In the present case, from the correspondence with their representatives, the Court observes that M.S.A., R.K., H.R., B.Z., S.W. and A.A have maintained contact with their lawyers, and they continue to

    Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants contended that the finding that the impugned remarks were covered by parliamentary immunity had deprived them of their

    Lacking any evidence of proper notification, the Court accepts the applicants’ submissions that they were not aware of the date and venue of the appeal hearing, and that this prevented them

Moreover, they submitted that, following the Kúria ’s impugned decision, the Szolnok High Court had merely continued the proceedings instead of starting them afresh.

They attended schools not far from their home and their mother worked in the same area.

In these circumstances they consider that the denial of the necessary approval imposed on them an excessive burden.

They argued that the authorities had built a road on their land and sought “payment of the amount due to the claimants for the expropriation of their land”. 5 .

    The first applicant and his sons got up and left their bedrooms. The servicemen forced the Khadzhialiyev men to the floor and then beat them with machine gun butts.

it is true that there are indeed differences amongst Alevis as regards the forms of belief and practice and the manner in which they define themselves, and while the applicants also recognise this, there

In this respect, they referred to the letter of 19 September 2007 from the Russian Federal Migration Service [9] . 3.

On 17.03.16: “When the police use their weapons against the oppressors and not against the oppressed, they start telling us that they are allies.”

They had also demanded that she pay back the money that she owed to the applicants; she had repaid that money and then ceased to work for them.

The group told the police officers that they wished to seek asylum, but the officers ignored their request, ordered them to get in the vehicle and took them to the border.

They gave the following grounds for their application: "The issue arises whether the defendants, given the factual evidence available to them, were entitled, within the limits of press freedom, to publish

Some ten detainees in his cell signed a petition in which they confirmed the applicant’s ill-treatment. Thereafter the prison staff started intimidating them.

In this respect, they invoked Article 13 of the Convention, claiming that there had been no effective domestic remedy available to them whereby they could have their allegations under Articles 2 and 3

    Again on 15 January 2000 V.K. called the applicant, who told V.K. that they should meet at the regional Prosecutor’s Office. They met there at about noon and discussed the deal.

The Agency then turned to the oral information submitted by the applicant.

They said to the applicant’s daughter that they would check the three men’s identities and release them.