-- Email [email protected] for more details   --> <!-- Font changed to TimesRoman with size 10 --> INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (97) 85 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No.

backdating of pecuniary advantages of a promotion ( Orlandini ), judicial review of administrative authorities’ decision refusing reinstatement in former post ( Ryllo ), or judicial review of one or more

  Applicable criteria Conduct of relevant authorities: period of inactivity of more than two years – Government had provided no valid explanation – Court of Audit followed established case-law on

Default interest to be paid in event of delayed settlement not stipulated in judgment - in point 3 of operative provisions Court had done no more than order payment of interest on costs and expenses -

backdating of pecuniary advantages of a promotion ( Orlandini ), judicial review of administrative authorities’ decision refusing reinstatement in former post ( Ryllo ), or judicial review of one or more

backdating of pecuniary advantages of a promotion ( Orlandini ), judicial review of administrative authorities’ decision refusing reinstatement in former post ( Ryllo ), or judicial review of one or more

(1) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicant had complained before the Court of his complete inability to secure the execution of the decision; in fact, the decision had been executed in part more

Consequently, it was more consistent with the object and purpose of Article   35 to conclude that the six-month period should be extended to the first working day thereafter.

The applicant alleges that he was subjected to very dire detention conditions, more specifically overcrowding, lack of adequate furniture and the presence of bugs in the cells and very poor quality food

In particular, did the applicants invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article 10 on which they now wish to rely before the Court and, more specifically, did

The other experts concluded that the defendant retained his intellectual and volitional capacities intact but indicated that it would have been desirable to have heard the applicants to reach a more precise

More specifically, in 2009 the applicant, a lawyer, acted as defence counsel for E.H. in a hit and run case. After E.H’s conviction, she and her parents (H.H. and N.H.) fled to Greece.

Total: more than six years and eight months. B.

She has one more child, born in 2002 from a previous relationship. The applicant submits that he shares responsibilities as to the upbringing of all three of the children with her.

applicants were kept in prison as a direct consequence of trial found by the Court to be in violation of Article   6   § 1 -   real loss of opportunity to defend themselves and to secure a more

She emphasised that the area was designated for no more than a twenty ‑ four hour stay and recommended that the applicants be moved to an appropriate place.

backdating of pecuniary advantages of a promotion ( Orlandini ), judicial review of administrative authorities’ decision refusing reinstatement in former post ( Ryllo ), or judicial review of one or more

Two more children have been born to the couple in the Netherlands.

abide by the judgments of the Court is unconditional;   Recalling its Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)42 of 22 April 2005 and ResDH(2005)84 of 13 July 2005;   Deeply deploring the fact that, more

convention;   Whereas the Commission after having declared the application admissible on 6 July 1983, in its report adopted on 12 March 1984 found that in the circumstances of the case the period of more