On 29 January 1997 the court dismissed his appeal. 29.

Street in his and his wife’s presence. 7.     On the same date the KECU officers also inspected the applicant’s garage and his car. 8.

  His transfer would particularly have eased the difficulty of visiting for his sister-in-law, C.M., who is   his main visitor.

and his inability to issue binding decisions.

  However, his application was rejected by the Court on 9 May 1986.   B.

, but in his capacity as representative of his mother, Alexandra Georgiadou, and of Elli Meyes.

  Also his account of the modalities of his flight was not credible.

His injuries were once again recorded by the medical staff of the facility upon his arrival. 12.

    On 5 August 2002 the applicant declared to resign from his civil service employment as of 31 August 2002. However, on 29 August 2002 he revoked his declaration. 7.

In particular, he argues that the three-month time limit applied in the amended version of the 1987 Regulations as from 7 April 1997 was so short as to render it excessively difficult to exercise his Convention

Another officer stated that the applicant had objected to the search and had swung his hands; because of his refusal to stop after a warning, his hand had been held behind his back, he “had been held in

    Circumstances of the applicant's detention (a)     The applicant's health In February 1999, shortly before his arrest, the applicant had an operation on his hand.

had been protected by his representative who attended the hearing.

In 2008 he was given a social flat in Belgrade, for him and his family, consisting of the applicant, his wife and three children.

– waived his right to appear and defend himself.

His principal illness is a psychotic neurotic disorder ... PTSD.

had had no opportunity to be heard on the matter of the interim custody order, which his wife had lodged before leaving Switzerland.

his condition.

A few scratches were found on his body and piece of his little finger was found in his oesophagus.

without reservation to conduct the defence on his behalf for the purpose of the hearing on the merits of his criminal case in his absence.” 20 .