Where the submissions have not been amended as required, the court shall declare them inadmissible.”

pictures of the [applicant] in the company of members of the KDPI have been published.

Nagiyev have not yet been clearly established.

    Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Pierotti v.

    The applicants, Mr Ion Aurel Manoilescu and Ms Alexandra Maria Dobrescu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1941 and 1921 respectively.

According to the report, the initial diagnosis of a closed cerebral injury had not been confirmed and the bruises could have “resulted either from a beating with a hard blunt object(s) or from falling

However, with the lapse of time the domestic courts should have examined whether that reason pertained and whether it justified the applicant’s continued detention.

[Before that time] he did not have any reasons to abscond.” 9.

Given the above considerations no alternative, more lenient, preventive measures could have been applied to the applicant.

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro succeeded Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos as President of the Grand Chamber in the course of the proceedings. 6.

and should have lodged their application within six months of that date. 16.

    On 25 May 1984 the applicants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court to have Ministerial Order no. 2544/84 quashed.   9.

been checked during the pre-trial investigation and have not been confirmed. ...

The applicant alleged to have been ill-treated by the policemen during the interrogations.

of, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin

They also had to have relevant knowledge of the Croatian language (section145(4) and 147(7)). 25.

This decision had been made by the supervisors because he himself did not have the power to make such a decision.

residents of Syria, including those who have had their asylum claims rejected.

The President of the Section acceded to the applicant’s request not to have his name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). 2.