CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s4190457D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt } .s5AC3FC61 { width:14.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s976CFF0C { width:11.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBCFC7255 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6632ECCD { width:11.68pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s88642905 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt } .sF714A6CC { width:3.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBDB31D57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt } .s8D589099 { width:10.58pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 14 January 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47315/13 Stefania ADORISIO and others against the Netherlands lodged on 10 July 2013     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     I.   Have the effective domestic remedies been exhausted by all applicants, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   II.   Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular,   1)         did the applicants have sufficient time a)   to lodge and prepare their appeals; b)   to prepare their response to the Minister’s written statement of defence?   2)        did the lack of access to the reports by Ernst & Young and by Cushman & Wakefield alleged by the applicants render the proceedings unfair?