According to the applicant, a co-accused I. also underwent the same treatment.

    On 28 May 2009 the Constitutional Court found that in the same proceeding of which the applicant complains the District Court had breached the right of the applicant’s sister to a hearing

By a judgment of the same date the District Court dismissed his claims against the remaining respondent. 20.

Consequently, up to that date the proceedings had lasted some seven years for four levels of jurisdiction.

  The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted five years and eight months.

Under the provisions of Article   29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.

    In all the above-mentioned decisions the courts relied on the same grounds for detention as those given in the first detention order.

    On 6 February 2002 the court held the seventh hearing and,   on the same date, gave its judgment allowing the applicant’s claim.

The relevant period has therefore lasted over ten years and two months and five instances have been involved.

Thus, the above two sets of proceedings concerned the same claim. Both the criminal and civil courts were called upon to review the same facts on the basis of the same evidence.

Mr Baltaş was released that same day and Mr Tekin was released on 29 May 2000.

  The Court noted that Piotr Bobryk’s detention on remand had lasted for about two years and seven months and that of Bogdan Skalski three years and eight months.

He was released on the same day. 17.     On 30 July 2018 the applicant was convicted and received a seven ‑ year prison sentence. COMPLAINT 18.

The judgment was pronounced in his presence and became final on the same day. 7.

According to the Government, the County Court’s decision was served on the Rijeka Municipal Court on the same day. 12.

On 21 August 2008 the same court rejected the appeal due to a procedural mistake. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.

The action was codenamed “Storm” and lasted from 4 to 7   August 1995.

On 25 December 1997 the first-instance court joined the two applications since they concerned the same issues of facts and law. 8.

On 2 April 2002 he filed another submission regarding the same issue. 22.

The pre-trial judge allowed that request on 7 March 2022, relying on essentially the same grounds as before (see paragraph 6 above). 12 .