FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ÖSTERLUND v. FINLAND (Application no. 53197/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February 2015

Its transitional provisions provided that, subject to any prior agreement between the parties or final court decision, the provisions relating to the new

They observed, inter alia, that the prosecuting authorities had not issued any warning to Refah (which had four million.. members) that might have enabled it to expel any

The United States’ Department of Justice has given no indication of where the applicant would or could be held, although it has advised that if he consents to his

He further submitted that the authorities of Kaisheim Prison, where no substitution treatment had ever been provided, had omitted to examine the medical necessity of drug

“inevitably” be left to national authorities who are in principle better placed than the Court to evaluate particular needs and conditions in a given case.. Regard ought to be had

The Court will therefore examine whether the information provided by the applicants in the present case to the domestic authorities on 11 July 2002, suggesting the involvement

The case originated in an application (no. 12020/09) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

Turning to the main legal issue raised by the present case, that is to say, whether the State fulfilled its positive obligation under the Convention to take all necessary