of time and that had had repercussions on both her personal and professional life.

The applicant alleged that, as they had not issued a warrant for his arrest, he had refused to accompany them.

had actually worked.

They had not known that those men had belonged to the police and had not heard any warnings.

Also, the medication provided to the patient had been appropriate, given that it had been chosen by the doctor who had delivered the baby.

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the national courts had erroneously found that the confiscation of the property had been lawful and that they had applied

When the police officers had ordered them to surrender, the men had opened fire and run off ignoring orders to stop. A shoot-out had ensued during which the applicant’s son was injured.

She had then made further enquiries with the Ministry of Justice, which had refused to provide her with the information on which jobs M.Č. had worked while she had been employed at the Ministry (see paragraphs

had brought with them.

S. had submitted that no obligations or debts had been excluded.

Ms T.K. had travelled to Moscow together with Ms   T.A., whose daughter had been in a similar situation. On 28   October 2012 they had met with Mr O.M., who had promised to help.

had been kept informed of progress in the investigation; the public prosecutor’s office itself had had difficulties in verifying what point the police had reached in their preliminary inquiries; the ballistics

He further argued that after the incident, another prisoner had called an ambulance, and that the ambulance doctor had examined the applicant.

The judge had also had full regard to the fact that if she could have been asked, P.K. would likely have wanted to be at home rather than in hospital, but that the sad reality had been that as she had

It had also focused on the family’s country house with assertions about its high value and had shown photographs of its interior.

The Government had argued that in the applicant’s case, that had been the 2015 article, in respect of which the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by missing the six-month deadline.

In addition, one of them testified that he had seen the applicant being beaten; the other two attested that they had heard screams and that the applicant had later told them that he had been beaten.

had agreed on short notice.

The prosecution authority had failed to give due consideration to the statements of two independent witnesses who had confirmed that the passengers in the applicants’ son’s car had never put up any armed