THIRD 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,

As to the remaining applicant (application no. 61156/13), the Government observed that she had decided to withdraw her appeal against the Oslo City Court judgment and had

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

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

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

They maintained that the judgment of the Diyarbakır Assize Court had been served on the applicant's representative on 5 August 1998 and that this judgment

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

“Cassation appeals and petitions against the court decisions referred to in part one of Article 383 of this Code may be lodged within one month from the date of delivery of the