On 10 March 2005 the court held that the chamber, which had been evaluating the case until that time, had lacked jurisdiction and transferred it to another chamber.

He submitted that his statement in the police station had been taken under duress. On 24 February 1995 the court released the applicant from detention on remand.

Each group maintained that the minutes of the meeting held by their opponents had been forged.

He explained that he no longer wished to pursue his Convention application as he had been successful before the Court of Appeal.

He argued that he had already been tried and sentenced in the United States for the same offences.

community had been deprived of an imam, until the work permit was finally issued.

    The applicant complained that at a time when the annual rate of inflation in Turkey had been very high, he had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following

The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life and home was violated as they had been forcibly displaced from their villages and had been

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

The applicant submits that the relevant decision has not so far been served on him and that the trial court “verbally informed him of the prolongation”.

She referred to the fresh statement and maintained that if this information had been available in the lower courts the outcome of the case would have been a different one.

the domestic courts had been ineffective. 32.

Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S.

It had thus been penalised for conduct that related solely to the exercise of freedom of expression.

In a letter of 15 January 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed them that their application had been accepted, that it had been found that their right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable

There had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f).

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête, enregistrée le 26 novembre 2024, la commune de La Bernerie-en-Retz, représentée par Me Naux, demande au juge des référés, sur le fondement de l'article R.

The applicant was not acquitted because his innocence had been proven, but because he had been given the benefit of the doubt. Thus, the suspicion against the applicant had not been dissipated.

Addressing the applicant’s claim that he had been tried twice for the same offence, the court stated that the first conviction had been quashed and that the reopening of proceedings did not constitute