By a decision of the Prison Governor of 30 November 2007, the applicant was found to have committed two disciplinary offences.

At a public session held on 4 July 2005, the Skopje Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ appeal and quashed the trial court’s decision, which it found to have been inconsistent and unreasoned.

He submitted that the Federal Minister had interpreted the relevant law incorrectly and that if he had properly assessed the evidence he would have concluded that the study visit to Brussels had to be

In addition, the applicant argued that the national courts should have automatically discharged the provisional measure after the judgment in the main proceedings had become final. 33.

It follows, that any complaint in respect of the first period of the applicant’s detention should have been brought within six months of his release.

The first two applicants and the last applicant also have Romanian nationality.

  That arrangement is still in force, although proceedings brought by E.P. to have it terminated are pending. The applicant has been trying to have his right of access enforced from the outset.

  The Court reiterated that a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must, among other things, be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent

The Court notes that the applicants have not lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

  16219/90, §   20, 31   July 2003, and Alexandrou v. Turkey (merits), no. 16162/90, § 21, 20   January 2009) or at a later stage.

I have been informed that my attendance at the hearing is not mandatory and that I have a right to participate through a legal representative.” 11.

Documents may only be used as evidence if they have been read out in court. 21.

Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...” 1.     Application no. 3705/10 40.

    On 24 August 2006 the respondents lodged a counter-claim seeking to invalidate the ownership certificate and to have their ownership recognised in respect of the part of the house and of

The Court observes that these objections are identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v.