FOURTH SECTION DECISION

In relation to these proceedings, the applicant also complained that the District Court had operated with an excessive threshold as to the legal conditions

In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant presented before the national courts arguments linked to the proportionality of his eviction, such as

The Deputy High Court Judge rejected the applicant’s judicial review claim on two grounds: first, that the threshold of Article 3 had not been reached in the

Complaint under Article 3 in respect of the conditions of the first applicant’s detention at Burgas prison in the period from June 2003 to February

under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they did not receive a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal as one of the Court of Appeal judges, P.L.,

The Government allege that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in that he did not request the Chancellor of

In this connection the Court notes that the second applicant repeatedly complained about the ongoing harassment to various national authorities, such as the police and

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, following his decision to move to the North of Finland in order to live with his former foster parents,