pecuniary rights, because he considered that the works on the land adjoining his property would adversely affect further development of his land.

detention, combined with the lack of a time-limit for the lower court to re-examine his detention, was found to render the applicant’s detention arbitrary (see Khudoyorov v.

In his dental examination, the dentist noted that the Mr Yazıcı was suffering a profound caries.

    Therefore, since the applicant submitted the present application to the Court on 12 April 2012, roughly ten months after his last refusal to receive the ART treatment, his complaints relating

    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.

    The applicant complained, in particular, about his alleged ill-treatment during his police custody, the excessive length of his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings that were

Le CRRMP des Pays de la Loire a rendu son avis le 4 décembre 2023.

Courts had already, in a final decision, allowed his claim for compensation – had violated his property rights.

It increased his prison sentence to seven years. 17.

The District Court having refused his request, he asked that the proceedings be suspended in anticipation of the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt) of Helsinki in a related

    Lastly, the applicant complained that due to his health problems the execution of his prison sentence amounted to inhuman treatment (Article 3). THE LAW 1.

  COMPLAINTS         The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the decision to deport his wife on behalf of himself and his children.

He argued in particular that his asylum application had not been duly accepted and considered, and that he had been forced to initiate court proceedings in order to compel to examine his application.

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing ...” 16.

The court noted that the applicant could at that time see his lawyer whenever he requested. The restrictions imposed on his contacts with his lawyer did not impair his defence rights.

The part of his constitutional complaint, which was aimed at his release and at a fresh examination of his interlocutory appeal, had therefore become moot.

He was handcuffed and his apartment was searched.

of the Republic of Azerbaijan for his extradition.”

    The applicant alleged that his right to adversarial proceedings, his right of access to a court and his right to respect for his family life had been infringed because his parental rights

The court acceded to his request over the prosecution’s objection.