the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals, Mr Pavel Nikolayevich Nagibin, Mr   Boris Vadimovich Batyy and Mr   Eduard

    The applicants were represented by Mr Eduard Markov, a lawyer admitted to practice in Odessa.

They were only looking for computers, mobile telephones and similar devices, and did not rummage needlessly through things in the house. 14.

On 7 October 2012 the city police department confirmed that the recording existed and invited the judge to bring an electronic storage device onto which it could be copied.

application (no. 42440/06) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Eduard

    Throughout the proceedings before the trial court the applicant denied his involvement in drug trafficking, claiming that the criminal case against him had been falsified by police officers

It is not disputed by the parties that the applicant never denied the existence of her debts and that she confirmed them in writing and before the authorities during the criminal proceedings. 7.

They consider that a general tort law action by the applicants would have enabled the domestic courts to decide the cases on their merits and award just satisfaction to the applicants for any alleged damage

He admitted that he was present at the time of the murder, but denied that he had incited Mr K.

    In accordance with Rule   42   §   1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single judgment, given that they raise similar

authorities, that after Mr Sharani Askharov had been taken away by armed men, the applicant actively attempted to establish his whereabouts and applied to various official bodies, whereas the authorities denied

The Court also decides to examine under Article 13 of the Convention (cited above) whether the applicant had an effective remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.

    On 13 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation into Adnan Akhmadov’s kidnapping for one day as it was necessary to decide upon a request by the first applicant

       The Court of Appeal subsequently refused to certify that the case involved a point of public importance and denied leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

some witnesses whose statements had been read out in court and to take part in the ordering of expert examinations, that the case-file had lacked translations of certain documents, that he had been denied

The Indictment Division pointed out, in particular, that the applicant had initially denied any sexual abuse of his niece and nephews and then admitted to the conduct of which he was accused only to retract

against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swedish national, Mr Robert Edward

They had been denied the right to meet in private.

    Following Yevgeniy Geppa's death the Smolensk Prosecutor's Office conducted an inquiry in order to decide whether there were grounds for a criminal investigation.