Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 1:36:00 GMT -5
Adeprived of freedom. . The Court notes that this claim is not manifestly unfounded within the meaning of art. lit. a from the Convention and that it does not present any other reason for inadmissibility. He therefore declares it admissible. . The Court recalls that in order to determine whether an individual is deprived of liberty within the meaning of art. one starts from the concrete situation and takes into account a set of criteria such as the type duration effects and methods of execution of the measure in question.
Guzzardi v. Italy November point series A no . and Mogo v. Country Email List Romania dec. no. . May . At the same time it is often necessary in order to rule on the existence of a violation of the rights protected by the Convention to devote oneself to discerning the reality beyond the appearances and the vocabulary used see for example regarding art. Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium June Series A No. . . in this case the versions of the facts regarding the question of whether CP locked the office door to prevent the applicant from leaving above points and . In this regard note that when he was heard during the investigation the plaintiffs client did not mention the fact that.
CP had closed the office door with the key above point . . The Court reaffirms that the police have the obligation to respect the role of lawyers not to intervene unjustifiably in their activity nor to subject them to any form of intimidation or coercion above point . Even assuming that the police officer in question behaved as the plaintiff claims the Court notes that the parties do not contest the short duration of the measure which did not exceed more than minutes. Although it.
Guzzardi v. Italy November point series A no . and Mogo v. Country Email List Romania dec. no. . May . At the same time it is often necessary in order to rule on the existence of a violation of the rights protected by the Convention to devote oneself to discerning the reality beyond the appearances and the vocabulary used see for example regarding art. Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium June Series A No. . . in this case the versions of the facts regarding the question of whether CP locked the office door to prevent the applicant from leaving above points and . In this regard note that when he was heard during the investigation the plaintiffs client did not mention the fact that.
CP had closed the office door with the key above point . . The Court reaffirms that the police have the obligation to respect the role of lawyers not to intervene unjustifiably in their activity nor to subject them to any form of intimidation or coercion above point . Even assuming that the police officer in question behaved as the plaintiff claims the Court notes that the parties do not contest the short duration of the measure which did not exceed more than minutes. Although it.