She submitted that the measure was disproportionate in that no other European country had similar legislation; that while the Israeli authorities had had a similar administrative policy, this had since

not had any intention to insult or humiliate Gypsies.

    The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial.

acknowledged that her detention had been unlawful.

The first and second applicants claimed that they had been tortured and had received death threats from the Ecuadorian police after the first applicant had attended two political demonstrations in Quito

In reply, the Chair of the association reminded him that he had knowingly accepted the contractual policy of which he was complaining and informed him that the association was looking into the possibility

The case concerns, in particular, their complaint that the trial court in their case had not been a tribunal established by law because it had been composed in breach of domestic regulations.

their father had first been sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment but had been pardoned and released from detention in 1955. 18.

It found that the applicant had failed to prove her statements that the latter had treated the students and their parents unfairly; that she had demanded from the applicant a payment for every exam and

” had been put in the land register.

number had been 1244.

his particular case it had not done so.

    On 15   September 2000 the writs of execution were presented to the Gorlivka branch of Bank Nadra where the mining company had its account. 11.

During this time, she was held without food or water, wearing the same clothes as she had had on when she had left her home. 20.

    The first applicant had grown up in Ghana and had his family there. He had lived in Norway since the autumn of 1999.

    The Court notes that the applicants Naim Çevir, Nadir Ceviz, Harun Doksat, Özkan Kahraman and Ahmet Kurnaz had claims which were accorded first priority ranking and which were paid almost

However, the applicants’ son had refused until he had collapsed in a barrack and had been transported to the hospital. 17 .

    The Government denied that the applicant had ever been detained because he had not been arrested in procedural terms and because no formal detention measures had been taken.

), and that even the increased assisted living allowance which he had been granted had been significantly lower than that granted to such individuals (see paragraphs 32 and 34-37 below). 8.