They claimed that the Roma-only curriculum in their schools had 30   % less content than the official national curriculum.

SIMONOVIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3   November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L.

had commenced.

However, it quashed the remainder of the judgment concerning the obligation to pay back GBP 5,778,000 to Mr Nadir to restore the shares, on the ground that Mr Nadir had not made such a claim before the

On 26 October 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that in the framework of inheritance proceedings Ms Nada Seničić, the applicant’s wife, had inherited the applicant.

of its jurisdiction ratione temporis to situations involving a continuing violation which had begun before the introduction of the right of individual application and had carried on after that date (

  There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3.

In particular, he complained that he had not been presumed innocent given that the domestic court had referred to him as an accomplice in the criminal case against Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko, while

  Complaints   Under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of their arrest on 1 October 1999 and in particular of the fact that it had taken place after they had been summoned

it had been made available to the advocate-general; neither had he been informed of the tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions, and had therefore been unable to reply to them.

JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 June 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 June 2008 and 11 on Thursday 26 June 2008.

he had been present at the police station, he had not stayed with them at the closed centre.

The applicants shared the land of their ancestors, some 270 plots or 7,500 hectares of barely cultivable land at the Aya Napia village, in the Famagusta district, Cyprus.

Russia also claimed that they had had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.

The agreement stated that the impugned property had been sold by the Educational Centre to the applicant.

    The Court notes that the applicants, Nadiya, Anatoliy and Oleksandr Yeremenko initiated proceedings before the Court as the heirs of Mr Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko, although they had not been

      CASE OF NADA v.

It found that the applicant had sold the house to Mrs and Mrs   M. for the price which they had paid.

Afterwards, there had been cake and they had gone to bed. The psychologist asked what they had done then.