THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 9.     The applicant did not invoke Article 5 § 1 before the domestic courts and has not, therefore, exhausted domestic remedies in respect of this complaint.

May 1972 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) confirmed on the applicant's appeal, the Lower Court's decision, for the same reasons as set out in the Trial Court's decision.   On ..

Belgium - 12351/86 Judgment 22.4.1992 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Failure by a court of appeal, hearing a case remitted to it by the Court

in the course of criminal proceedings and ordered a re-trial before that court (the Supreme Court).

Shortly afterwards, the court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim.

The Constitutional Court endorsed the Supreme Administrative Court’s conclusion that there was no individualised interference with the applicants’ rights that would fall to be examined by administrative

There he was convicted of two counts of murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment, after the trial court had ruled that his “guilt was of particular gravity”.

Ont été entendus au cours de l’audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Cerf, - et les conclusions de M. Phulpin, rapporteur public.

of Court.

    Backgound and questions   Judges to the Court are elected in respect of the various countries which have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 11 March 2004 the Tambov Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the District Court’s judgment pertaining to the applicant’s acquittal, remitted the case, in that part, for a fresh examination by

The court considered, given the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant, that there was a risk that he would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings.

as a courier.

In 2001 he had further been convicted of two counts of libel ( Beleidigung ) and compulsion ( Nötigung ) committed in the course of police operations. A.

That decision was overturned by the High Court, which refused the applicant access as it considered this to be the course most favourable to the children’s development and justified by their best interest

the Court of Appeal.

The court also disposed of the applicant’s counter-claim, ordering his former wife to return certain items of jewellery.

On 29 December 2011 she was appointed to a higher post of manager of the court’s mail and administration office at the Split Administrative Court, with effect from 1 January 2012. 3 .

The Court notes that this was in accordance with the Supreme Court’s practice of taking cognisance of replies even if they have been submitted out of time.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal had correctly rejected this argument.