FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private and family life had been violated, as he and his wife had been

“simplified reasons”. It held that the use of open-ended concepts by the legislator could not be considered, in itself, as unconstitutional, as it allowed the courts a

While the Government accepted that for the right to education to be meaningful, the quality of education would have to reach a minimum standard, they argued that it did

Section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as amended by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, provides that, where a

In contrast, the Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia maintained that there were no effective remedies at the applicants’ disposal, given notably the

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.,

On 17 March 2004 the applicants requested the Court of Criminal Inquiry to suspend the trial pending a decision from the European Court of Human Rights.. In an order of

The applicant complains that the Council's delay in providing access to his social service files subjected him to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of