The first applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention on behalf of himself and the second applicant about the alleged violation of their right to respect for their family life.

The BCEA offered to make the payment not as compensation for expropriation, but on the basis of a contract of sale to be entered into by the applicant and an individual acting on behalf of the BCEA.

    On 19 August 2014 Mr Erol Hasa expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings on behalf of his father, who died on 23 May 2014.

Therefore, the court finds that the accused committed the offences of committing an offence on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being a member of it, intentionally endangering public security

   The applicant lodges various complaints about custody and access matters in his own name and also on behalf of his daughter.

    The applicant alleged that he had not had a fair trial, in that the domestic court had refused his request to have witnesses on his behalf examined.

The applicant duly paid the invoices on behalf of K and M.

On 1 February 2018 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant’s address asking whether there was a person who wished to pursue the proceedings on the deceased applicant’s behalf.

A cassation appeal submitted by the Ombudsman on the applicant’s behalf was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29   March   2017 (served on the applicant on 14 April 2017).

Under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it was claimed on behalf of the applicant that the child maintenance proceedings before the Municipal Court in Smederevo have been excessively

In 2005 and 2006, the applicant obtained two bank loans on behalf of his company by using one of his immovable properties as collateral and providing several guarantees, including two promissory notes

On 15 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicants guilty of the offence of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party), under Article

In particular, was he able to examine the witnesses against him and get attendance of the witness on his behalf, as required by Article   6 § 3 (d)?

In February 2010 the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against him in a special assize court for an offence committed on behalf of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, for disseminating

particular: -     did the refusal of the trial court to grant the applicant’s motions to call additional witnesses violate his right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf

    Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

Frans Vidal, a Belgian national, who complained that he did not obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf before the Brussels Court of Appeal;        Recalling

On 30 April 2008 the Government, as specified in the friendly settlement, paid EUR   6,000 to a bank account opened on behalf of the applicants, and the competent social-care centre appointed an interim

Prior to the searches, written search warrants were not served on the applicant or a person who had authority to act on his behalf.