of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

As to her two sons, the applicant referred to the information set out at paragraph 7 above and denied that she had abandoned them.

  According to the applicant, the police officers had dragged him forcibly out of the bus without having pronounced his arrest.

Apparently the officers only mentioned that they would either lock her parents in prison or would deport them to Turkmenistan.

It pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to request an expert examination of the body.

By a letter of 9   November 1994 the head of the Complex informed the applicant that the Complex had asked the Government of the Russian Federation to look into the possibility of the loans being

individual circumstances, so should be the case of any other such complainant who could satisfy the locus requirement.

   To clarify for our readers, it should be pointed out that this act of revenge was directed by a special detachment of NKVD [the Soviet security police], positioned at three locations in Bulgaria

  The following day R.T. and the other man took J.S. out in one of R.T.'s boats, shot him and pushed him overboard.

  As the improvements were not made, the Regional Court dismissed the appeal as being out of time.

A search of the rooms was not carried out. The control was terminated within three quarters of an hour.

The prosecutor then requested that their statements be read out.

I request you to look into the above events and to take action against the [court’s President and her Deputy].”

I point out that I can prove all information set out in this letter. The circumstances of the case were published in more detail in Smena on 8 November 1991, but since then little has changed.

In its view, the proper course is to apply to the present case the principles set out above. 2. Application of these principles in the present case 36.

They stated that they did not object to the locus standi of the applicant’s daughter to maintain the application.

Switzerland - 21353/93 Judgment 16.12.1997 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Search of residential premises carried out in connection with administrative criminal law proceedings: no violation  

France - 23618/94 Judgment 24.8.1998 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Respect for private life Judgment whereby Court of Cassation refused a person locus standi to complain of interception

Among other things, the applicant alleges that A.M. was not informed of all medical procedures carried out on her, that she was not allowed to go to the toilet, and that her privacy was violated by the