The Supreme Court also quashed a sentence which had been imposed in a different set of proceedings in 2007 and which the applicant had then been serving.

had been illegal or excessively long.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long.

Article 66 provided additional sentences to be served after the prison sentence had been served.

However, the Court notes that the applicant has been granted a residence permit, that he is thus – and at least until September 2010 – no longer at risk of being expelled and that, for this reason, he

The applicants complained under Article 7 of the Convention and Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 that they had been punished for a crime that was not a crime even in 1975.

He also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, on account of the fact that he had been called a “murderer” during a TV broadcast. 3.

DECISION Application no. 33874/07 by Birtane DEVECI against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   July   2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep

They had been finally decided by the Argeș County Court on 28   March   2005. 24.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long.

    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

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long.

Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,

It follows that these complaints have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long.

Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had been deprived of its possessions. THE LAW A.

The fact that the High Court's decision of 11 May 2004 had never been executed does not change this conclusion. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. II.

In so far as the applicant’s contentions that he was not represented by a lawyer and that the amount of damages has not been sufficiently explained, it is noted that these issues have not been raised in

The representative declared that his client had actually been forced by the prison authority to write the request for withdrawal under threat of physical violence. 12.