I ask you to bring this statement to the notice of the European Court of Human Rights.”

Lastly, as regards the possibility to challenge the expulsion itself in court, the applicants submitted that they had not been aware of this option, since they had been detained immediately after their

    The Government considered the applicant’s claims excessive. In their opinion, an appropriate award in the applicant’s case would be EUR   20,000.

actions (inaction) (including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case).”

By court orders and at the request of certain members of their respective families, the first applicant was placed under trusteeship, the second under guardianship.

The applicants were all Serbian nationals, and their further personal details are set out in the Annex to this judgment. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr S.

In this connection, they contended that the proceedings did not fall within the scope of Article 6, the applicants’ complaint thus being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev. 1.

time-limits for lodging their plea of nullity, their appeal and their comments with the Supreme Court.

, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

    By virtue of their right to decline to give evidence, the following persons are not obliged to comply with an order of this nature: a. the persons described in Article 217; b. the persons

It follows that this issue should be joined to the merits. 29.

of the common good to control aliens, their entry into the State, their departure and their activities within the State.’

Should he fail to fulfil this obligation, the authorities shall do so of their own motion and at his expense.

Accordingly, the Court confirms that the applicant was not obliged to pursue civil remedies. The objection in this regard is thus dismissed. 47 .

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

The application of this rule must make due allowance for the context.

Accordingly, the Court must examine this objection. 23.

This rule would even apply if the identity of the third person having made the statement was unknown.