It noted that these rules were not a legal act but merely a guideline for implementing Cabinet Regulations no. 423 (2006) (in force from 3 June 2006).

    On 4 November 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. 18 .

The Court heard addresses by Mr Loucaides, Mr Tretter, Mr Okresek, Mr   Benner and Mr Oberschlick. AS TO THE FACTS I.    Circumstances of the case 7.

To echo the words of Lord Denning in Hadkinson , it merits ‘a strong thing’.”

The Court heard addresses by Mr Martínez, Mr Welsch, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Henriques Gaspar.   AS TO THE FACTS   I.    THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE   8.

    The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 10.

    The order can further be issued if no permanent address or place of residence of the suspect in the Netherlands can be established and he is suspected of an offence within the jurisdiction

    Merits 1.     Arguments of the parties (a)     The applicant 42.

They further denied that the Supreme Court had considered their appeal on points of law: it had merely declared it inadmissible.

    The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 8.

The entry contained the applicant’s name, date and place of birth, ethnic origin, detention status, permanent and temporary addresses, physical data (height, frame, hair, face colour, eye colour, and tattoos

The Court heard addresses by Mr Puissochet, Mr Soyer and Ms Waquet, and also replies to its questions and those of several judges. AS TO THE FACTS I.    THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Martinez, Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Pannick. AS TO THE FACTS I.    THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

    Merits 1. The applicants' submissions 32.

Members are appointed for a period of five years by Her Majesty by royal warrant and may be removed from office by Her Majesty on an address presented to her by both Houses of Parliament.

The president of the first applicant, the second applicant as well as all land owners whose address was known were notified of the project and informed that the data contained therein could be challenged

The appellate court’s order for the completion of the appeal – which was sent to the applicant’s address in Spånga – was allegedly not received by the applicant until the evening of 5 June, as she had

Merits Article 5 § 1 of the Convention 41.

    Merits 53.     The Court reiterates that the question whether a period of time spent in pre-trial detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract.