12: (a)     Exhaustion of domestic remedies – The applicants had not been required to file a discrimination claim with the domestic courts, which would essentially have had the same objective

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 § 3). THE FACTS 3.

    In the meantime, the applicant brought proceedings before the Bayburt Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for the recovery of debts arising out of the same contract and filed criminal proceedings

  On the same day the Public Prosecutor no. 23783 granted the extension requested. 11.

It thus lasted four years, eight months and twenty-two days. 27.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 § 3). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

  The European Court of Human Rights noted, in particular, that the proceedings had lasted over seven years.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 § 3). THE FACTS 4.

  The applicant was again taken into pre-trial detention on suspicion of the same offence on 3 May 1994 by the Investigating Judge ( Rechter-Commissaris ) of The Hague.

However, in the meantime payment of the same amount was also transferred by a bank to the applicant's account.

As regards the complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Court observes that the application concerns the same domestic proceedings as the case of Rösslhuber v.

The Court considers that the present objections must be rejected for the same reasons. B.

It was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 §   3). In accordance with Protocol No.

The court also stressed that the proceedings concerned several other members of the same criminal group. 10.

At 11.30 p.m. on the same day he submitted to the customs authorities in the port of Varna West the necessary customs documents.

The existence of a final court ruling upholding a decision of the prosecution to terminate criminal proceedings was an absolute obstacle to prosecuting the same person for the same offence (Article 21

1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), both applicants complained that the criminal proceedings on suspicion of theft of sheep, brought against them in 1993 and 1995 respectively, had lasted

The applicant’s rehabilitation lasted until 2009. 6.

However, neither of these had been carried out during the applicant’s detention which had lasted one year and nine months.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 § 3). THE FACTS 4.