s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps

that the applicant had been making his living as a taxi driver and that there was no indication that he had ever been convicted for another customs-related offence seem to have been disregarded when it came

  Before reaching it the car came off the road, knocking down two concrete posts and being held by chain link wire.

France; 27.6.1997, Philis v. Greece (no. 2); 23.9.1997, Robins v. the United Kingdom; 16.12.1997, Proszak v. Poland   In the case of Mavronichis v.

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Philis v. Greece (no. 2), judgment of 27   June   1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1083, §   35). 19.

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

Mitrtskhulava, lawyers practising in Tbilisi; they were joined later by Mr Jarlath Clifford, Mr Philip Leach, Ms Joanne Sawyer and Ms Jess Gavron, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

text-indent:14.2pt } .s621D10E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB1A2957 { width:21.41pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps

  After the new law came into force, on 13 April 1983, the OEK refused to settle the cases.   34.

xa0;      Application No. 12750/87                       by Nicolas PHILIS

; Fourthly, the Government did not wish to speculate on the actual purpose of the money confiscated from the applicant but nevertheless stressed, in abstract terms, that the mere fact that the money came

Lord Phillips CJ in giving the judgment of this court in R v Bieber concluded that the regime was compatible and a whole life order was reducible, because of the power of the Secretary of State under s

margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps

margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps

    The applicant, who was granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   Phillip Leach, a lawyer practising in London.

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,   Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge, and Stephen Phillips