Witness P. stated that all the applicants had said to him that they were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The third applicant had informed him that the organisation was banned.

[A]ccording to Article 131(4) of the [CC], they can seek damages and just satisfaction.

They severely disturbed the public order which aggravated the conflict with the... [non-Roma] population. These...

They were to receive fresh linen after taking their shower. 62.

not been appropriate for their age or even dangerous and that they had been traumatised as a result of living there.

The court found that there was no evidence that the applicant would abscond or pervert the course of justice if released.

The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Mifsud v.

D.Ch. asked the second applicant and Zelimkhan Isayev’s other brother, T.I., whether there were any arms in the house; they replied in the negative. 19.

It found that there was no evidence, medical or otherwise, to support the theory that the injuries had been caused by ill-treatment rather than by a fall from the window. 23.

There was no access to hot water and there were no heaters. The prison had very dim lighting, which made it impossible to read.

They put in place unspecified limitations in respect of sixty items of real estate belonging to the debtor and in June 2013 they seized two items of the debtor’s real estate.

They held in particular that there was no automatic link between invalidity of a transaction and an owner’s intention or otherwise, to divest themselves of it.

During the search no money was found there.

It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.

Whether there has been unlawful interference with the highway While Mr and Mrs Depalle have full title to the dwelling house occupied by them and claim, accordingly, that they are therefore not the unlawful

  Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 101-02, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI).

However, they do not appear to have contained any evidence to support the theory that an offence had been committed and that the applicant may have been guilty of it.