They submitted that the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced.

He considered that it had been disproportionate, as there had been no resistance on his behalf.

  They point out that the magistrates had before them the initial summonses which had not been called for, and also the summonses which the process server attempted to serve personally.

In particular, he complained that he had not been afforded access to a lawyer during the police questioning, that he had not been allowed time to prepare his defence but had been questioned immediately

  However, it followed from observations submitted by the Steyregg community that it had been the task of Mr.

into his death; there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture); there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition

  Regarding whether the investigation had been adequate, the Court pointed out, among other things, that as George L had been a police officer (although he had not been acting in that capacity when

  This document details measures which have been taken by the Cypriot authorities.

restrictions on the rights of the defence, in that he had been deprived of the opportunity to clear his name.

In the case of 12 applicants who died after the application had been lodged, on the other hand, a written power of attorney signed by a close relative, spouse or heir had been provided and the Court was

Mr   Stepanyan further alleged that there had been no oral hearing before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal which tried him.

Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases.

On 21 July 2001 she absconded, complaining that the investigation had been unfair and that the prosecution had brought pressure to bear on her.

The problem had been solved since and his last conviction had been in 2000.

It held that one of the applicant’s arguments concerning the way in which his pension rights had been calculated had not been properly examined. 9.

, and that the stamp duty and the fee for the lawyer paid in April 2000 could have been recovered by the applicant, had they been requested. 38.

have been nationalised.

The same applies in relation to an appeal to the tribunal which cannot be determined until the worker has been in the list for 9 months.

  For these reasons, the Court found that Article 6 had been breached.   2.

the judgment had been delivered, in breach of the applicable rules of criminal procedure.