According to the applicants, this had not been the case in the proceedings on their asylum application and, in this respect, relied on an expert report drawn up on 21 November 2012 at their

They maintained that there were no grounds for changing their tax returns or imposing tax surcharges on them.

The applicants submitted that they withdrew the other grounds of appeal relating to the meaning of this part of the leaflet because lack of time and legal advice prevented them from fully pursuing them

However, when the family had gone back to Iran after having returned to Afghanistan in the mistaken belief that the situation there had improved, they had been unable to regularise their stay.

by each party -they had acted within their margin of appreciation.

The applicants were taken to Barcelona Court of First Instance where the judge gave a verbal order releasing them into the care of their families and suggesting that they should be admitted to a psychiatric

of liberty that would subsequently be imposed on them pending their appearance before the competent legal authority.

The detainees were asked similar questions about their identity, if they took part in the hostilities and what they knew about Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev.

In the Constitutional Court’s view this was not enough to show that they were directly affected by the said provisions.

They could not gain access to the property of the applicants as they were informed by gendarme officers that there might be land mines in the area.

They argued that, given that neither they nor their lawyers, who did not have the requisite authorisation, had access to the classified evidence in the file, the bank statement would enable them to counter

They also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In their initial submissions the applicants stated that they had instituted these proceedings in April 2002.

  They claim that they have been informed that their house in Ayios Avrosios has been destroyed by the Turkish army. The respondent Government deny this.

five-year periods and then their employment would continue on the basis of their contracts until compulsory retirement at the age of fifty-seven (Law no. 215(I)/2012 concerning Members of the Armed Forces

Just over an hour after the jury had retired, they asked to see the victim’s statement; the judge told them that they could not see it but reminded them of its contents by reading it to them.

Lastly, they complain that the proceedings in which they challenged the lawfulness of their detention were unfair.

Their commander decides arbitrarily whether to further punish them or reintegrate them into the unit.

In this connection, they submit that the legislator’s omission to define the borders of the winter grazing areas and the consequences thereof are at variance with their right of property.

Neither the two applicants’ lawyers nor the remaining applicants who are their close relatives had access to them during that time.