Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    The Court reiterates that an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and

informed about them, and that the final decision had been based on false documents.

D.A. stated that F.E. had told him that the applicant had been arrested for helping the PKK members in the transportation of certain walkie-talkies and a binocular which had been sent from Germany.

  He had allegedly been tortured in the course of his detention.   His release had been arranged by a friend who had subsequently brought him to an office of the Red Cross.

on 20   October   2009 as a Chamber composed of :   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

March 2004 sent by registered mail, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 13 February 2004, and that no extension of the time-limit had been

2011, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 6 September 2010 and that no extension of time had been

applicant’s representative and the applicant himself were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 1 June 2010 and that no extension of time had been

dated 4 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 October 2009 and that no extension of time had been

Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President ,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26   January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Rait Maruste,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

letter dated 9 November 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 26 June 2007 and that no extension of time had been

Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Stanislav Mitskevich, is a Russian

I... pour leur faire part des remontrances sans réaliser l'importance stratégique de la mort de cet activiste (pages 170 et 171 du chapitre intitulé "Ben I..." : "Nous n'avons jamais plus entendu parler