This conclusion was based on the examination of medical evidence and the testimonies of numerous witnesses, including the applicants and their witnesses (Mrs   S. and Mrs   Ch.).

  It was the authorities’ duty rapidly to take all the necessary steps to execute the court orders and restore the properties to their rightful owners.

    The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

    The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants’ deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in their stead.

In respect of pecuniary damage, they jointly claimed this sum, reduced by the sum they had obtained from the sale of their compensation bonds – EUR 7,680 (see paragraph 18 above).

The Court endorses this assessment. 46.

Federal Court of Justice, the Court holds that the reasons on which the courts based their decisions are sufficient to exclude the assumption that their evaluation of the case had been arbitrary.

The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E.   Baltutytė. A.

On 30 January 2007 the Court of Appeal of the ARC quashed this decision and rejected the applicant’s claims.

This error was part of the reasons for the Court to conclude that the length of the impugned proceedings had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 of the Convention. 9.

The Court notes in this context from the wording of the various alternatives as stipulated under Section 31 of the Penal Code that the entire provision pursues the said legitimate aims.

The applicants' families built their homes on State land without any authorisation. The area thus gradually developed into a small Roma settlement.

This was done to prevent them from fleeing. After this, the battalion commander [Ch.] had ordered the [applicant] and junior sergeant [V.] to put their clothes back on.

  194), the application of this admissibility requirement should ensure avoiding the rejection of cases which, notwithstanding their trivial nature, raise serious questions affecting the application

The Court thus considers that the domestic courts, when taking the contested decision, did not have at their disposal sufficient evidence to justify the detention. 58.

    The Court thus considers that the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 29 December 2000 deprived the applicants of their vested right in the three apartments offered by the authorities

The Court observes that this complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 alone.

The applicant was not informed of this.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” 11.     By their separate letters of various dates, the applicants rejected the Government’s offers in whole or in part.