Datasets:
LLM-PBE
/
echr-date

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
target
stringlengths
11
70
prompt
stringlengths
200
10k
17 January 2000
7. His wife died on 23 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in October and November 1999 and was rejected on 10 November 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. He appealed against this decision and the appeal tribunal dismissed his appeal on
the afternoon of 24 January 2013
108. Secondly, the applicant’s version of the events was strongly corroborated by the statements of Tofiq Yaqublu, N.C., N.M., M.K., R.C., I.A., Q.M., E.M. and others. They had all stated that there had been no clashes during
28 June 2006
17. On 4 May 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the State complaining of the actions (inaction) of the Federal Agency for Management of State Property in respect of his claims for unpaid wages and seeking to recover the said wages in the amount of 72.547 USD as well as legal expenses and non-pecuniary damage. On 5 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok declined jurisdiction in the case. This decision was upheld by the Primorye Regional Court on
8 June 2004
11. In a letter to the Parliament dated 4 May 2004 the applicant complained that the cells in the prison were overcrowded, damp and full of parasitic insects. He also complained of a lack of legal information in the prison. This letter was forwarded to the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice. In its reply of
28 or 29 September 1997
9. The applicant lodged an appeal with the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). In its judgment of 29 January 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 20 May 1998, convicted the applicant of having participated on
two-year-old
11. During this operation an armed man, who was being pursued by soldiers, entered the applicants' house and hid in one of the rooms. According to the Government, the man was A., a member of an illegal armed group. The servicemen strafed the house, using machine-guns and grenade-launchers. Two daughters and a grandson of the first two applicants, the second applicant, the third applicant, Ali Musayev and Umar Musayev were inside the house at the time. A
20 May 2005
16. On 7 April 2005 the District Court dismissed the application for release and extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for another two months, until 16 June 2005. The decision mentioned that an appeal could be lodged within three days to the Regional Court and the applicant appealed. However, on
23 March 2010
41. On 10 March 2010 the applicant submitted his points of appeal. He specified that his application for political asylum had been disallowed (see paragraph 61 below) and contested that he had absconded from the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities. He further reiterated his reasons for departing from Uzbekistan, such as his disapproval of the Uzbek political regime, discrimination against the Russian-speaking population and the ensuing lack of opportunity for his spouse to obtain a University degree, the absence of quality medical care and of educational prospects for the children, and a low standard of living. The applicant pursued his argument as follows: “I believe that the above-mentioned facts allow me to choose a place of residence for me and my family. I have always thought of Russia as my motherland (although I was born in Kazakhstan). I also ask the honourable court to consider that I have never been convicted, I have been officially married since 1993, my spouse is a Russian citizen, I have to provide for two underage children (one of whom has been suffering from a disability since childhood) who are also Russian citizens, and I have been permanently residing in Yasnogorsk (what else is needed to obtain Russian citizenship?). In view of the above, I ask you to quash the decision of the district court [to extend the detention term]. For, in the event of my extradition and unlawful conviction in Uzbekistan [...], I have rather substantiated reasons to fear persecution and I really fear for my life.” The points of appeal reached the regional court on
9 July 2001
11. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Poznań Regional Court's decisions of 5 May, 13 July, 20 December 1999, 12 July, 12 August 2000 and
15 February 1996
36. According to the Government, the investigating authorities had responded to this complaint by conducting a detailed investigation into the alleged theft. The investigation established that, after being informed of the applicant's resignation and his departure for Russia, the director of the Institute had instructed T. to enter the flat and check that the heating was in order for the winter. In an order dated
4 August 2006
13. On 9 November 2006 A.S. submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office for an investigation into the liability for the accident of both the transport company which had leased his truck and of the seller and buyer of the inflammable cargo, whom he accused of concealing the dangerous nature of the goods in question. As evidence, he submitted the invoice and delivery note (sevk irsaliyesi) prepared on
14 August 2003
56. On 9 August 2003 the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Visita Shokkarov’s disappearance under Article 126 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case was assigned no. 46037. The applicants were informed of the decision on
7 years and 3 months’
12. On 8 October 2013 the Regional Court found the first applicant guilty as charged, as regards charges of abuse of power and bribery in respect of the bribe paid by K., and sentenced her cumulatively to
12 August 2005
