, and that the price they had been required to pay had been lower than the real value of the property. 8.

that they had been fined.

that they were received on arrival.

They further noted that the applicants could even have pursued such a remedy while the case was pending before the Court since there was no time-limit for such an action.

It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was

  They consider that the applicants' possessions are considerably less extensive than the applicants claim, as many of the "possessions" are no more than future expectations.

several times lower than that debt (see paragraphs 7-8 above), especially as the bank had not been a party to that agreement.

In particular, there is a presumption that at this point the prisoner will be released unless he is a danger to the public.

the enquiries in relation to the identification of the perpetrator(s) conducted so far had remained unsuccessful, that they were still actively searched for and that, in case they would be found, the

    The Court ... notes that according to the relevant domestic law there were remedies that were effective at least in theory as the applicant was entitled to institute such proceedings for

  Although this zone was, in theory, supposed to separate the plant from the town’s residential areas, in practice thousands of people lived there.

, provided that they are entered in a special reserve account.

In order to curb this negative tendency, there is surely nothing more foolish than to suggest that the Kurdish people give up national resistance.

It was applicable to those who had committed a less serious crime and reached a settlement with the victim; those who had helped to disclose a crime that was more serious than the crime of which they themselves

They submitted that the remedies referred to by the Government had not existed when they lodged their application with this Court, and that therefore they had not been obliged to make use of them.

; -   held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months

They finally submit that they were discriminated against.

in theory and in practice, and their argument was confined to a mere assertion that the remedy was effective.

From that date until the applicant’s release from detention (see paragraph 4 above), thirty-nine hearings were scheduled but only nine were actually held (in June and July 2022).