to have derived benefit.

could have been deterred.

He does not have a cupboard or a table next to his bed.

It may find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the basis of facts presented to it which the Government have failed to refute (see, mutatis mutandis , Grigoryevskikh v.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

    On the same day the applicant was admitted to the Alexandru Obregia Psychiatric Hospital in Bucharest.

Moldova (no. 7/08)   The applicants, Alexandru Tănase and Dorin Chirtoacă, are Moldovan and Romanian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1978 respectively and live in Chişinău.

The applicants include three organisations that have been designated “undesirable” – Free Russia Foundation (USA), Ukrainian World Congress (Ukraine), and Association of Schools of Political Studies of

All applicants have been released from prison. No response to the Court’s letters was received from the applicants.

of Article 5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) because the applicant was unlawfully detained following a decision to release him; a violation of Article 5   §   4 (right to have

The applicants are the daughter and wife of the deceased Mr Alexandru Guranda, who was a judge of the Chişinău Regional Court. He died in January 2001.

effective remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of detention, as the action in tort had become an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have

It was therefore perfectly reasonable that the applicant should have appended an additional document.

These decisions have not been challenged or quashed to date.

The injuries could have been the consequence of being hit by a hard object and being scratched, which could have dated from 12 June 2015; the injuries had needed four to five days of medical care.

The applicant ought to have known that the request for the protection of legality would have no bearing on the final judgment acquitting the accused. 24.

It is undisputed in this case that, had a patent been granted in Norway, this would have meant that the patent protection would have expired on 30 November 2010 . THE LAW I.

    The general principles concerning the living conditions of asylum‑seekers have been summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 249-64, ECHR 2011).

On the other hand, the wish to have one's ashes scattered on one's own land (see X. v. Germany , no.