According to the Court’s case-law, the six ‑ month period cannot start running until the applicant and/or his or her representative have effective and sufficient knowledge of the final domestic

What must C’s small body have endured? What thoughts must have gone through the 10-year-old girl’s head when her stepmother and her father either ill-treated her or watched the other do it?

Some injured people who did not manage to board the ambulances walked to the hospitals, while others were taken by local people who had not participated in the demonstrations (see first-instance judgment

The applicants also maintain that the State failed to conduct a proper and effective investigation regarding their Article 8 complaint.

themselves had not been consistent but had nevertheless been accepted by the court as decisive, while compelling statements which had been given by the applicant and G.K. had simply been ignored; (d)

X stayed with the applicant while E.B. visited daily. No information has been provided as to on what basis X travelled and entered into Norway.

The applicant had also been visiting the prison psychiatrist and had for a while been undergoing methadone-maintenance treatment. 3.

The court held that the issue of the disputed seat had undoubtedly arisen before the start of the parliamentary term.

[As] I previously told you – how do you imagine someone saying ‘no’ to the State [and then] staying in the same State? What will happen, how will things turn out? ... Applicant: ...

The applicant's trial was due to start before the Haarlem Regional Court ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) on 1 March 2001.

The request concerned his surveillance by the State authorities in the period from 14 September 2008 to 11 December 2008. 6.

The officers had not told anyone who they were, what their intention was and what were the consequences of not abiding by their orders and the persons who had contact with them had not understood the proceedings

The decision on the merits became final on 16 May 2020, while the decision on the costs and expenses was challenged by the defendant, whose interlocutory appeal was dismissed on 20 July 2020. 8.

Therefore, the Government’s argument of diminished legal uncertainty of what was at stake in his case could not be accepted. 19.

While noting that the overall length of the restitution proceedings was “scandalous”, it observed that the applicant’s complaint was only directed against the land office and that he had challenged its

While this amount is not insignificant, given the entire length of the proceedings, the fact that they were not particularly complex and that the applicants did not contribute to the overall length, the

  44689/10, the Court notes that the applicant died on 23 May 2016, while the case was pending before the Court.

While the latter’s observations were not admitted to the file as belated, the applicant was able to submit his observations and just satisfaction claims. 5.

It held that the pre-trial stage had ended on 19 May 2014 (when the applicant was indicted) and the applicant had thus failed to lodge his complaint while the proceedings had still been pending before