Furthermore, the Prison observed that the acts of violence against Y had taken place at home and that the children of the applicant and Y had been present on several occasions when the violence had occurred

Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicant had been absent when the Family Court had given judgment.

Equally, it could not be argued that no attempt had been made to contact the former Chancellor or that he had not had an opportunity to react to such questions.

Counsel for the applicant had explained that he had only had contact with his client via an intermediary, who – at her request – had purposely refrained from notifying counsel of her death.

It was only after it had been found inadmissible that the applicant had been able to initiate separate civil proceedings.

On the contrary, public consultation had taken place from the outset: three public meetings had taken place between 1995 and 2001; an urban planner’s report had been made public; a questionnaire had been

and had had a profound impact on her private life.

had not been supported by any evidence.

She had become the target of a sustained and aggressive homophobic campaign which had eventually led to her to permanently leave the country where she had lived her entire life and had her family and social

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial.

However, it had to be determined whether that liability had persisted in view of the fact that the claim relating to his savings had been transferred to a privatisation account in the FBH under the 1997

The interference had had both a legal basis under Dutch law, namely section 39f of the Judicial and Criminal Data Act (“WJSG”) and had met the foreseeability requirement.

The interference had had both a legal basis under Dutch law, namely section 39f of the Judicial and Criminal Data Act (“WJSG”) and had met the foreseeability requirement.

The interference had had both a legal basis under Dutch law, namely section 39f of the Judicial and Criminal Data Act (“WJSG”) and had met the foreseeability requirement.

Afterwards, the applicant had been taken away to a house, where she had found other women and where she had been raped and ill-treated on a daily basis.

formations had taken part.

formations had taken part.

D. but had just communicated to him what the applicant had demanded.

The former had entered the shop, the latter stayed outside. The victim, being under the influence of alcohol, had had an argument with the applicant and M.K.