SUR LA VIOLATION ALLÉGUÉE DE L’ARTICLE 6 § 1 DE LA CONVENTION 19.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.

  Slovakia [Committee], nos. 40734/22 and 40803/22, 28 February 2023). The applicant alleges that his rights under Article 6 § 1 and Articles 8, 13 and   18 of the Convention were violated.

    SUR LA VIOLATION ALLÉGUÉE DE L’ARTICLE 6 § 1 DE LA CONVENTION 20.

They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicants’ attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

The applicants’ attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the

    He further brought numerous complaints under Articles 3, 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 28.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 AND ARTICLE   13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.

The applicants’ various complaints under the Convention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”), who did not submit their observations.

    Under Articles 6 and 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention the applicant was dissatisfied with his criminal conviction because of the courts’ use of his self-incriminating statements obtained under

    APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 46 AND 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Article 46 of the Convention 17.     Article 46 of the Convention provides: “1.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lengthy enforcement of their pecuniary claims were communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”).

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention after 22 March 2014 was unlawful, as it was not based on any court order.

Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3?   2.