It is not clear whether the applicant appealed. 7.     Seventh refusal to institute criminal proceedings 33.

It is clear from the materials of the case that on 2, 11 and 30   November   2004 a prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General approved the decision of the Anti-Drugs Office to conduct

The court found that regardless of the reasons which had prompted the applicant to leave Romania, it was clear that the applicant had extended her stay in Italy until she was finally awarded a residence

    In the case of Edward Zammit Maempel and Cynthia Zammit   Maempel v.

Furthermore, in the Edwards v.

case, both the applicants and their representative must be considered to have been aware of this situation not later than on 29 September 1997, the date on which the prosecuting authorities made it clear

It is not clear from submissions by the parties and other available material what was the scope of the authority conveyed under the domestic legal order to the municipal guard officers and what were the

applicant’s defence of diminished responsibility, Lord Justice Evans stated that he had no hesitation in holding that the trial judge’s directions on the matter were sufficient since he had made it clear

He concluded: “I have come to the clear conclusion that there is no basis upon which there should be a further Judicial Inquiry or a reopening of Lord Taylor’s Inquiry.

However, it is clear from the Court’s case-law concerning Article 2 that the procedural obligation to investigate has evolved into a separate and autonomous duty, capable of binding the State even when

From the minutes of the hearing it is clear that the court agreed with the defendant’s reasoning and refused to accept the additional claim.

95, Kightley v. the United Kingdom; 29576/95, Irvine v. the United Kingdom; 28918/95, Stevens and Knight v. the United Kingdom; 30135/96, Bass v. the United Kingdom; and 30291/96, Godney, Wright and Edwards

Even when strictly speaking no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that torture or ill-treatment has been used (see, among other authorities

  Before the Commission he is represented by Leolin Price and Edward Fitzgerald, barristers practising in London.

ineffective; in such a case it is appropriate to take as the start of the six-month period the date when he first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Paul and Audrey Edwards

Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 22893/05, §§ 64-73 and 88, 27   May   2008 and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no.   46477/99, §§ 57-64 and 106, ECHR 2002 ‑ II.

The Court’s assessment The Court recalls the general principles set out in Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247 ‑ B, § 34): “[T]he Court must consider the

With regard to the members of the intervention squad, the prosecutor found that because of the applicant’s refusal to be examined there was no clear evidence of a causal link between the 24 April 2002

    The court agreed with the results of the post-mortem and the forensic expert’s report, which was clear in its conclusion that the applicant’s mother had died as a result of respiratory and