remedies to be exercised only in so far as they relate to the violations complained of before the organs whose task it is to ensure the observance of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, the Ciulla

recalls that the only remedies that Article 26 of the Convention (art. 26) requires to be exhausted are those that are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches alleged (see the judgments of Ciulla

This latter provision must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3, which together form a whole (see Ciulla v.   Italy , judgment of 22   February 1989, Series A no. 148, § 38).

Government are estopped from raising the matter before the Court (see, among many other authorities, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 29-31, §§ 47-55, and the Ciulla

This latter provision must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 which forms a whole with it (see Ciulla v. Italy , judgment of 22   February 1989, Series A no.   148, § 38).

    Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 which forms a whole with it (see Ciulla v.

In the Court’s opinion, the Government’s vague reference to “offences of an extremist nature” is not specific enough to satisfy the requirements of Article 5 §   1 (c) (see, mutatis mutandis , Ciulla

Three strands of reasoning in particular may be identified as running through the Court’s case-law: the exhaustive nature of the exceptions, which must be interpreted strictly (see Ciulla v.

    The Court considers that Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3, which forms a whole with it (see Ciulla v.

As on previous occasions (see, for example, the Ciulla judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 18, § 41), the Court does not underestimate the importance of the struggle against organised crime

interpreted this provision (art. 5-1-c) to the effect that it ‘permits deprivation of liberty only in connection with criminal proceedings’ (see, inter alia, the Court’s judgment of 22 February 1989 in the Ciulla

That ground of detention does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing a concrete and specific offence (see Guzzardi , cited above, § 102; Ciulla v.

Italy , 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39; and Ciulla v. Italy , 22   February 1989, Series A no. 148).

It falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, inter alia, the Ciulla judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 15, § 31).

Ireland judgment of 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3, pp. 51-52, § 14, and the Ciulla v.   Italy judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, pp. 16-18, §§ 38-41). 51.

In addition, substantial grounds must exist in order for deprivation of liberty to be imposed for that purpose (see Ciulla v. Italy , 22 February 1989, § 38, Series A, No.   148).

Three strands in particular may be identified as running through the Court’s case-law: the exhaustive nature of the exceptions, which must be interpreted strictly (see Ciulla v.

Ciuta ,   acting Agent ; Ms M. Morariu ,   Counsel ; (b) for the applicant Mr S. Cus , of the Bucharest Bar,   Counsel . The applicant was also present.

considering that the Court has previously held that the phrase “obligation prescribed by law” denotes an obligation of a specific and concrete nature already incumbent on the person concerned (see Ciulla