On 22 April 2004 the President, Mr L. Wildhaber, decided that it was not necessary to hold a hearing (Rules 59 § 3 and 71 § 2). 11.

Furthermore, R.A.’s brother had explained over the phone that R.A. had undergone surgery and had to remain in hospital for further treatment.

During the afternoon and early evening three short phone calls were successfully put through. However, J. refused to negotiate.

It was apparent from section 33 of the SSMA that information about the use of special means of surveillance was not to be disclosed.

Romania and Hungary , no. 71099/01, §   70, 5 April 2005, and V.A.M. v. Serbia , cited above, §   130).

Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31, para. 49).

The applicant’s lawyer challenged the reliability of the photo identification procedure, alleging that it was not apparent how E.A. had recognised and identified the applicant.

During the afternoon and early evening three short phone calls were successfully put through. However, J. refused to negotiate.

By further amendment of 1 April 1995 the holder of the post was required to have higher education.

She told him that the victim wanted to escape, fearing physical retribution from the applicant for having lost his phone, and R.Ts. helped her to leave the city. 9 .

    On 17 April 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

He referred to the fact that both his office and apartment were searched, that a mobile phone belonging to his wife and containing very personal information had been seized and no apologies made upon returning

Jacquinot, rapporteur, - les conclusions de Mme Chaufaux, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Phan, représentant les requérants, - les observations de Me Pasquio, représentant la commune

    The trial took place in the District Court between April and October   2005. The applicant was represented by counsel M. and I.

    The Crown's evidence regarding the alleged phone calls came from a number of sources.

In addition, in the light of the incontrovertible evidence, both of a phone call on the night in question and a visit to Mr Widdicombe by the defendant a week later, the jury would not have to wrestle

    By the Information Letter of 13   April 2010 no.

Then, according to her, on 3 April and 12 April 2012 she visited the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office to get an update on the status of the investigation, but to no avail. 30.

On 18   April 2012 the appeal was allowed in part, with the confiscation order being reduced to approximately GBP 1.6 million. 30.

    On 24 April 2001 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who noted that the applicant had suffered a head injury and was completely blind. 20.