CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 November 2011   THIRD SECTION Application no. 31973/03 Victoria LAZARIU against Romania lodged on 15 August 2003     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Decision of 22 November 2011, which is available in HUDOC.   ADDITIONAL QUESTION     Did the applicant have an effective remedy for her complaint concerning her alleged deprivation of liberty on 28 May 2003 on the premises of the prosecutor’s office on account of the order to appear before the courts ( mandat de aducere ) issued by the prosecutor?   The Government is also invited to submit relevant domestic case-law.