Nor had it been shown that they had carried out the requisite balancing exercise, weighing up the competing interests.

  In the present case the Riga Regional Court had been called upon to consider the merits and had also had the task of examining the applicant’s applications for release.

The Council contended that the district court had wrongly ordered it to pay damages to the applicant, as the applicant had had possession of the land during the proceedings and had not proved that he had

The court reiterated that, under the domestic law, the applicant had had no obligation to pay social security contributions as an entrepreneur since she had already been insured as an employee.

From there – when the applicant had hit the brakes – G. had fallen onto the pavement.

They had not even checked whether the copies that had been produced conformed to the originals.

for asylum as people he had met had advised him not to.

Some time later the witness had seen that the armed men had taken his father outside. When the witness had gone outside, the armed men had already left.

He had a comfortable income and a spacious flat. He had bought medical insurance for X and had enrolled her in the best school in the area where he lived.

It had also happened that when the applicant had returned home late and the children had already been asleep, he had woken them up in order to conduct evening prayers. 25.

M. had been unemployed, had abused alcohol and had neglected her parental duties.

and had to confirm that the accident had been real.

As regards the evidence that had been destroyed, the Assize Court said that, while undoubtedly regrettable, it had had no real impact on the overall prosecution evidence that had been obtained during the

  119/1873)) had been infringed during the trial, that the facts had not been sufficiently established, that numerous pieces of evidence had been omitted, that the defendants’ actions had been partly

the defence had been on leave.

Ismayilov, who had heard the criminal case, had been the same judge who had previously examined the civil action against the applicant.

success in practice and had not provided a procedure that had been genuinely adversarial, in breach of Article 5 § 4.

No explanation had been given by the Turkish authorities as to what had occurred following that detention.

whether systematic violence had taken place they had had to carry out an investigation.