14. On 3 August 2005 the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”) received a request by fax from the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus for the applicant's extradition. The original version of the request and the accompanying documents were received on
from eight to fifteen years
8. On 24 June 2005 the Kemerovo Tsentralniy District Court authorised the first applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court did not find it possible to use any other measure of restraint. In particular, the court noted as follows: “... the court takes into account that [the first applicant] is charged with a number of very serious criminal offences which ... entail a custodial sentence of
20 June 2002
41. On 30 August 2002 the first and the third applicants complained to the town prosecutor’s office about Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. They emphasised that he had disappeared as a result of Mr E.B.’s report of
15 March 2003
32. In a letter of 3 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that a number of investigative actions in criminal case no. 24031 had been taken, and in particular the scene of the incident had been inspected, fragments of bombs had been seized, new expert examinations had been ordered, and the military commander of the Chechen Republic (военный комендант Чеченской Республики) had been requested to take steps aimed at disposing of unexploded air bombs found in the residential district of Urus-Martan. The letter further stated that on
13 July 2001
5. The applicants, listed in the appendix, were all professors who at the material time were working at Tbilisi State University (“the University”). They opposed reforms initiated by the new University administration as a part of the nation-wide higher education reform in 2004-2005 and had initiated several court proceedings against the University in that regard. As part of their activities, they also held numerous public meetings at the University, made public statements and wrote to various public officials, denouncing what they called the “destruction” of the University. The applicants, with the exception of Mr Tuskia, Ms Sikharulidze, and Mr D. Bakhtadze (the first, sixth and ninth applicants respectively), were at the material time members of the Grand Academic Council, the highest representative body of the University (composed of seventy-eight members), which operated under the University charter (approved by the President of Georgia on
13 January 1994
79. This protocol stated that an investigation had been carried out into the complaints of the applicant and Mehmet Safi Aranacak that their houses and gardens had been burned in Ormandışı. No complaint had been made to the local gendarme station about this. Mehmet Safi Aranacak had however been killed during a skirmish with the security forces on
29 January 2002
13. On 12 June 2003 the Maribor District Court rejected the application for an interim order. In its decision it referred to S.’s written statement expressing her wish to stay living with her mother. As to the contact schedule, it further recalled that contact had been arranged by an enforceable agreement of
17 April 2006
15. On 10 April 2006, the applicant took the child from kindergarten to his home. O.L.F. lodged a civil action to have the child returned to her. By a decision of 13 April 2006 of the Câmpulung District Court the applicant was ordered to return the child. On
25 February 2011
11. In all three decisions the Constitutional Court found at the outset that the income and expenses presented in the final accounts were financially accurate. It also held that the income obtained in the period under review had been mostly in compliance with the rules on funding as set out in the Political Parties Act. As for the expenses, the Constitutional Court made the following preliminary remarks to explain the basis for its examination: “One of the main tenets of accounting is the principle of ‘documentation’. Section 229 of the Tax Procedure Act explains that ‘an invoice is a commercial certificate given to a customer by a vendor or a merchant to indicate the amount owed by the customer in return for the goods sold or service provided’, and section 232, entitled ‘Obligation to use an invoice’, specifies under what circumstances and by whom an invoice must be received and provided. In this connection, it has been made obligatory to document purchases of goods and services with invoices and to use invoices as supporting documents in bookkeeping. Section 236 of the same Act, entitled ‘Obligation of receipt’, states that ‘self-employed persons are under an obligation to issue a freelance receipt in duplicate for all payments received in relation to their professional activities and to give one copy to the customer; and the customer is under an obligation to request and receive such receipt’. The contents of a receipt have been set out in section 237. Section 234 of the same Act, entitled ‘Expense note’, states that ... those [tradespersons exempt from taxation] who are under no obligation to furnish an invoice should issue expense notes. Since section 70(3) of Law no. 2820 [the Political Parties Act] provides that expenses below five thousand liras[1] do not need to be substantiated with documents such as a receipt or an invoice, any expenses exceeding that amount must be based on a relevant supporting document. Under section 70 of the Political Parties Act, ‘all expenses of a political party shall be incurred on behalf of the legal personality of that political party’ and pursuant to section 75 of the same Act, ‘at the end of its inspection, the Constitutional Court shall determine the accuracy and the lawfulness of the political party’s income and expenses, and shall order the registration of unlawful income and expenses as revenue with the State Treasury’. Law no. 6111 ..., which was published in the Official Gazette dated
