FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

In their observations to the Court following communication to the parties of a question under Article 6 § 1 about the overall length of the proceedings,

The Deputy High Court Judge rejected the applicant’s judicial review claim on two grounds: first, that the threshold of Article 3 had not been reached in the

of reformatio in peius in the reopened proceedings which had been commenced due to the fact that the Supreme Court had found, on the basis of the applicants’ application,

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

The Government allege that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in that he did not request the Chancellor of

The applicant complained under Articles 5, 7 and 6 in connection with Article 14 of the Convention about the decisions given by the Polish courts in connection

the United Kingdom (no. 46295/99, 28 May 2002, ECHR 2002-IV) the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4 on the basis that the applicant’s continued detention under a

On 13 June 2000 the Administrative Court held that an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary in the matter because both parties had submitted all the necessary information