There was then a fight and she heard someone say “Oh God, get it off” and “What are you doing? What are you doing?” Everything went quiet.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, to the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court finds that their length did not in itself exceed what may be considered “reasonable

  APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, to the overall duration of the proceedings, the Court finds that their length did not in itself exceed what may be considered “reasonable

    When did the police start collaborating with Mr N. in the present case?

The prosecution lodged a request for him to be remanded in custody at 8.55   a.m. on 22   June 2007, but the remand hearing did not start until 12.45   p.m.

That is really what I am interested in.” 24 .

If, for whatever reason, the individual concerned is not removed from the territory of the respondent State, the responsibility of that State under Article 2 or 3 does not arise.

The report notably raised the question whether and to what extent Mr Schröder had taken advantage of policy decisions he himself had taken while head of government in preparation for this change.

  APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) Application no.

    The Court’s position was that, while these flaws were not sufficient to render any forfeiture under the 2005 Act contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.

    The case concerns the applicants’ complaints under Article   8 of the Convention that they were not allowed to have visits with physical contact, in particular conjugal visits, while

    The Court notes that the   legal systems of many member States provide for the possibility of extending procedural time-limits if there are valid reasons to do so (see Ponomaryov v.

must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what

    The Court notes that the applicant died on 25 April 2017, while the case was pending before the Court.

The Court notes that the proceedings in the applicants’ case did not start on 12   October 1992 when the third applicant initiated the proceedings but on 1   May 1993 when the recognition by

The servicemen had been not visible in the snow as they had been in white camouflage uniforms. The servicemen had then asked him to take his clothes off and show them what he had in his backpack.

had to be proved, what the foreman of the jury had said.”

a defamatory statement.