FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

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

On 24 October 2005 the Human Rights Office requested that the prosecutor’s office of the Zavodskoy District of Grozny (“the district prosecutor’s office”)

The Court reiterates that domestic remedies have not been exhausted when an appeal is not admitted because of a procedural mistake by the appellant (see, as

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

In view of the evidence submitted by the Government, the Court finds it established that the applicant’s counsel received the Administrative Court’s judgment rejecting 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

As a result, and having regard to the complexity of the case and the severity of the punishment, the applicant concluded that he had been unable duly to exercise his rights