Under the same provisions, they further stated that their objection was dismissed by the appeal court on the basis of the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to them or

Furthermore, the courts were obliged under the Convention to rule on the applicants’ objections to the charges brought against them, and they complied with that obligation.

  In these two cases the Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.

The trial court then allowed two additional adjournments at the request of the defence so that they could secure the availability of A.K. for examination.

It also took account of the applicants’ conduct, noting in particular that they could not have been unaware of the provenance of the money made available to them by their son.

the choices that they made in this respect.

They alleged that they had been ill-treated in custody, and that their statements were extracted from them under duress. B.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 that the special legislation applied in their cases effectively deprived them of (i) proper access to court in that it removed these litigations from the scope

  The Court further noted that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the applicants had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest.

Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr O.

; they then returned to Bois du Trou-Poulet, which the municipality asked them to leave within 48 hours.

The applicants, along with their villagers, left the village taking their animals and as many belongings as they could carry.

The premises in question were their long-standing family homes; they had maintained them at their own expense; and the lawfulness of their occupancy had never before been disputed.

  The court then referred to the custody proceedings and pointed out that it had first partially withdrawn the custody in view of their medical treatment.

They contend that, as a result of their persecution and conviction, their families were discredited in the eyes of the public and isolated from the society.

They told the border guards that they could not remain in Belarus and that it would be impossible for them to obtain international protection there.

Then they took them to the ROVD without telling them the reasons for their detention. Ill-treatment at the police station 11 .

The first and the second applicants met this young man, whose name they did not know.

Authorities may also have to be prepared to increase the provision they have made if there is a subsequent expansion of the gypsy population in their area.