that the true purpose of his libel action had not been to obtain r... | 6 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.