36144/11, brought their own challenge to the refugee card scheme, lodging that challenge with the Supreme Court on 7 August 2006.

Karlsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

  On 17 December 1997 he was arrested and detained on remand, charged with attempted fraud. He was released from detention four years later.

executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO     58133/21* 11/11/2021 Bulat Saylauyevich SHUMEKOV 1990   Dmitriy Dmitriyevich Miropoltsev Kaltan

On 27 March 2017 the 2 nd Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged.

    At an unknown date the applicant was charged with his wife’s murder. 10.

  In January 1994 the applicant was arrested and charged with forgery. He was released after 48 hours.

  the   Netherlands , no. 64752/01, § 83, 22 November 2007); (v)     they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard

Turkey (no. 28877/03) The applicants are five Turkish nationals, Niyazi Ekici, Şükrü Güntoğar, Bayram Akbulut, Salih Demircan and Müzeyyen   Kalkan, employees of Diyarbakır Sur Municipality who were

Mr Karlsson noted that in these cases the permits had been held by two companies, including one of the Jehanders (see paragraph 9 above).

Schönenberger would challenge the order made on 1 March (see paragraphs 14 to 16 below). 13.    Mr. Durmaz was freed on 23 March 1984.

The judges took into consideration the nature of the offence with which the applicants were charged, the evidence adduced and the potential penalty.

    Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the

Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Pakistani national, Ms Farida Kathoon

  2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

It reiterates its reasoning on the applicants’ Article 6 complaint to the effect that when an aggrieved applicant eventually obtains a decision on his pension, it will be open to him to challenge before

  (14)     Filiz and Kalkan v.

    Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the

    Did the applicants have at their disposal a remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?