In the case of Isayev v.

    The applicants were represented by Mr V. Özkan, a lawyer practising in Adana. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.

Furthermore, the Dublin Regulation was based on the assumption that all member States were safe countries and that a transfer to one of them could not constitute a human rights violation.

    On 5 and 12 February 2002, respectively, the two applicants were charged and questioned as suspects. On 14 October 2002 they were questioned by a judge. 9.

The Regional Court conducted seventeen hearings, which were scheduled at intervals of one to five months.

by the parties; Motions to hear expert witnesses and witnesses were dismissed without giving reasons or were not treated at all and the parties were not summoned; Expert opinions from expert witnesses

The servicemen were wearing military uniforms, caps and helmets with torches. They were carrying machine guns and shields.

Reunited, the applicants went to Ukraine and thereafter to Romania, where they were granted asylum in September 2001. Two children were born to them there.

No further investigative steps were taken after the opening of the criminal proceedings and the applicant was never formally charged or indicted.

Maîtres ROSENBLIEH, WELSCHINGER, WIESEL & DUBOIS, avocats à COLMAR COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : L'affaire a été débattue le 03 octobre 2007, en audience publique, devant la Cour composée de : Michel WERL

of cases and the applicants' reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Aleksandar Stojkov and Mrs Vangja Stojkova, are Macedonian nationals who were

applicants   The case concerns three Spanish nationals and two British nationals who are Sergio Murillo Saldías, who is 26 years old and lives in Orcoyen (Spain), Salvador Sanchis Pérez and María Isabel

In the case of Andrey Isayev v.

By contrast, his applications to courts of general jurisdiction at two instances were effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 because the courts were competent to establish a breach of

  France (nos. 25708/03 and 25719/03, 6 December 2007), had held that such aims were not only legitimate but were also in the general interest. 35.

  Isayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The toilets were dirty and foul-smelling.

The applicant and his friends were instructed to unload the sheep. K.

    On 31 August 2011 the Government were given notice of the application.