FINAL 28/04/2014

The Court notes that in the present case proceedings concerning the death of the applicant’s sister were instituted before the domestic courts on 9 March 1998 when the applicant

We voted against the majority which found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the public prosecutor's presence at the Court of Appeal's session of

On 13 January 2006 the applicant’s lawyer repeated the habeas corpus request and the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention before the Chişinău Court of Appeal..

The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a

Turning to the present case, the Court shall first examine whether the principle of the presumption of innocence was breached by the statements made in the press

Lastly, as regards the second part of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, concerning the remarks made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice

The Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention on the ground that the applicant no longer ran any

In the present case which concerns the applicant’s detention at the Immigration Centre, the majority of judges has found that there would be a violation of Article 3 of