15 June 2004
51. The court also noted that during the six-month period of the defendants’ detention pending trial the case had not been examined for reasons beyond the court’s control, such as the composition of the jury, issues concerning some jurors’ participation in the trial, and difficulties in ensuring the appearance of victims and witnesses who lived in a remote district of the Magadan Region more than 500 kilometres away from the place of the trial. (iii) Decision of
10 July 2008
80. On 1 March 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on 10 June 2008 and 21 July 2011 following criticism by the supervisors, and then again suspended on
the next day
14. On the same day the Bağcılar Security Directorate held a press conference on the subject of the apprehension of members of the Dev-Sol organisation. There is no information in the case-file as to whether any declaration was made by the police during the conference. However,
three months
6. On 10 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of belonging to a criminal association (nusikalstamas susivienijimas), led by a certain D.S., who had died during the pre-trial investigation. He was also suspected of having stolen three high value cars. On the same day the Vilnius City First District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for
1 October 2010
24. On 13 January 2011, the Prague Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s action in respect of that decision as belated. The court held that the Ministry’s decision had been validly served on the applicant on
13 August 2001
11. The appeal hearing of 2 August 2001 was adjourned until 20 August 2001 because the parties defaulted. According to the Government, summonses for the hearing listed for 20 August 2001 were mailed to the parties on
12 October 2005
12. In the meantime the first and second applicants were detained in the detention facility of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC)”. On a few occasions the first applicant was taken to a prison hospital as a result of a hunger strike and health problems. He was also seen on several occasions by independent doctors. On
20 August 1996 to 21 September 1996
32. The applicant repeatedly applied to the Ombudsman, alleging in particular that the court decision of 20 August 1996 had not been included in the case-file, and that the prison administration could not know that his detention on remand had been prolonged from
20 February 2006
14. In accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), six refusals to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers were issued on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime were missing. They were each set aside because a comprehensive inquiry had not been carried out. On
27 November 2001 until 29 January 2002
15. The first hearing on the merits was scheduled for 2 October 2001. However, on this date the court decided to adjourn the case for two months due to the plaintiff’s failure to appear. In the subsequent months the examination of the case was adjourned on six occasions due to the defendants’ failure to appear or the absence either of the presiding judge (adjourned from
23 or 24 July 2002
23. On the same date two other servicemen of the military unit, K.E. and G.M., were questioned. Serviceman K.E. stated that he had been present during the table tennis match in question, while serviceman G.M. stated that he was the person who had lent the watch to Suren Muradyan. On
15 September 2003
23. On the same day the applicants were transferred to the accommodation centre for foreign detainees (Aizturēto ārzemnieku izmitināšanas centrs) in Olaine (“the Olaine accommodation centre”), where they stayed until
22 October 2002
16. The case was subsequently adjourned twice so that the parties could reach an agreement on a sum to be deposited as security of costs subsequent to an application by the applicant in this respect and an objection thereto by the defendant. On
23 January 1996
15. On 25 June 1997 the applicant company lodged a complaint (Case no. 70/10-98) with the Lugansk Region Arbitration Tribunal (the court of first instance in the present case) against Sovtransavto-Lugansk and the Lugansk Executive Council. It sought a declaration that the decisions altering Sovtransavto-Lugansk's memorandum and articles of association and the Executive Council's decision of
9 February 2007
46. During the hearing held on 19 January 2007 the parties again discussed the question whether the applicant's claims had been sufficiently substantiated and the court informed the applicants that it was for them to substantiate and to prove the amount of the damages claimed. The court granted both parties the opportunity to make further submissions by
31 January 2003
12. In examining the complaint the Prosecutor’s Office questioned four of the applicants, all of whom gave similar accounts of the facts of the case and accused the four police officers of the secret filming and blackmail. The police officers were questioned too, and all denied having had close relationships with the applicants and going with them to a sauna on
7 December 1994
26. On 1 December 1994 the CNB decided that the compulsory administration would not finish on 31 December 1994, but would be terminated for one of the reasons indicated in section 33 of the Act as amended. On
27 February 2004
76. On 31 December 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office replied to the applicant’s lawyer, stating that the applicant’s detention was lawful and that on 12 October 2004 the St Petersburg City Court had upheld the lawfulness of the decision of
