In December 2005 the Directorate again reminded the applicants that it was open to them to regularise their stay. No response was forthcoming from them.

They stated that they had taken this step in order to remove their relative from the influence of the drug addicts with whom he had been associating. 6 .

Second, they complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their obligation to pay their own costs had pecuniary consequences for them since given the nature of the charges against them they had no

As regards the remaining land, they stated that they would wait for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in their case.

Since there was a delay in their enforcement, the applicants sought compensation in this respect under the Compensation Act. Their claims for compensation were granted.

In addition, they rely on Articles 6 and 13 in support of their complaint that they had no effective access to a court or to an effective remedy to dispute the lawfulness of the decision to deport them

In the framework of this work, on 2 October 2015 they were filming cars in which employees of the SSU arrived to the SSU department in Kyiv.

If they did not like the paintings in issue, they were free to look away from them and pass them by; there was no need for the protection of the criminal law.

He then reprimanded the servicemen in question, ordered them not to undertake any actions at the post and told them that the issue of their disciplinary responsibility would be considered when they returned

They admitted that they had limited the fees charged to their own clients but not the fees charged when they were on emergency duty.

They then took away the Aziyevys’ sons, half-naked and barefoot, promising that they would be released as soon as their identities had been checked.

  They worked on their own land and were not dependent upon their father.   One of them was married and had three children.   They had last seen their father in 1982.

to them although they had been undeveloped at the time of the submission of their claims.

The children and their father continued their stay in Brighton. On 29   July 2016 K.Z. retrieved the children from the applicant and returned with them to Poland.

Lastly, they submitted that the loss of their right to vote following their bankruptcy had infringed Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).

According to the applicants, they were driven to the police department in the cars that had no police markings, they were not promptly informed about the reasons for their arrest, and their lawyer was

as the appointment of its priests, including how long and where they were to carry out their pastoral activity.

Moreover, they had remained completely at the mercy of the officers questioning them, since they had been taken into police custody on 6 January 1994 and had not had access to their lawyer until 11 January

them on their way to Northern Iraq; they identified Şahin Tiryaki from his photograph, H.A. subsequently repeated these statements at the prosecutor’s office and when being questioned by the investigating