They had introduced official complaints with the national authorities as soon as they had had the possibility to do so, and had applied to the European Court shortly after they realised that the domestic

The Court went on to examine whether Bulgaria had been responsible for not safeguarding the right to life in that its legal system had not ensured accountability for the negligence which had led to Ms

He had been taken to the police station by force and nothing suggested that he had been free to leave. He had been locked up in a cell during all or part of that period.

V.T. had not sat.

Specifically, the Judicial Inspectorate of the Commission had made all the material in the record of the disciplinary investigation available to the applicant; she had been interviewed in person, as had

The use of lethal force against them had therefore been no more than what had been absolutely necessary.

He had not verified whether the person submitting a power of attorney had been the person to whom it had been issued.

Neither court had addressed that argument.

She stated that the applicant had been drunk and had been insulting people around him. She had seen injuries on his back but they had been of earlier origin.

But in fact, the reason why he had requested free legal laid was that he had had insufficient funds to pay for a lawyer, not that he had not had enough time to find one.

s house on the evening of 22 January 1995 and had drunk a few bottles of beer, after which he had gone into town and had a few more drinks, but denied that he had killed K.

But they had not established the identity of the persons who had interrogated Mr Güneş and the circumstances in which he had been questioned remained obscure.

The investigation had been comprehensive and thorough. The police had questioned eleven witnesses and gathered the available documentation.

  13), and the United Kingdom had ratified them both. All but two member States had signed Protocol No.   13 and all but three of the States which had signed it had ratified it.

As for Y, the Supreme Court had noted that prior to the Minister’s decision on her application for family reunification with her son, she had not had residence rights in the State and therefore had also

She had wanted to marry the man, and it was only afterwards that she had understood that he did not want to marry her and that he had used her. She had never met his family.

facts had had an impact on the second applicant’s identity and the relationship between the two applicants.

At the judicial stage, the applicant had benefited from legal assistance and had been able to challenge the finding that Türkiye had been a safe third country for him.