eight years’
74. On 12 November 2010 the Military Court of Appeal upheld the five officers’ conviction and the order for damages against them, but decided to reduce their sentences to nine years’ imprisonment for Major M.P. and
1 November 1995-31 March 1996
11. On 16 October 1995 Dr M.M., a psychiatrist treating the applicant, considered him incapacitated for work from 11 September 1995 until 31 March 1996 on account of his depression and anxiety. On the strength of that opinion the applicant requested that he be granted a daily sickness allowance for the period
14 June 1999
20. Following the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the applicant filed another appeal against his detention on 4 June 1999 with the public prosecutor’s office. The applicant argued that there was no danger that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation especially as the latter had already been concluded. In addition, he noted that he was finding the detention difficult because of his disability. The appeal was not processed, so he re-filed it on
27 July 2004
24. The Supreme Administrative Court observed that those two documents were contradictory. The court deemed it proper to rely on the report of 28 December 2007 as it was more recent and, in the court’s opinion, more comprehensive and explanatory. It concluded that the restrictions which the KGB Act imposed on a person’s ability to find employment in certain areas of the private sector had not been applied to the first applicant. The existence of the KGB Act, as such, had not violated his rights and did not entitle him to compensation. The Supreme Administrative Court determined that there was no proof that, after the Court’s judgment of
17 February 1998
12. On appeal from counsel, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court set aside the District Court’s decision. Referring to the case-law of the Russian Constitutional Court prohibiting indefinite detention of individuals (judgment no. 6-P of
13 December 2006
28. In December 2006 the applicant asked the trial court to annul the Prosecutor General's decision of 29 December 2004 to re-open the criminal investigation into his case and to discontinue the investigation. He argued that the re-opening had violated both his right not to be prosecuted twice for the same act and the principle of legal certainty, contrary to Articles 22 and 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In its judgment of
1 June 1989
19. On 14 September 1992 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It held that the way in which the facts had been established by the Court of Appeal did not comply with legal requirements. It recalled that the statement of an anonymous witness could only be used in evidence if it had been taken down by a judge who knew the identity of the witness, who had expressed his opinion as regards the reasons for the witness’s desire to remain anonymous and that witness’s reliability, and who had provided the defence with ample opportunity to question the witness. The Supreme Court added that it could not be said that the finding of guilt was based to a significant extent on other evidence from identified sources. The Supreme Court decided that the applicant’s original appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court of Utrecht of
twelve years
23. On 30 October 1998 the District Court found the applicant guilty. It sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment and banned him from holding the post of a director of a bank's branch for a period of
31 March 2011
23. On 31 March 2010 the court issued a default judgment. On 18 May 2010 A.M. appealed, arguing that he had not been duly summoned to appear. A hearing was held on 6 September 2010. On 23 December 2010 the court granted reinstatement and summoned the parties to appear at a hearing on
28 February 2005
62. On 6 January 2005 D.G. filed a complaint with the police, alleging that the applicant had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty and of contact with people from outside the Kėdainiai Home. By letter of
a further three months
26. On 15 May 2003 the Town Court examined the prosecutor's application for a further extension of the applicant's detention. It noted that the authorised period of detention had expired on 17 April 2003 and held that it should be extended for
the weekend after
9. The applicant lodged an objection with the Kirchhain District Court. He submitted, inter alia, that the designation “88”, standing for the eighth letter of the alphabet [H] as a reference to “Heil Hitler”, was displayed by members of the association in runes and thus in a form attributed to neo‑Nazism by the German federal domestic intelligence service (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz). In addition, the association had held a ceremony on
10 May 1991
11. On 14 October 2015, as regards the second applicant, the military prosecutor’s office issued a decision only in respect of the offence of instigation to illegal deprivation of liberty by closing the main criminal investigation on the grounds of res judicata in relation to the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision of
4 February 1999
7. On 3 December 1998 at the pre-trial stage, the applicant was shown the videotapes. She contested the suspected sexual abuse. She was given an opportunity to have questions put to the children, but she did not avail herself of the opportunity. Her counsel was also present. In her closing statement of
30 October 2007
15. On 16 August 2007 the case in its entirety was referred to the Lublin Regional Court. However, on account of the subsequent amendment to the provisions governing the jurisdiction of criminal courts, the case was eventually referred back to the District Court on
