text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
83. The Government submitted that the application was abusive as the applicant was attempting to have the merits of his case decided by this Court. They noted that the applicant had given false information to the press in so far as in various interviews and press releases his legal representative had alleged that the ... | 7 |
47. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. First of all, her claim lodged with the domestic courts was directed against the Government but not the Savings Bank of Armenia. However, it was the latter and not the former whi... | 7 |
18. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of detention during his initial detention in Prison no. 13 (between 17 October and 27 November 2007) should be rejected as lodged outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on the Cou... | 7 |
12. The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensatio... | 7 |
34. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with Article <mask> of the Convention as she had failed to lodge an action with the administrative or civil courts requesting compensation for the alleged damage caused to her by the conduct of the administrative authorities or civil servants. Altern... | 7 |
60. The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention prior to lodging his application with the Court. The new proceedings for judicial review of his preventive detention following the Federal Constitutional Court’s leading judgment cou... | 7 |
15. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of the... | 7 |
40. The Government argued that the application had not been submitted within the six-month period provided for by Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been submitted by the applicant's parents, acting on his behalf, on 20 August 2001. They submitted a form of authority, signed by the applicant, on 7 May 2002. The ... | 7 |
3. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against the district court’s decision of 27 April 2011 (see paragraph 40 of the judgment). Lodging an appeal against a decision of a district court is an ordinary remedy that must be exhausted under Article <mask> of the Convention. The question therefore arises if there are sp... | 7 |
49. The applicant disputed that the remedies to which the Government referred were “effective” and that he was therefore required to exhaust them under Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards Article 146 of the Constitution, the applicant highlighted that this would only provide a remedy to an existing problem or... | 7 |
36. The applicants disagreed, pointing out that there was no evidence that the State authorities, having twice rejected the applicants’ claims, would reach a different conclusion if faced with another complaint. The applicants noted that Article <mask> of the Convention must be applied with some degree of flexibility ... | 7 |
25. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. While, in accordance with Article 155 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the first‑instance court’s decision concerning an alleged violation of election rights was final, Artic... | 7 |
53. The Government raised an objection of non-compliance with the six-month rule. While conceding that Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code provided that a complaint could be lodged against the decision of a prosecutor with the superior prosecutor and thereafter with the Prosecutor General, they submitted that t... | 7 |
22. The Government also claimed that the applicant should have lodged a separate appeal against the ruling of 30 November 2001. The Court reiterates in this respect that domestic remedies must be “effective” in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress f... | 7 |
13. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants' complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicants were complaining... | 7 |
25. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant's complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Adana State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant had not invoked his complaint before the domesti... | 7 |
67. The Government noted that although the applicant had reported a criminal offence and contested the termination of the criminal proceedings, this could not be considered sufficient within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The criminal investigation had not established elements of a criminal offence, ... | 7 |
30. The applicant submitted that she had lodged a complaint about the administrative's authority failure to deal with her case within a reasonable time (see paragraph 11 above) and was successful in that the governor acknowledged that the proceedings had been protracted and ordered the Mayor to give a decision on the ... | 7 |
14. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants’ complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicants had not invoked their complaint before the dom... | 7 |
42. The applicant called into question the effectiveness of the investigation, stating that in her case it was not a remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention. She also asserted that an administrative practice consisting of the authorities’ continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences commit... | 7 |
59. The Government raised a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, both in respect of the decision of the Münster District Court of 18 December 2001 concerning the denial of access to the children and the decision on the merits of the same court ... | 7 |
66. The applicant insisted that his description of the conditions in remand prison IZ-39/1 had been accurate. The applicant also argued that although he had raised the issue of conditions of detention with various administrative bodies his complaints had been unsuccessful. He concluded that he had no effective remedie... | 7 |
16. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, since she had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to her under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, she would have been eligible for compensation f... | 7 |
16. The Government also maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation ... | 7 |
27. The Government requested the Court to dismiss the complaint as being inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant did not file a complaint against the trial judge with the domestic authorities, s... | 7 |
12. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for th... | 7 |
44. The Government further submitted that the applicant bank had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention as it had failed to institute proceedings under Article 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to lodge an administrative appeal against the CNB's original decision by which t... | 7 |
70. The Government submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 July 2001 had been served on the applicant’s lawyer on 9 August 2001. That judgment had ultimately conferred on the authorities the right to take possession of the applicant’s plot. The subsequent decisions given in the case had o... | 7 |
44. The applicant called into question the effectiveness of the investigation, stating that it was not an effective remedy for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also stated that an administrative practice consisting in the authorities’ continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offe... | 7 |
98. The Government submitted that the applicant had never complained about his ill-treatment to the competent domestic authorities, either personally or through counsel representing his interests in the criminal proceedings against him. All complaints had been lodged by his mother. In the Government’s opinion, the mot... | 7 |
18. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant had not invoked this complaint before the domes... | 7 |
15. The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation... | 7 |
42. The applicant submitted that his mother represented him throughout the proceedings and that the remedies which she had pursued regarding the excessive length of the proceedings had also been brought on his behalf. He further referred to a judgment given by the Court in her case (Berent-Derda v. Poland, no. 23484/0... | 7 |
21. The Government argued that the applicants did not exhaust the domestic remedies as they did not request the rectification of the decisions delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court. They also stated that as the applicants did not submit any observations in reply to the submissions of the administration dated 4... | 7 |
15. The Government averred that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, since they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation... | 7 |
65. The Government further described various legal avenues which were available to the applicant in connection with his complaint about conditions of detention. Alternatively, they claimed that the application in this part had been submitted outside the time-limit provided by Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, th... | 7 |
14. The Government asked the Court to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, they maintained that the applicant had to complain before the national authorities prior to his applica... | 7 |
57. The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the initial order for his retrospective preventive detention. In its judgment of 4 May 2011, the Federal Constitutional Court had not created a new remedy, but had onl... | 7 |
74. The Government also stated that a criminal case had been opened in June 2012. The complaint was premature and thus inadmissible for one of the reasons under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court notes that the Government have not informed it of the course of the preliminary investigation or its outcome. In a... | 7 |
95. The applicants complained that their rights under Article 11 had been affected by the decision by the local administration of 17 April 2006 not to allow the demonstration. The Government, in response, claimed that under Article 19 of the Public Gatherings Act it was open for the organisers of the demonstration to ... | 7 |
35. The Government considered that the applicant had not fully exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In the proceedings before the domestic courts, he had failed to complain about his visual observation as such, which alone had established a link between himself and the data obta... | 7 |
14. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants’ complaints in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this regard, they maintained ... | 7 |
19. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants had failed to comply with the six months rule. In this regard, they claimed firstly that the application had been lodged with the court outside the six-month time limit. They further submitted that the complaints pertaining to the ind... | 7 |
65. The applicant further argued that the criminal investigation had been ongoing for more than ten years (see paragraph 48 above). The Government could not, therefore, claim in a convincing way that this constituted an effective remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular with regard to the serious n... | 7 |
31. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint concerning the non-communication of the written observations of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. They maintained that the applicant sh... | 7 |
92. The Government argued that the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by the Convention. They maintained that, in so far as the applicant’s main argument was the failure to enforce the State Arbitration Commission’s decision of 1993, which constituted the basis for the applicant... | 7 |
14. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants’ complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicants were complaining of ... | 7 |
14. The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article <mask> of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 17 March 1998. However, the applicants had not lodged their application with... | 7 |
36. The Government argued that the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by the Convention. They maintained that, in so far as the applicants’ main argument was that, by the letter of 2 November 2005, the Gurjaani Public Registry prevented enforcement of the Gurjaani District Court... | 7 |
26. The Government submitted that the application had not been made within six months of the last domestic decision as it was received by the Court on 2 November 2016. However, according to the Court’s settled case‑law it is the date of dispatch which is the relevant date for the purposes of calculating the six-month ... | 7 |
79. The Government firstly claimed that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. In particular, she had not begun court proceedings against the journalists whose television show, Srovės, had been based on the interview with the applicant’s psychiatrist, doctor D.Š. On that point the Government ... | 7 |
31. The Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They referred to the fact that the final judgment in the applicant’s criminal case had been given on 21 April 2011 and served on his lawyer on 7 Ju... | 7 |
16. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant's complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Malatya State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of t... | 7 |
18. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of th... | 7 |
30. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Istanbul State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicant did not raise this complaint before the domes... | 7 |
28. The Government argued in the first place that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the applicant could have filed an objection against the confiscation order pursuant to Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, t... | 7 |
199. The Government claimed that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of this complaint. Thus, he had not challenged the lawfulness of those searches before the courts. Alternatively, the Government claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit established in Art... | 7 |
37. The Government considered that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention – in particular, the applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity, provided for by the international conventions on legal assistance in criminal matters, to participate in the exec... | 7 |
16. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining o... | 7 |
16. The Government further argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants' complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that the applicants had not invoked their complaint be... | 7 |
179. The Government maintained that the applicant could have appealed against the court order committing him for compulsory psychiatric treatment. It followed therefore that the applicant had not done all that could be expected of him to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and fo... | 7 |
16. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant’s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicant was complaining of th... | 7 |
14. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants’ complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this respect, they maintained that as the applicants were complaining of t... | 7 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.