However, it found that the applicant’s acts played the determining role in the events, which he had set into motion, while the authorities only joined his ongoing criminal activity. 8.

According to the applicant’s account, on 10 March 1998 the applicant was arrested while trying to cross the Lithuanian-Belarus border without a passport.

This amount is disproportionately low, having regard to   what   the Court generally awards in similar cases.

In 1998, while he was serving as district prosecutor in Motygino, criminal proceedings were brought against him for the rape of a 17-year-old girl.

Further, the applicant challenged the veracity and consistency of statements of those witnesses who testified against him.

While house arrest is considered to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.

He then got into his car and tried to start the engine. The police officers ordered him to get out of the car and warned him that otherwise they would use force.

The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court

    The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by agents of the State while imprisoned in Rahova Prison, and that the authorities had

Before receiving your letter instructions had been given to start the planning for the excavation in Tymvos.

While abroad he had given a copy of the footage to a Georgian journalist. 6.

On what conditions, and for how long can that regime be prolonged?   3.

    On 25 April 2007 the applicant filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) against

On another occasion G. said: “I can see that you are worse than a girl; you start crying right away”. 10 .

    On 31 August 2020 the applicant brought a tort action under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (hereinafter “the 1988 Act”), seeking compensation for the delay

The statement of facts was then supplemented twice, on 24 November and 28 December 1999. 21.

The first seven applicants sought (1) a ruling to the effect that the State was responsible for violations of their fundamental human rights and (2) ordering the State to pay each of them compensation

while detained in the Diyarbakır prison.

Applicants’ state of health 12 .