The applicant, without invoking any provision of the Convention, also complains that the proceedings have been unfair.       THE LAW   1.

    The High Court also noted that Mr B had testified that he had not noticed anything conspicuous about Ms A; she had been cheerful and friendly and her clothes had not been in a disorder.

had been excessive or disproportionate.

The agency claimed that under the relevant procedural rules it should have been a party to the proceedings.

and his guilt had not been established, and challenged the experts’ argument that his wish to emigrate had been motivated by his mental illness.

In a letter of 28 December 2006 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that her application had been accepted, that it had been found that her right to a determination of their civil claim within

Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S.

  The Court also attached particular importance to the fact that no criminal proceedings had been pending against Roland Dumas at the time when the statements in question had been made.

A   police officer who had not been present at the time of the applicant’s arrest had been questioned.

   The nuclear power plant at Mühleberg in the Canton of Bern has been operated by a private company, the Bern Power Plant Ltd.

Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S.

However, no response has been received. A reminder with another strike-out warning was sent on 17 April 2024, via eComms. No response has followed. It has been noted that Mr A.

by which the complainant claims to have been harmed.

  The European court found that there had been a denial of justice in these cases since it had not been shown that the applicants had fled justice or had decided not to appear in order to defend themselves

INSURANCE EUROPE, dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 13] - ALLEMAGNE, venant aux droits de la Société SOMPO JAPAN NIPPON KOA EUROPE représentée et assistée de Me Chloé MONTAGNIER de la SELARL BERNIE

The applicant had been duly informed by letter of 9 May 2001. Even though this letter had not been directed to the applicant, but to the R-Company, the applicant had undisputedly received it.

He further complained that the national courts had based their decisions on his police statement which had been taken under duress.

November 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the deadline for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 30 May 2007 and that no extension of that deadline had been

  The Supreme Court, with a majority of one vote, upheld the Court of Appeal's reasons but waived the applicant's sentence, considering that her offence had been minor in nature.

The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they had been arbitrarily deprived of the property of an apartment they had received from the State in 1968.