The Court heard addresses by Mr Hagmann and Mrs Wittling-Vogel. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant was born in 1963.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ arguments 56.     The applicant contended that the hospital had disposed of the body of his stillborn child improperly.

JH had not informed his parents of his plans to leave Poland and he had merely called them from the airport. 10.

   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 19 February 1993 and they were invited, if they so wished, to submit further observations on the merits.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Emmerson, Mr Clerides and Lord Lester and the answers of the parties' representatives to questions put by judges. THE FACTS I.

Thus, the auditeur-militair is merely an advisory body at this stage, although the obtaining of his advice and the giving of that advice by him are mandatory."

In support of his request, he pointed out that he had a permanent address, had never been convicted, and that there was no risk of his absconding or obstructing the investigation. 18.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Emmerson and Mr Eadie. THE FACTS I.     The Circumstances of the case A.     The first applicant 11.

chèque à l'intéressée de ses salaires et notamment de celui de novembre 2012 qu'elle affirme n'avoir pas reçu ; que parmi les pièces fournies par les prévenus, on trouve aussi la copie du volet à adresser

    Merits 57.     The applicant argued that the length of the proceedings was unreasonable in his case.

Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

The reason for the interception was that the purchaser’s address did not match the one stated in the export contract.

They had considered they did not bring anything relevant to the case, but contained merely insults.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Pannick and Mr Eadie. AS TO THE FACTS I.   The Circumstances of the case A.   The first applicant 11.

  On 17 February 1995 the court resumed the proceedings as the applicant had informed it that service of a summons or other court documents on him could be effected at his home address.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Herndl, Mr Laule, Mr   W.J.   Habscheid and Mrs Voelskow-Thies. 9.

  After a bill of indictment is lodged with a court, a decision to impose detention on remand shall be given by a court competent to deal with the merits of the case.   3.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     The Government 50 .