Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 28, § 63; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-III). 41.

general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, mutatis mutandis , Bladet

Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of “public watchdog” (see, inter alia , Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom , 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216; Bladet

  233-234, §   37; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no.   21980/93, §   62, ECHR 1999 ‑ III; Thoma v. Luxembourg , no.

The applicant was brought from HMP Perth to attend the hearing and blankets were provided to facilitate his attendance.

The detainees received bedding, mattresses, a pillow and a blanket which were all in a very shabby condition. The heating in the cell did not work.

He also argued that the list imposed a blanket prohibition permitting no exceptions, and was therefore disproportionate. 2.     The Court’s assessment 61.

As a result, this restriction was applied as a blanket rule and the applicant could not request the benefit of legal assistance during his police custody.

The Government contended that the Bailiffs’ Service had done everything necessary and could not be blamed for the delay.

The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay.

The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could be blamed for the delay.

The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay.

The Government maintained that the length of the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case was reasonable and that the Bailiffs' Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the

The Government further maintained that the Bailiffs’ Service had performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay.     The applicant disagreed. 20.

The Government further maintained that the Bailiffs had performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay. 17.

Nothing suggests that the applicant can be blamed for delaying the enforcement of the judgment. The latter is fully attributable to the State authorities.

The Government contended that the Bailiffs’ Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay.

The Government contended that the Bailiffs’ Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay.

Accordingly, the Bailiffs' Service could not be blamed for alleged inactivity, as they were deprived of a possibility to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour due to the latter's omission. 14.