In this regard, they argue that they were remanded in custody because of their professional activities as prosecutors.

FEDOTOVA against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the authorities’ refusal to approve public events planned by the applicants because

However, the court rejected the request because the assessment of evidence was primarily the task of the court.

Both applicants were fined because the authorities considered that the protest the applicants participated in was a counterdemonstration organised in the same location and at the same time as another public

They argue that because it had not been re-registered and hence had not had the status of a legal entity, the Community was unable to function properly and to exercise the full range of religious activities

The situation in the present case was, however, different because the applicant had not suspected that the child was not his and reared him as his own for some two years after birth.

by taking and enforcing the decision to consign him, the authorities breached, respectively, his rights to liberty and to freedom of movement provided for by Articles 5 § 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 because

On 20 December 2011 the Centru District Court rejected his request finding that the 2008 Amnesty law was inapplicable because he had been finally convicted on 7   December   2010 after that law

Russia - 17864/04 Judgment 19.7.2007 [Section I] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Disqualification of election candidates because of alleged errors in information they had been required to

However, even though he paid the purchase price in full, the local authorities refused to register his title to the property because the sale of military flats had temporarily been put on hold.

The Court observes that, as follows from the presented materials, the enforcement proceedings were terminated partly because the monetary compensation had been paid to the applicant in full and partly

In the Supreme Court’s view, this was so especially because the Convention and its Protocols left the system of appeal to be determined by the States.

He submitted to the European Court that the detention orders had not been properly implemented because the authorities had applied them automatically without any individual assessment of their necessity

The court did not comment on the applicant’s lawyer’s submission that that money had never been paid to the applicant because of his former employer’s insolvency. 10.

On 20 June 2006 the Dondușeni District prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings, because the libel was not a criminal offence.

  As there were no direct flights, the applicants were placed on flights changing in Prague, Cairo and Tunis, but were returned each time by the authorities of the country of transit because they

The applicant company complains that the court proceedings were in breach of Article 6 of the Convention, in particular because the courts refused to review the amount of the fine and relied on the applicant

On 11 November 2015 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against V.E. claiming non-pecuniary damage, arguing that she had been assaulted because of her gender identity.

In their appeal the applicants argued, among other things, that the refusal of the forensic copy had upset the equality of arms and that their conviction was unsafe because it relied on the uncorroborated