44694/13, §   70, 22   March 2016, both with further references).

  Romania 26/11/2007 Niculina ILIE 21/11/1949 Brasov Maria IARCA 29/11/1944 Pitesti - both represented by Ion Iordache 12/03/2012 19/01/2012 2,400 jointly 6. 36816/08 LĂCĂTUŞ v.

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length of the applicants’ detention:

benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, both

    Both applicants were represented before the Court by Mr Th.O.M. Dieben, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. 4.

Croatia (no. 12877/02) The applicants are both Croatian nationals: Ljuban Dragičević, born in 1938 and living in Crikvenica, Croatia; and Vinko Zovanović, born in 1929 and living in Pula, Croatia.

  Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR   2007), in which it had set out two criteria that had both to be fulfilled before a respondent State could validly claim that Article 6 § 1 was inapplicable

Both parties lodged interlocutory appeals. They were dismissed on 9   November   2009.

The County Administrative Court rejected their appeals, without holding an oral hearing requested by both applicants. No appeal lay against these decisions.

Both parties appealed. On 13 September 2004 the Maribor Higher Court rendered a judgment rejecting both appeals. The defendant company lodged an appeal on points of law.

  Case description:   The two applicants were both Somali nationals who complained that their proposed removal to Mogadishu, Somalia, would expose them to a real risk of treatment in breach of

At 7.34 p.m. he was issued with a medical certificate stating that he had a bruise on the forehead and the nose, another one on his left shoulder and an abrasion on the right hip, both hands and arms were

  Both he and the Public Prosecutor's Office then lodged with the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) in Amsterdam an appeal (Hoger Beroep) against conviction and sentence and acquittal respectively.

They were both members of the executive board of the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Association at the relevant time.

On 10 February 1999 the applicant was taken to Haseki Hospital where a medical report was issued, observing bruises on both arms.

The main reason permeating both the first decision and that of the court was the absence of humiliation of the applicant by the acts in question, an element required by domestic law in order for the acts

June 2011 Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom - 8319/07 Judgment 28.6.2011 [Section IV] Article 3 Expulsion Orders for deportation to Somalia: deportation would constitute a violation   Facts – Both

The decision was based on two forensic medical expert opinions, which both considered that the applicant had contraindications only to live-attenuated vaccines.

Court’s findings in these cases [2]   In the case of Abdurzakova and Abdurzakov , the Court considered that the applicants had presented a generally consistent account of their son’s abduction both