Different parts of his body had been hit, including his head and legs, as a result of which he had fallen on the floor, bleeding and unable to get up.

He reiterated his arguments that he had been punished for a question that he had raised at a press conference that had been held on behalf of his political party.

He was held in a solitary cell measuring 2   sq. m. The cell was not equipped with a bunk or toilet facilities. The applicant was escorted to the toilet twice a day.

He complained about his unlawful detention to the head of the Investigations Committee and the regional head of the Ministry of the Interior but did not receive any reply. 8.

It held that the contract was void since it had been signed by L., who had no competence to do so.

    A further hearing was held on 26 February 1999. 13. On 30 March 1999 the court held the last main hearing and issued its decision dismissing the applicant’s claim.

    On 21 March 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court held its first hearing, at the end of which it ordered the applicant’s continued detention.

    The Budapest Court of Appeal, after having held two hearings, upheld the first-instance decision on 22 September 2004.

He was represented before the Court by Mr   M. Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.

Following a search on 12   April 2000, they were told they had been arrested and were taken into detention, where they were held until 28 April in unheated, damp cells with no toilets.

  In April 1999, on the basis of information from the counter-espionage service of the Ministry for State Security, the head of that Ministry’s investigation service instituted criminal proceedings

He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Suchkov, a lawyer practising in Orel.

It held that at about 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. on 12 October 2006, the applicant, after his family had been insulted and his mother had been punched by R.C., had severely harmed R.C. in that he had knocked him

He is currently retired.

Under the latter provision, he complained of the fact that the domestic law excluded appeals against decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court’s disciplinary chamber.

  On retiring in 1997 the applicant asked her local district Social Insurance Board to calculate her retirement pension.

Here I will do everything possible to make heads roll. ...

of her defence were infringed.

back of S.S.' head as he lay on the floor.