The applicant complained under Article 5 that his rights were violated by involuntary hospitalisation to a psychiatric facility.

The applicant submitted that he was a national of Uzbekistan and that he frequently went to Russia on business.

The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H.

Such persons were eligible to be placed on a local authority waiting list in order to obtain social housing (Article   57 § 1).

All the dormitories were equipped with a ventilation system in good working order.

    In order to address the question whether the measures taken in respect of the applicant in relation to the body of her deceased son were proportionate to the legitimate aims that they were

The ventilation never worked, the windows were covered with metal shutters, and the detainees were not provided with bedding or mattresses.

These labels were found in the applicant’s possession when she was leaving the company’s premises.

In addition, chrome, cadmium and nickel were strong allergens.

Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,  

  The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov. A.     Circumstances of the case 3.

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The Court notes that the Government were unable to point to any such omissions or faults in the present case.

It should be noted that soldiers of Internal Troops were not there. Only police officers and Riot Police Regiment were at the square.

The Court notes that again no details were submitted as to actual and realistic rental values and no comparative material has been submitted.

    The applicants were represented by Mr M. Popeski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R.

not reduced because they were below the maximum amount set in accordance with paragraph 6 of the TFPC.

The State Bailiffs' Services were created as the new enforcement bodies (see Relevant Domestic Law below). 22.

    On 5 February 2001 enforcement proceedings were opened. However, on 9 February 2001 they were stayed pending the examination of the authorities' request for supervisory review. B.