FINAL 17/04/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision

The Constitutional Court was of the view that abrogating the authorisation requirement would, on the one hand, expose persons interviewed by the press to the risk of

The applicant complained that his detention at Budapest Prison in overcrowded cells amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment which infringed Article 3 of

Indeed, according to the decision of 20 July 2004 (see paragraphs 54-61 above), while establishing, with reference to the relevant laws and by-laws, that it was

raised objections (Vorstellung) to the setting aside of the decision, arguing, inter alia, that the Municipal Council should have obtained data on the noise emissions

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

The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been held in inhuman conditions of detention and that the courts had not deducted from his prison term the time he had

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

On 15 July 1998 the Karlovac Police Department Disciplinary Court declared the request inadmissible, finding the fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant