In 2001, following a hearing in public, the court of appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance lustration court.

Dollé , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 29 June 1999 and 16 May 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.

Following an appeal by the prosecutor against the decision to release the applicant on bail, the decision was stayed.

On 2 April, 3 June and 13 August 2008 the Bucharest Medical Forensic Institute, following the applicants’ request, issued three forensic reports.

Following this, still in 2013, the applicant applied for and was granted political asylum in Germany. In 2014 Interpol cancelled the Red Notice.

OF HUMAN RIGHTS     287   25.4.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following

    Over the course of the following weeks, local political and civic actors called for the march to be banned, and groups opposing the march engaged in public campaigning against it. 3.

The present Act enters into force on the day following its promulgation.” The Act on the Exercise of Amnesty entered into force on 10   March   2012.

  O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.

In 2001 the authorities acknowledged that Mr   Palić had been held in a military prison for about a month following his disappearance before being taken away by a VRS security officer.

Following the reunification of Germany, the institute became the property of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Mikulski is to be paid 20,000 Polish zlotys for any pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage or costs.

Then they began to beat me again and to burn me with a boiler forcing me to write [the withdrawal letters]...

This shall not prevent the taking protective measures for the purpose of extradition following the receipt of an extradition request.”

The following day, on 10 July 2007, a single judge of the Prešov District Court acceded to the request, without hearing the applicant.

    Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relevant to the case are the following: Article 67 “1.

    On 9 February 2010 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of forming a criminal organisation and fraudulent use of credit cards. 8.

They consist of two brothers and a sister with their spouses and siblings, forming four families. The applicants live in hiding and are represented before the Court by Mr and Mrs S.

    The Government raised several preliminary objections, submitting that the application should be declared inadmissible on one of the following grounds: (i) Article 6 was not applicable to