35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention.

    The relevant provisions of the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity (“the Basle Convention”) read as follows: Article 5 “1.

droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, l'article 352, alinéa 1er du code civil et l'article 329 du code de procédure civile ; 2°/ que selon l'article 3 § 1 de la Convention de New-York du

The relevant provisions of the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity (“the Basle Convention”): Article 5 “1.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 4. 2.

In this connection, the Government also referred to the statements signed by the supposed staff members of the azadliq.info and kanalturan.com websites (see paragraph 21 below) and noted that those statements

of process or a breach of Article 6 of the Convention.

He invoked Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7.

    It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. IV.

des articles 9 de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen du 26 août 1789, 5 et 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, de l'article Préliminaire et des articles 137 à 148-4 du

Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. II.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 25.

    On 4 December 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against his conviction, arguing that M.G.’s original statements contradicted those he had subsequently made at

On 28 June 2005 the applicant company complained that its rights under Articles 6 § 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article   13 had been breached following a misuse of revision

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 31.

She relied on Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 4.     The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

5 § 4 and 6 § 1 of the Convention; and that the determination of the lawfulness of his detention was not speedy within the meaning of Article 5 § 4.

However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for

The applicant company also complained under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.

    ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 94.