In 2003, the applicant had been robbed and an attempt was made to rape her.

The applicant concluded that he could still claim to be a victim of a   violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time and that this right had been violated just as had been his right

    The applicant complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he had been deprived of effective access to court, as he had been denied a stay of execution and, as a consequence, the taxes

    In the Ministry’s letters of 29 October and 1   December 1993 it was reiterated that if the expropriation decisions had been declared null and void, there would have been no sufficient

    The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the social security benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position

    According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred

  20444/14, § 88, 7 February 2019 and the cases cited therein), has there been a breach of Article   2 of the Convention in the present case?   APPENDIX Application no. 2390/24 No.

She had been subject to treatment since 1995 and had also been institutionalised for an undetermined time.

Moreover, at the end of November 2004, their husband/father had been picked up by police and they had neither seen him nor heard of him since.

The applicant’s family home had been confiscated, his wife ill-treated, his father kidnapped and the applicant himself had been beaten up and robbed more than once.

by the Aliens’ Police Department had not been correct.

    The Government requested revision of the judgment of 24 November 2009, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. 7.

  QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case?

    On 16 December 2016 the application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.

The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the Court’s judgment has been delivered.” 13.

margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 17256/90 by Joseph

  4833/07 by Helene BALSBERG against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 31   August   2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President

No response has been received from the applicant’s estate or his heirs.

On 29 April 2014 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided, at the request of the applicant, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the

DECISION Application no. 6781/06 by Mohamed ISSE SECK against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   May   2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep