If so, was that detention compatible with Article 5   § 1 of the Convention?

  In interpreting the constitutional right to personal freedom, the Federal Court will consider Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention in its interpretation by the Convention organs.

    Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention. He also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 2 .     On 13 July 1996 the applicant was placed in detention.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated

They invoke Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

    Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.

therein; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (with respect to applications nos. 48615/11 and 26953/14) and of the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

The second applicant in application no. 29527/10 and the applicant in application no. 49548/10 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

It follows that these complaints must be rejected as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention 9.

    Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article   13 of the Convention, all the applicants complain that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections and

  12699/18) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 March 2018 by a Georgian national

  602/22 rely on Articles   3, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In addition to those provisions, the applicants in application no.

He invokes Article 10 of the Convention read alone and in conjunction with Article 14.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.

    Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre and the purpose of his detention, was the applicant’s detention “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention

24 § 2 of the Convention.

3 of the Convention or amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention?

  45735/16) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 July 2016 by a Romanian national

GRIEFS Invoquant l’article 3 de la Convention, le requérant se plaint d’avoir été incarcéré dans des conditions contraires à cette disposition.