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 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

  9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 3 June 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called upon to take a

  Furthermore, the accused does not have an unlimited right to have witnesses called before a court. In principle, it is up to the domestic judge to decide on the need to call a witness.

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

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 7 October 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of Ministers is now called

information regarding the steps they have taken to secure the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned; Deploring that, since the adoption of this Resolution, the Russian authorities have again called

Whilst it was not difficult to understand that, in the event of a substantive defect, the accused might fear bias on the part of the judges called upon to rehear the case, this was hardly true in the event

Conduct of national authorities: what was at stake in proceedings was of crucial importance for applicant, in view of disease from which he was suffering and called for exceptional diligence, notwithstanding

   Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for in this case.    

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 6 October 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 6 October 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called

Decides that no further action is called for in this case.    

Applicant's counsel could have objected to written statement being seen by appeal court judges, reserved his position as to its accuracy or called for oral evidence - in these circumstances, cannot be

The Court observed that general measures at national level were undoubtedly called for in the execution of this judgment.

The court noted that in his speech the applicant had referred to Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, as “ Sayın (Esteemed) Öcalan” and had called upon the Turkish military forces to comply with the

On 23 November 2012 an ambulance team was called for Mr L. who was lying on the street under alcohol intoxication and was unable to walk unassisted because of a medical condition.

At the time of the events the applicant worked as an investigator in the so called Ministry of Internal Affairs of the break-away “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”).

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

incident because she had been under influence of alcohol at the time, she provided the police with a written reconstruction of the events, a map of the location, a chat conversation with a friend who called