In their observations, the Government informed about the second set of proceedings.

Therefore, the latter were not a party to the proceedings and thus not excluded from them.

    In 1994 the applicants’ parents conveyed the title to the property to the applicants. All four of them – the applicants and their parents – continued to live in the apartment. 9.

The Government contested this view. 40.

Thus, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. A.

THE LAW The applicants complain that the authorities violated their right to respect for home and the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

However, the applicants indicated their wish to pursue their application. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

He was represented before the Court by Mr   S.   Smetana, a lawyer practising in Kherson. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Y.

judges of the 14 th section, whose motto – “Terrorise the terrorists” – was coined by Charles Pasqua.

The expert, retained by the applicant, further noted that the rights of the third persons in question remained unaffected, thus implying that their consent was not needed. 16.

These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

They also complained that by rejecting their compensation claim, the State had violated their rights under Article 2 of the Convention.

In this capacity they could acquaint themselves with the case file, present evidence, make requests and appeal against acts of the courts to the extent that this was related to their civil claim.

Following this, it forwarded the appeals to the County Administrative Court.

The applicants’ detention at the police station was not recorded until the evening of 13 July 1999. The applicants were then allowed to see their lawyers.

Accordingly, the court recognised him as the lawful owner of the parcel. On 6 February 1997, however, the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment.

The Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court had not erred in its impugned decision of 24 June 2008 and this part of the appeal was thus manifestly ill-founded.

In August 1998, allowing an application by the applicant, the Romanian courts ordered this mark to be removed. The applicant was acquitted in June 2005.