The burden of proof is on the Government to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was

that narcotics were “less harmful [than generally assumed] or not harmful at all”.

They specified that they would not carry out their duties between 1 and 5   February 1993.

They specified that they would not carry out their duties between 1 and 5   February 1993.

They submitted that rendering the new procedure fully operational had taken a certain amount of time as the secondary legislation had had to be amended accordingly, but that even prior to that the commission

In January 2000 the Execution of Sentences Court ruled that the applicant’s detention should continue and that there was no need to consider the applications for release lodged by the applicant himself

Thierry, conseiller rapporteur, MM. Renard-Payen, Lemontey, Chartier, Gélineau-Larrivet, Mme Gié, M. Ancel, conseillers, M. Savatier, Mme Catry, conseillers référendaires, M.

    The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their possessions without compensation in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.

The applicant points out that there is no signature by him on these reports.

A l'encontre de ce jugement notifié le 14 février 2014, la société THALES AIR SYSTEMS a interjeté appel le 11 mars 2014.

There followed a series of extremely urgent proceedings before the Belgian administrative courts, in which the applicants complained that this refusal exposed them to risks that were contrary to Article

and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds.

They noted that the applicant had added a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings. 20.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet — Unauthorised use of the mark — Advertisements

The latter, by a communication of 11   February 2012, informed the Maltese authorities that the applicant did not hail from Sierra Leone and that they could therefore not provide further assistance

    The applicant contended that there has been a violation of Article 13 in view of the fact that there was no avenue in domestic law enabling her to challenge the decision to transfer the business

They complained that their houses had been burned by the security forces in the region.

In 2006 the applicant brought further proceedings against the authorities, but the criminal investigation was terminated on the ground that there was no evidence to suspect that a third party had been

He alleges that the criminal proceedings he sought were instituted due to his application to the Court, rather than through successful domestic proceedings.