Because of this prohibition, the demonstration did not take place. On 17 August 2009 the applicant requested judicial review of the police decision.

Because of the refusal, neither the first applicant nor his underage daughter (the second applicant) who had the tickets to the match could attend it.

grounds had been shown for believing that, if returned to his country of origin, he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm, the request for subsidiary international protection had to be refused because

The second set of proceedings resulted in a fuel-fee debit that was imposed because the applicant’s van had been run on more leniently taxed fuel.

Each night the prison guards brought a mattress for the fifth prisoner, because the number of detainees exceeded the number of sleeping places in the room.

Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains that the seizure of common property had been unlawful, disproportionate because it concerned assets of a much higher value than

Relying on Article 9 of the Convention she complains that as a Muslim woman she is prevented from manifesting her religion because she is not allowed to wear a hijab with the military uniform.

against her adult children’s families (two couples and four minor children), who, according to her, have systematically bullied and intimidated her, repeatedly forcing her to retreat to another residence because

These were ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the demonstration had been disbanded because of the demonstrators’ failure to give the police prior notice.

decision not to institute criminal proceedings: interference, inadmissible   The applicant, the president of a Catholic parents’ association, brought proceedings against a person or persons unknown because

He argued, inter alia , that judge S.Š. had not been impartial when deciding his appeal against the first-instance judgment because she had already participated in the proceedings at first instance as

Law – Article 34: The municipality had exercised its powers as a public body in bringing the action in question because it was precisely because it was a “municipality” that it had the status of applicant

.) - 33992/07 Decision 10.5.2012 Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Criminal proceedings lasting over twenty-five years because of the applicant’s state of health: inadmissible

The court considered that, after years, the necessary assistance for the child had not been provided because it was still unclear what the child’s needs were exactly, and that a major obstacle was the

.) - 55066/00 and 55638/00 Decision 18.3.2004 [Section I] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Registration of a political party’s list refused because of false representations by some of the

The decision of 4   December 2014 was later quashed on appeal because it had been made by a court that had no territorial jurisdiction over the case.

  Complaints   The applicant complains under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights that his trial was unfair because he was not informed in detail of the charges brought against

Respect for private life Student who had to finish his university year without his beard: inadmissible   While the applicant was in his third year at university, he was refused entry to the campus because

The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because he was never heard by the courts on the issue of his property right over the car.

The two journalists were acquitted, the first because the impugned remarks were general and vague, which precluded criminal liability in the absence of intent, and the second because no precise, detailed