19 December 2002
32. On 29 January 2003 the District Court allowed the applicant’s father’s request for the extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal since neither he nor the applicant had ever been informed about the judicial examination of the case. The applicant lodged an appeal seeking to quash the resolution of
five years'
17. During the hearing the applicant and his co-accused did not attempt to challenge any evidence and made no pleas, except those relating to the acknowledgment of their guilt and the mitigation of their sentence. On the same date the Vinnytsia District Court convicted the applicant of involvement in the unlawful purchase and possession of drugs, with intent to sell, premeditated by a group of persons (Article 229-1 of the former Criminal Code). It sentenced him to
2 December 2002
22. The Principal Public Prosecutor's Office appealed against that judgment, which the National Parole Court quashed on 18 July 2003 for the following reasons: “... a medical report dated 28 May 2003 shows that the treatment for the diseases from which Mr Gelfmann is suffering is onerous and can only be administered '– with difficulty because the prisoner is uncooperative – in custody or in a relatively restrictive structure'. The practitioner adds: 'This is the crux of the matter' and that detention remains 'compatible with his condition'. Another medical expert, in a report lodged on
20 February 1997
12. The first applicant and Mr Hoogkamer split up in January 1997. Rachael stayed with her father, who subsequently applied to the Amsterdam District Court (kantonrechter) seeking to be awarded parental authority over Rachael. The District Court granted the application on
two to three days
36. Upon a request from the police, a new medical report was produced on 22 March 1999 by the same Institute of Forensic Medicine, concluding as follows: “We reassert our opinion that the child, A.C., displayed a traumatic lesion in the anal region, which could have occurred in the circumstances of a sexual assault, for which he needed
19 April 2001
25. By a judgment of 23 October 2001 the court rejected his complaint. In particular, it stated that: “... The plaintiff's submissions proved unconfirmed during the court hearing. According to the statements of the police officers V. and Z. obtained in course of the prosecutor's inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment, Dmitrachkov [the applicant] was detained on suspicion of robbery and theft, no physical or psychological pressure was exerted on him ... Dmitrachkov failed to complain to the prosecutor who ... authorised his arrest although he had the opportunity ... ... According to the plaintiff, upon his placement in the isolation ward, he was hit with his head against the walls. However, his co-accused Ch. did not confirm this allegation. The expert's opinion of
18 September 2002
6. On 29 August 2002 the applicant was detained and subsequently remanded in custody by the Chełmno District Court on charges of rape and murder by a detention order of 31 August 2002. The latter was upheld on
May to November 2012
16. On 11 September 2014 the applicant was questioned as a witness in the pre-trial investigation. He stated that he was the director of company A., which provided accounting services to other companies. His wife worked as the financial director of company A., and from
9 January 2011
42. On 3 January 2011 the applicant wrote an appeal against the judgment and submitted it to the detention facility administration unit. It appears that despite his counsel’s numerous attempts to lodge the appeal directly with the court, it was not accepted before
January 2005
78. On 4 September 2006 the town prosecutor’s office carried out a confrontation between Magomed M., inspector on duty of the Ministry of the Interior, and Oleg Dzh., officer on duty of the UFSB on the night of 4 to 5 December. Magomed M. confirmed his statement of
eighteen or older
83. The applicants and the Azerbaijani Government claimed that residents of the “NKR” and the surrounding territories are routinely issued with Armenian passports. In its 2005 report (see paragraph 65 above), the ICG stated that “Armenia has given a majority of the inhabitants its passports for travel abroad” (at p. 5). The Azerbaijani Government also pointed to the possibility for residents of the mentioned territories to acquire Armenian citizenship. They referred to section 13 (“Citizenship by Naturalisation”) of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on citizenship of the Republic of Armenia, which provides as follows. “Any person who is
before 19 December 2009
7. On 26 February 2013 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It firstly held that the time-limit for claiming damages was three years from the damage being caused, and thus dismissed the part of the applicant’s claim concerning the period
10‑12 June 2005
7. The applicants, a group of individuals and the Foundation for Equality (of whose executive committee the first applicant is also a member empowered to act on its behalf in the present case), wished to hold, within the framework of Equality Days organised by the Foundation and planned for
between June and October 2001)
20. According to the applicants, the first instance judge erred in fixing the amount of stamp duty in the appeal proceedings for one of the defendants and it took the judicial authorities several months (
nearly seven years old
42. On 20 December 2004 M.B. brought civil proceedings, claiming 200,000 Lithuanian litai ((LTL), approximately 58,000 euros (EUR)) from the applicant and M.Ž., to be paid by them jointly. The plaintiff noted that one of the partisans who had been killed, J.A., was her father, and the other, A.A., her uncle. At the time of their death she was
23 April 2002
14. On 5 December 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), without holding a public hearing, rejected the applicants' appeal as manifestly ill-founded. It included the written observations of the presiding judge at the Regional Court on the applicants' constitutional appeal in its summary of the facts. The court found that the Regional Court had reviewed the decision of the District Office of
14 September 1999
44. In the meantime, on 12 May 2011 the applicant’s mother on behalf of her daughter instituted proceedings before the Varaždin Municipal Court against the applicant’s father with a view to increasing the level of child maintenance stipulated in the judgment of
14 June 2016
5. A new court within the Icelandic judicial system, the Court of Appeal (Landsréttur), was established on 1 January 2018 and became operational on the same day. Specific temporary provisions on the appointment of judges to the court, including temporary provision IV of the new Judiciary Act No. 50/2016, entered into force on
18 August 1999
11. The applicant and five other men (“K.P”, “S.S.”, “A.P.”, “R.W.”, and “K.K.”) arrested with him on the night of 16 August 1999 reported the incident to the prosecution authorities. On 17 August 1999 and
31 July 1992
42. In 1987, as a JNA officer, he was allocated a military flat in Mostar. Although the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina on 19 May 1992, he stayed in Mostar. On paper, however, he was a member of the newly-established VJ forces, the armed forces of the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, until
21 February 2002
9. According to the applicant, the company only operated a car park at Novo‑Vokzalnaya Street in Samara and did not perform any of the other activities mentioned in the articles of association. It had the same legal address as the local Road Traffic Safety Inspectorate (“the Road Inspectorate”). The car park consisted of a car pound – a secure storage area for vehicles that had been stolen, abandoned, or parked illegally or had been involved in an accident or a crime. The company’s only function was to ensure storage of vehicles that had been impounded pursuant to the Road Inspectorate’s orders. The company’s employees registered the cars on arrival using the official forms of the inspectorate. The tariffs for storing the vehicles were determined by the inspectorate. The company could return an impounded vehicle to its owner only if authorised to do so by a road inspector. Free parking spaces could be rented for a daily tariff. The applicant submitted a reorganisation agreement of 1996, a sample of a “vehicle return” form containing a road inspector’s authorisation to return a car, extracts from local authorities’ decisions designating the car park as a pound, extracts from local newspapers and other documents in support of his submissions. According to an information note of
21 December 2009
16. A second strike was announced for 18-20 November 2009, but this was postponed when Hydrex indicated its willingness to resume discussions with the applicant union. This led to a revised offer which the union submitted to its Hydrex members, recommending that they accept it. The result of the vote was known on
22 April 2003
19. On 31 October 2002 the court received the defendant’s comments on the applicant’s appeal. On 11 January 2003 the defendant “rectified” his appeal. On 6 February 2003 the case file was sent to the Municipal Court. On
between 1 and 15 August
26. On 30 June 2006, following the applicant’s civil action, the District Court granted the applicant’s request to meet with his child. It ordered Z. to allow the applicant to see his child at least twice a year,
1 September 2006
11. A report dated 29 August 2005 prepared by the Nuestra Señora del Pilar children's home stated that the child's “overall condition [was] acceptable”, noting simply that her skin was dry, with minor scars and cuts caused by scratching. According to a subsequent report dated
19 October 2007
15. On 22 October 2007 the applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that the first-instance court had failed to justify his continued detention and to take his personal situation into account. The applicant did not make any mention of his and his lawyer’s absence from the hearing of
December 2007
25. The applicant’s doctor – a surgeon who was a member of the prison hospital’s permanent staff – also gave evidence before the Court of Appeal, explaining the diagnosis and confirming that his patient was seriously ill, with the arterial disease having reached the fourth and final stage. He said that he had seen the applicant in
October to November 1999
11. The applicant’s Internet usage was also monitored by the DP. The Government accepted that this monitoring took the form of analysing the websites visited, the times and dates of the visits to the websites and their duration, and that this monitoring took place from
7 October 1980
