Participant at a seminar on Development Cooperation for Human Rights and Democracy by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department for International Development Cooperation and Human Rights.

12.21 Before the European Court, the applicants claimed that Turkey had violated, inter alia, article 3 of the European Convention.

2.8 On 22 October 1996, the author applied to the European Commission of Human Rights, alleging, inter alia, a violation of article 6 of the European Convention.

944 2000 (Mahabir v. Austria) the author's application under the European Convention on Human Rights was submitted on the same day as his communication under the Optional Protocol.

Protocol no. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) provides for a broader basis for the ban on discrimination contained in the Convention.

5 Kokkinakis v.

Complaints had, however, been submitted by him to the European Commission on Human Rights and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

2.5 The author appealed to the European Commission of Human Rights, alleging that the judges who tried him were not impartial.

Trinidad and Tobago European Court of Human Rights, Loizidou v. Turkey.

The future of Europe is in the hands of its democracies, in the hands of Europe s people. Our fellow citizens will decide the direction Europe is to take.

A Vol. VI. See also Fogarty v. United Kingdom, Application No. 37112 97, 123 I.L.R. (2001) 54 McElhinney v.

2.7 The first author submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

(e) Consider making the declaration under article 22 of the Convention.

The State party recalls the Committee's decision on the complaint presented by the complainant's wife where the same guarantees were considered effective, and refers to relevant decisions of the European organs under the European Convention on Human Rights.

8.5 However, the European Court was able to examine the same matter only insofar as the substantive rights protected under the European Convention converge with those protected under the Covenant, and to the extent that the events complained occurred prior to 18 May 1999, when the author filed his application with the European Court.

He emphasizes, however, that in both cases the speed with which the removal was undertaken denied an effective exercise of a complaint mechanism, a circumstance that for the European Court disclosed a violation of article 34 of the European Convention.

The authors had demonstrated that they were individuals distinct from the three sets of parents who filed a complaint with the European Court, and had chosen not to submit their cases to the Court.

European Court for Human Rights, applications nos. 5095 71, 5920 72 and 5926 72.

The lecturers came from ESA, the Space Applications Institute of the European Commission and Eurimage.

The main multilateral treaty referred to was the 1972 European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.

Under the European Convention, Turkey has so far been confronted with a total of some 800 individual complaints.

The European Court examined the matter, when declaring the application inadmissible under article 35, paragraph 4, of the European Convention, on the ground that the author's complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols .

In its ruling of 28 November 1996, the Commission took note of the withdrawal of the application and considered that there were no particular reasons in relation to the rights set out in the European Convention to examine the application further.

Ireland. The Court said in its decision on admissibility in this case that it would examine at a later stage of the proceedings

The authors in the present communication chose not to submit their cases to the ECHR.

7 European Court of Human Rights, Judgement No. 66289 01, Py v. France (see www.echr.coe.int).

European Court of Human Rights, application No. 56811 00 (Amrollahi v. Denmark), Judgement of 11 July 2002.

The secretariat of the European Court of Human Rights informed the Committee that in a decision of 3 December 2002 the Court had struck the author's complaint off the roll.

Equally, member States are bound by the European Convention and their actions are submitted to the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights.

2.12 On 1 February 1999, the authors submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the length of compensation proceedings in relation to the Dresdner Bank, Daimler Benz and IG Farben shares violated article 6 of the European Convention, whereas the denial of any compensation for these shares breached their right to property (as enshrined in article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention).

A claim brought by Prince Hans Adam II before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the decisions by the German courts was also dismissed.

The Government signed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols, thereby accepting the competence of the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights.

The author refers to the European Court of Human Right's case of De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium.

Its founding instrument is the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.

The extension of that Convention includes the right of an individual who alleges that his human rights have been transgressed and who has exhausted all other remedies to petition the European Court of Human Rights.

For example, a number of Member States contested the ability of the EC to join the European Convention on Human Rights before the European Court of Justice.

1984 1985 Chairman of the Committee of experts for the extension of the Convention during the drafting of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Europe s Military Injustice

What Corporate Tax for Europe?

Communication No.

She also failed to forward the decision taken by the Commission on 28 November 1996 to close the case, which indicated that, in accordance with article 30, paragraph 1, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Commission considered that there were no particular circumstances in relation to the rights guaranteed under the Convention which might justify continued examination of the application.

A similar possibility exists in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The actual weight of cocaine seized in central and eastern Europe was 880 kilograms in 1995 (22,160 kilograms seized in all Europe) and 1,325 kilograms in 1993 (18,570 kilograms seized in all Europe).

He argues that the Covenant makes no distinction between summary proceedings and principal proceedings and the fact that the European Court of Human Rights found his claim inadmissible does not mean that the Committee should find likewise.

The authors allege before the Committee that the present communication is different from the case examined by the European Court, for two reasons first, the second author did not apply to the European Court secondly, the Court did not recognize the first author's right to bring an action and dismissed the application without considering the case on the merits.