The case concerned the context of customs controls for “goods” carried by a person arriving at customs to declare items rather than the context of security checks, in particular checks carried out in relation

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.

In August 2007 the case was referred to the Chernihiv Regional Police Department for further investigation.

As it appears from the case file, on 4 May 2000 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“District Court”) remitted the case for an additional investigation.

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.

Subsequently, no crime scene examination nor incident reconstruction were carried out.

    Was the right to life of applicant’s brother, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case?

Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 72, 25 March 2014). 36.

   Particular circumstances of the case        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 21   March 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant’s request after examining it on the basis of the case file and without holding a hearing.

  In the case of Rummi v.

On 20 March 1995 the Regional Court upheld the decision. On 27 April 1995 the case file was returned to the District Court.

On 8 March 1999 the Government filed their observations. The applicant's representatives did likewise on 12 March 1999.

In the case of Żurek v.

16 March 1988 for a period of six weeks.

TURKEY     (Application no. 46221/99)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     12 March 2003       THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER, WHICH DELIVERED

    His appeal was dismissed on 17 March 1995.

  In the case of A.S. v.

In the case of Polat v.