Upon their arrival at the border police’s detention facility in Vidin, the applicants were searched.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, when considered as a whole, cure the police’s failure to notify him of the right to remain silent or the privilege against

article 54 § 2 a) du règlement de la Cour, Après en avoir délibéré, rend la décision suivante   : EN FAIT La requérante, M me Julijana Veber, est une ressortissante slovène née en 1952 et résidant à Polzela

Following requests for full disclosure, the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants were released additional information, but certain parts could only be read within the Security Police’s premises and

The demonstrators, including the applicant, refused to comply with the police’s order to remove the vehicles.

One of the banners displayed by the participants read “If the State doesn’t pay a policeman, the mafia will do so with pleasure”. 7.

trafficking and exploitation of prostitution: violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 3 December 2018] Facts – The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a certain T.M., a former policeman

Then, he was provided with a list of unsolved crimes which had been committed in Odesa and its region and was forced to choose those in which he would confess later on, according to the police’s instructions

No adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or

of a demonstrator from a shot fired by a police officer: inadmissible Facts – During a demonstration, a relative of the applicants sustained a head wound from the firing of a tear-gas canister by a policeman

A B, représenté par Me Croizille, demande au tribunal, dans le dernier état de ses écritures : 1°) d'annuler l'arrêté du 4 avril 2024 par lequel le préfet de police.de Paris a rejeté sa demande de titre

26256/21 Tatyana Fedorovna YERMOLENKO against Ukraine lodged on 29 April 2021 communicated on 23 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, a policeman

03849 - N° Portalis DBVM-V-B7H-MAM4 C1 Minute N° Copie exécutoire délivrée le : la SELARL GUMUSCHIAN ROGUET BONZY POLZELLA

Udmurtia Republic on 25/05/2020 no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s

The public prosecutor relied, among others, on the police’s video-recording of the event, photographs and a police report on the examination of the video-recording.

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention about the police’s failure to comply with their duty to protect the applicants’ relative life.

The time lapse between the arrest and search raised legitimate concerns about possible “planting” of evidence, because the applicant was completely under the police’s control during that time.

The applicant Mr Emil Pocajt (application no. 4611/07) was born in 1980 and lives in Polzela. He was represented before the Court by Ms N. Freitag, a lawyer practising in Celje.

(h)     Did the courts assess the reasons for mounting the operations, the extent of the police’s involvement in the offences and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant