3. Considers, moreover, that the procedure should be solely protective and should be made available as an urgent measure at all stages of proceedings pursuant to an ex parte application; that the issue of an attachment order should be left to the discretion of the court; and that the existence of a good cause of action, the probability of success in the action and the risk of being unable to enforce the judgement at a later stage if the attachment order is not given should constitute the grounds for issuing an attachment order, subs ...[+++]tantiated by a statement of facts, preferably in the form of an affidavit;

6. Repeats its call for the release of Leyla Zana and the former Kurdish Members of Parliament sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment; welcomes the request by the Secretary‑General of the Council of Europe for a retrial of these cases;

In this way we can overcome the traditional requirement of dual criminality and avoid the slowness and difficulties of having to decide on recognition for every decision in every country, which, I can personally assure Mr Posselt, is a slow process that really hinders the proper application of penalties, as my former experience as a magistrate can testify.

Until today, the recognition of decisions among the various Member States has been achieved through the request mechanism, a slow, complicated process with an even more uncertain outcome.

There is a risk that the so-called aid measures provided for in the report will spread insidiously and with disastrous results: asylum seekers, of course, plus asylum seekers under temporary protection while their applications are being processed and asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected and who are threatened with expulsion should all, according to the report, be able to benefit from this set of measures, whereas their very status – after all, what is an asylum seeker who has been refused refugee status and who is threatened with expulsion if not an illegal immigrant – should, at least for the last category, exclude them ...[+++]from a policy to integrate them into a Community which does not acknowledge their presence in its midst as legal or legitimate.

When the ruling in the Des Chênes case was handed down in October 2001, the school boards in the second group filed, through their legal counsel, a motion in court asking that judgment be rendered on the basis of the Des Chênes case.