In the Court’s opinion, this requirement has not been met in the present case as the applicant’s complaints regarding the conditions of detention in the prison and his medical care have been limited to

In addition, she complained that the proceedings had been excessively lengthy. 22.

notified of the public delivery of the judgment, that the judgment had properly been pronounced, and that all of the applicable rules had been complied with. 20.

It considered that the treatment had been appropriate and had been applied without medical errors. 26.

The Government noted that the prisoners had been given cold food and had been accompanied by a team capable of providing first aid.

They had questioned witnesses but had never themselves been questioned.

The respondent State’s duty to cease that discrimination and acknowledge the applicant’s right should have been enshrined in the national legal order in which his right was injured.

    Detailed rules for this procedure have been set out in the Dismissals Decree ( Ontslagbesluit ). 13.

    The judge elected in respect of Moldova, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court) after it had been notified to the Government.

He lodged a claim for compensation, claiming, among other things, that he had been beaten and insulted for two hours while in detention and deprived of his right to contact his family and a lawyer.

  Summary of the facts   In April 2000 a building belonging to the applicant was expropriated by the Ministry of Culture on the ground that it had been classified as a “cultural asset”.

The applicant subsequently denied the content of his police statement, alleging that it had been extracted from him under duress.

Both his sons have Netherlands nationality and have been recognised ( erkend ) by him. Neither his partner nor his children speak Turkish.

  Joseph Rice, a solicitor practising in Belfast.   The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.

However, it considered that the tenants had been occupying the property for thirty-four years; that the lease had not been entered into voluntarily, but had been imposed by Article   12 of the Ordinance

It has not been substantiated that the applicants could not secure compensation under the 1991 Compensation Act.

  That situation could not have been rectified either by legal remedies available to the applicants since the relevant decisions had been given after the date on which the demonstrations had been

That had not been done in the case in question.

a criminal investigation had been opened.

    The Government concluded that in the applicants’ case the principle of legal certainty had not been breached, as their claim for restitution had been dismissed in accordance with the practice