They further submitted that the authorities’ refusal to permit their daughters to leave the country breached Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

They maintain that there is no evidence to link his murder to Hizbullah and the statements of Ihsan Baran, Metın Avat and Bedrettin Oluk relied on by the Government were in fact retracted by them at their

In this connection, they stated that there were three persons with the same initials (K.N.) as the driver employed in the Ministry. 17.

Commander Yurdakul later denied the arrest of the applicants’ relatives. The applicants claim that they do not have a copy of this document in their possession.

The respective decisions were never served on any of them, and they were only notified of them when the first applicant visited the Grozny prosecutor’s office.

They also submitted that the removal order against them had exposed them to a situation which had put their lives and physical integrity at risk.

For this purpose, they shall receive the same treatment as the chaplains retained by the Detaining Power. They shall not be obliged to do any other work.

A number of the applicants also invoked Article 8, alleging that their expulsion would entail an interference with their private life as they had formed links with Norway. 11.

According to the applicants, making such applications was difficult for them as they are poor and live their lives in the Roma community, isolated from the rest of society.

    The applicants complained that by ordering them to vacate the flat in question, the domestic courts had violated their right to respect for their home.

They had travelled using their own passports but had destroyed them upon arrival in Sweden.

The man whom he had described said ‘Shoot them’ and he and three men drew their guns. Then they took Mehmet Şerif Avşar into the Toros car.

Although the domestic courts had given relevant reasons for their decision to revoke the adoption, they had failed sufficiently to justify them for the purposes of Article 8 §   2.

  In this regard they complain that the assessments made about them by the Secret Service may be used to damage them in their political or professional careers.

Furthermore, they highlighted that the applicants had been obliged to leave Sweden together with their daughters already in 2002 and then again in 2005.

They did not contest that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that duty on the goods had not been paid but argued that this was insufficient to allow the goods to be detained under the 1979 Act

During the transfer and their detention they were tortured.

  If there are not sufficient sites where gipsies may lawfully stop, then they will be without the law whenever and wherever they do stop.

When the servicemen left, the applicants were ordered to remain in their house on pain of being shot if they came out of the building.