It was also decided that the Court would rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention). 5.

A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Scoppola v.

    Merits 1.     The parties' submissions 26.

Prosecuting counsel emphasised in her closing address the applicant’s failure to mention that he had dismissed the complainants and his failure to mention the handyman and the neighbour, relevant to the

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention). 5.

Moreover, the order of the City Court of 19 February 1999 committing him for trial did not give any reasons for his continued detention, but merely left the preventive measure unchanged.

When interviewed on 24   July   2007 on her reasons for filing a repeat asylum request, the applicant merely stated that she had done so because her first request had been rejected and that she

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Corell for the Government, by Mrs Thune for the Commission and by Mr Grennberg for the applicants, as well as their replies to its question.

    Neither party availed itself of the possibility to file further observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).   THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.

    Merits 1.     Unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and detention 43.

The Constitutional Court did not address the length of the proceedings before the Regional Court.

the courts of appeal concerned had dismissed the applicants’ claims for compensation on the sole ground that, when they were placed in detention, there had been serious evidence of their guilt, thus merely

The Court heard addresses by Mr Marxer and Ms Picard.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.    CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.

The applicant did not address the issue of applicability of Article 6 of the Convention.

Since the operation was later performed on the [applicant] in Germany, the subsequent issuance by the ETT of its opinion merely on the basis of medical reports can in no way – as has been pointed out by

[sic] on its merits.” The court further found that the applicant had not submitted a duly completed power of attorney.

that "at least [the] main part" of the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, given that I.J. did not afford the domestic courts with an opportunity to address

practitioner shall not tolerate the publication of reports or picture-stories on his professional activity with an advertising character, stating his name, showing his photograph or indicating his address

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Yatagantzidis, Ms Metaxaki and Mr   Kyriazopoulos. THE FACTS 7.