with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

Having still received no proposal of an alternative location, the applicant called for holding the event at one of locations initially planned by her.

On 9 July 2019 the Family Court decided to apply the so-called simplified procedure ( forenklede familiesagsproces ), entailing that the dispute be decided on the basis of the case file.

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 1 October 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

{ font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers,   Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter called

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

objection (non-exhaustion): None of the various legal remedies designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings which had been introduced by the Law of 17 June 2004 (the so-called

criteria Reasonableness of length of proceedings - to be determined with reference to the criteria laid down in Court's case–law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in this instance called

with the provisions of Article 32.1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention, but without attaining the majority of two thirds of the members entitled to sit,   Decides therefore that no further action is called

These witnesses included three police officers, including the two alleged victims, a municipal guard and a person who had called the police after seeing the applicant’s car parked in the wrong place.

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 5 August 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

Given the findings of guilt and consequent punishment, in particular, the disqualification, the Journalistic Council was called on to determine whether the applicant should be suspended from the Register

In particular, the impugned provision prescribed, depending on the rate of new Covid-19 infections calculated on the basis of the previous seven days (so-called seven-day incident rate) in the district

  In particular, would he face such a risk on account of his Hazara origin and his so-called “westernisation”, alone or in combination with any further circumstances, taking into consideration, inter

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 24   May 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

On 21 April 2015, the applicant, together with another person, applied to the Budapest police department for authorisation to a hold a demonstration called “Hold your looters accountable 2015”, scheduled

Decision 3.10.2006 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for publication of a book inciting readers to use drugs: inadmissible   In 1994 the applicant published a book called

In April 2015, the applicant, together with another person, applied to the Budapest Police Department for authorisation to a hold a demonstration called “Hold your looters accountable 2015”, scheduled

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 20   March 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called