In 2010 the applicant, a political activist and member of the “No Global” movement, read in a newspaper that an officer of the Italian Revenue Police ( Guardia di finanza ) had abusively extracted information

CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015), at page 18 point 48, reads as follows: “...

substantive violation of Article   3 on account of I.B.’s ill-treatment, a procedural violation of Article   3 in the absence of an effective investigation, a violation of Article   14 read

The applicant organisation also complains, under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.

Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, read as follows: “[I] ask you not to examine my complaints concerning the proceedings before the Nelidovo Town Court and the Tver Regional Court in my action

Owing to the style used, the impugned pieces of journalism had directly engaged the reader on the subject of the facts set out in them.

THE LAW On 24 October 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicant which read as follows: “I express gratitude for your assistance and ask you, under Article 37 of the Convention, to discontinue

The Court also rejected the applicant’s complaint about the authorities’ failure to fulfil their positive obligations under Article   3 read in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention

The relevant decision read: “Accepting an application for legal aid is possible only if an accused proves that he cannot afford legal assistance without a substantial reduction in his and his family’s

The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention that (a) under Bulgarian criminal law homophobic motives are not, as such, a statutory aggravating

THE LAW Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.

width:16.88pt; display:inline-block } .sEAD7759E { width:228.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 69329/01 by Mohammad Reza

    Relevant domestic law Article 215 of the Criminal Code read as follows: “Any person who openly praises an offence or the person committing an offence is punished with imprisonment of up to

; The applicant Mr Tahery alleged that his trial for wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm in 2005 had been unfair because the statement of one witness, who feared attending trial, was read

The applicant and Mr M. showed up at the meeting and raised a banner that read, in capital letters, “Putin is better than Hitler” («Путин лучше Гитлера»).

It read, inter alia , as follows:   (Translation)   “...

The reasons for that decision read, in so far as relevant: “[The applicant] was charged with the offence defined in Article 208 read in conjunction with Article 60 § 1 of the Criminal Code.

  As regards Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention   67.

According to a printout made at 7.26 p.m. on 8 November 2010, comment 1 had by then been read 176 times, while comment 2 had been read twelve times. 10.

Section 2 of the 2004 Act reads, in so far as relevant: “1.