It rejected, among other things, Ms Batsanina’s complaint about not having been notified of the appeal hearing, noting that the parties had been informed about it.   2.

detention – they had only been returned to him five months later.

He had been a builder and had paid social-security contributions for more than nineteen years.

up on 2 July 1997, by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 10 August 1995 by Ms Nuria Sala Pujolar, Mr   Jose

Relying on Articles 5 § 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, he alleged that his right to a court established by law had been breached.

She also submitted that not all necessary measures had been taken by the investigators in due time, and cited the identikit image of the alleged perpetrator, which had been made only some four years after

No further information about these proceedings or the applicant has been submitted.

    According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred

Information provided by you has been examined. Facts complained of have not been confirmed and no breaches have been found in the actions of the VID FPP officers during your arrest.” 25.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

judgment had been issued just two months later.

had been deprived of their flat without a lawful basis.

The High Court rejected his application, finding that he had not been “detained” but had been informally admitted in accordance with the principle of necessity under the common law as opposed to statute

The amount will be paid to his counsel, Mr Bengt Silverling, who has been authorised by the applicant to receive payment on his behalf.

He further complained under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) that he had not been tried by an impartial tribunal, since the judge who had prepared the case for trial on appeal had previously conducted

The applicants submitted that the rent which the gardeners were obliged to pay had been lower than the property tax payable in respect of that land.

On 22   February 1996 the Kraków Court of Appeal quashed this judgment on the ground that the court had been incorrectly composed and that there had been serious breaches of procedure.

    Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Cogut v.

  However, in these circumstances the conclusion was reached that there had not been a fair trial in the applicant's case, and his conviction was quashed.