79. On 21 December 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and the cross-appeal ([2005] EWCA Civ 1609). Having reviewed the Court’s case-law on jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention, Brooke LJ, who gave the leading judgment, held that a State could exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction when it applied control and authority over a complainant (which he termed “State agent authority”, abbreviated to “SAA”) and when it held effective control of an area outside its borders (“effective control of an area” or “ECA”), observing as follows: “80. I would therefore be more cautious than the Divisional Court in my approach to the Banković [and Others] judgment. It seems to me that it left open both the ECA and SAA approaches to extraterritorial jurisdiction, while at the same time emphasising (in paragraph 60) that because an SAA approach might constitute a violation of another State’s sovereignty (for example, when someone is kidnapped by the agents of a State on the territory of another State without that State’s invitation or consent), this route to any recognition that extraterritorial jurisdiction has been exercised within the meaning of an international treaty should be approached with caution.” He considered, inter alia, the cases of Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV); Freda v. Italy ((dec.), no. 8916/80, Commission decision of
between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2004
13. On 4 January 2005 the applicant sued the State for damages in the amount of CZK 1,358,964 (EUR 49,597) corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the usual rent in the given locality for the period
15 December 2014
25. By an interlocutory judgment delivered on 6 December 2014, the Bucharest County Court allowed the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention until 3 January 2015. An appeal lodged against this was dismissed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on
16 September 2005
23. According to the applicant she was not aware of the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings and the strike-off of D. from the court register until 3 May 2006 when she inspected the case file. Further to her discovery she requested the Ljubljana District Court for a copy of the decision of
24 July 1992
6. On 2 July 1992 the investigator finished his work on the case and sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. On 15 July 1992 that Office dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused and on
25 October 2001
7. The applicants subsequently tried to obtain custody of F. and wanted to adopt him. F.’s mother recovered and was at first allowed access to visit her son. She then tried to obtain custody of F., which led to arguments between her and the applicants. Since these disputes were to the detriment of F., he was given to a “crisis foster family” (Krisenpflegefamilie) on
21 June 2007
15. In April 2007 the applicant’s solicitor wrote to the police and asked that they investigate her case. The Metropolitan Police Human Trafficking Team, a police unit specialising in the investigation of human trafficking offences, commenced an investigation to ascertain whether or not she had been the victim of a criminal offence. The police interviewed the applicant on
two and a half years’
25. On 12 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 25 July 2006 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction of attempted bribery and sentenced him to
16 and 30 November
14. At the first hearing of 2 November 1998 the Court of Cassation heard some of the civil parties and ordered the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the accused lacked mandatory legal representation. On
30 December 2005
18. On 5 September 2006 R.W., another legal successor of the original owners, brought a compensation case before the Warsaw Regional Court, claiming compensation from the State Treasury, represented by the mayor of Warsaw, for damage originating in the 1971 decision. He also referred to the corrective decision of
10 July 2003
33. The applicant subsequently challenged the court settlement on the ground that he had not authorised counsel to enter into such agreement. He further alleged that the agreement was void since it did not sufficiently take into account the interests of the children and had therefore been concluded contra bonos mores. On
20 April 2010
23. On 18 July 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the legal and factual findings of the Court of Appeal. It added that a lawful implementation of the Hospitalisation Act was possible both inside and outside a closed ward. M.K.’s hospitalisation had therefore not been unlawful, even though he had been placed in the open ward from
18 December 2006
27. The applicant’s mother challenged the decision before a court. On 18 December 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court found that she had no standing to complain about her son’s ill-treatment. On 27 February 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the decision of
October 2005
34. Several times during his detention in IZ-30/1 the applicant applied for treatment for acute toothache. However, he was informed on each occasion that there was no dentist on the medical staff of the remand prison. In
August 2010
12. On 13 March 2010 the applicants requested that DIICOT allow them to retrieve their embryos as they wished to undergo a new assisted reproduction procedure in another clinic. They pointed out that it was of the utmost importance that they be allowed to retrieve the embryos rapidly since the storage period was to expire in
between January and June 1999
12. In the meantime, the applicant was made the subject of another criminal investigation in the Krasnodar Region on charges of handling explosives. It is unclear whether or not she was detained there for an unspecified period of time
between 19 April and 30 July 2013
15. According to a letter from the prosecutor’s office of 30 July 2013 (see paragraph 19 below), on 24 July 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office refused to order the applicant’s extradition, since his criminal prosecution had become time-barred. According to the applicant, neither he nor his representatives had been informed about the refusal at that point. The parties have not submitted a copy of the relevant decision. 2. The applicant’s detention