The Court observes that these objections are identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v.

He contended that much of the material now disclosed by the prosecution should unquestionably have been disclosed at trial, since it would have undermined the prosecution cases and assisted the defence

Contrary to his submissions, the applicant did, therefore, have an opportunity to present the relevant information voluntarily and to avoid the search.

    The Court considers that although the authorities have an obligation to enforce court judgments, in this case by compensating the applicant with the difference in salary earned before and

    Was Article 13 of the Convention applicable in conjunction with Article   5 § 1 in respect of administrative escorting and/or administrative arrest (see Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v.

I do have some reservations, however, regarding the reasoning of the judgment, particularly paragraph 57. 2.

    The Court does not have to address all issues raised by the parties because the application is in any event inadmissible on the following ground. 25.

    On 16 December 2003 the Town Court ordered that the case file be returned to the investigating authorities so that the applicant would have an opportunity to study it.

    At the hearing held on 11 June 2010 the parties agreed that the applicant would have contact with his daughter twice a week for two hours under supervision. 18.

    The applicant disagreed, claiming that she had had multiple remedies at her disposal but could not have been expected to pursue all of them.

Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre

On 14 June 2010 applicants nos. 1 to 4 declared that “no changes have been effected to the ownership of [their] properties”.

The applicants later in 2005 attempted to have the statement of finality quashed and to lodge a belated appeal, but this was dismissed by the competent court. C.

Thus, the applicant must have been aware of the court hearing and summons sent to him. 13.

As regards the applicants listed in Appendix II, the Court notes that they died and no heirs have come forward.

known that he or she had purchased the property from a person who did not have a right to convey it.

During such a considerable period, any furniture would at the very least have been badly damaged if it had not become unusable at all.

However, no such steps have been taken. 4.

the session or have proposed that a trial be held before the appellate court, shall be notified of the session.