SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Subsequently, he applied to the liquidator (iflas idaresi), claiming payment of the amount lost as a result of the interest rate applied to the main amount. Following

It held that the reasons stated by the Governor for his decision of 29 May 2002, even if these were understandable, given the reactions in society to the offence at issue,

The respondent Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month rule. They argued that it had

The Court, however, considers that it is necessary to examine first whether the applicant company is entitled to make an application under Article 34 of the

In cases concerning disappearances, the Court has held that allowances must be made for the uncertainty and confusion which frequently mark the aftermath of a

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

19. Other provisions of the Code concerning examination of a case by a court of cassation are set out in Arkhipov v.. The applicant complained that the Supreme Court of

In a subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued, inter alia, that the Supreme Court had relied on the defendant company’s Collective Agreement although it