During their questioning they rejected the accusations against them and stated that they were not involved with the PKK and had not participated in any demonstration to support its activities.

deprived of their original land which then was exploited by other parties, the applicants for this reason being unable to assert their rights appropriately in the subsequent main proceedings.

In this connection, they maintained that the Government must be held accountable for their insensitivity and their religious and ethnic discrimination. (b)     The Government 14.

The applicants found a note in their yard indicating the whereabouts of their younger son, whom they collected form ORB-2 on 27 June 2002.

Was there an interference with this right?   If so, was the interference “prescribed by law”, and did it pursue a legitimate aim, within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?

them the right to peacefully enjoy their property for over 30 years without compensation.

  In their review requests they have had the opportunity to present their objections to their expulsion.

These witnesses usually travelled outside their country of residence and outside the Czech Republic and they became inaccessible to the authorities once they had left the Czech Republic.

As soon as they had crossed the fences they were apprehended by members of the Guardia Civil , who allegedly handcuffed them and took them back to the other side of the border.

According to the applicants, the men assured them that they would check their sons’ identities and release them immediately afterwards. 10.

Two women who received them at the entrance of the building stated that there was a press conference in progress, asked them to wait in the waiting room, which was on the third floor of the building, and

Mr P.K. and Mr   N.S., who had been following close behind them in the other car, came to their aid, but ran away after the Roma men attacked them too.

At around midnight the same day, seven or eight police officers had arrived at their house and asked for Ender. According to the officers, Ender had told them that there was a firearm in the house.

    In this context the Regional Court noted that there was no plausible reason why the witnesses should have wrongly accused their colleagues.

They were walking to the town centre when two Russian servicemen at the checkpoint stopped them. The servicemen took their passports and one of the soldiers went with them into the factory building.

This rule did not impair or restrict the very essence of their rights to marry as they would both be free to marry a person of the opposite gender once a full GRC had issued.

The children continued to live with their mother L., and J. met with them regularly during the weekends either at their home or at his home.

    The Regional Court therefore examined whether the accused had acted with due journalistic diligence when they considered these statements as true, or if they could prove their veracity.

According to them, their employers had warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work for them. 8.