In the present case, the Court will not address the question of whether the right to examine or have examined witnesses applies with full stringency to tax surcharge proceedings, in particular

the judgment was delivered publicly, a member of the public who had been present would not have known the contents of the applicant's application for leave to appeal, as he was not given a chance to address

In doing so the courts either did not specify the reasons for their decision or merely referred to impossibility of the witnesses’ attendance. 5.

COMPLAINT The applicant complains of the fact that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his constitutional complaint but merely terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation.

COMPLAINT The applicant complains of the fact that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his constitutional complaint but merely terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation.

The court registry also sent telegrams to two of the applicant’s addresses. However, they were returned to the court as unclaimed.

Latvian law provides for criminal responsibility for being merely involved in such an organisation, irrespective of whether any other crimes have been committed (section 89. 1 (1) of the Criminal Law).

Moreover, they submitted that, following the Kúria ’s impugned decision, the Szolnok High Court had merely continued the proceedings instead of starting them afresh.

Establishing a jurisdictional link merely on the basis of the institution of an investigation might have a chilling effect on instituting domestic investigations at the domestic level into deaths occurring

In doing so the courts either did not specify the reasons for their decision or merely referred to impossibility of the witnesses’ attendance. 5.

    The Court does not consider it necessary to address the Government’s first objection because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 17.

COMPLAINT The applicant complains of the fact that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his constitutional complaint but merely terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation.

s confession, the police obtained the applicant's address through his former records at the police station and arrested him on 5 June 1995.

The applicant’s home address, along with the addresses of other tax defaulters, was indicated with a red dot, and if a person clicked on the dot the applicant’s personal information (name and home address

DEMANDEUR LE SYNDICAT DES COPROPRIETAIRES DU [Adresse 1] représenté par son syndic, le cabinet BR COPROPRIETE SAS [Adresse 2] [Localité 2] représenté par Me Estelle CHEVALIER, avocat au barreau de

The Court heard addresses by Mr Codner and Mr Morris. THE FACTS I.     the circumstances of the case 4.

    Merits 1.     Submissions by the parties 19.

    On 25 May 2009 the Post-Sentencing Judge decided, after merely examining the file, that it was not necessary to decide the applicant’s claim on the merits.

Even if it were correct, the court considered it to be of no merit for the reasons given by the Divisional Court (see paragraph 20 above).

The Court therefore joins the Government’s preliminary objection to the merits. 19.