target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
9 October 2010
|
20. Concerning his above request, on 14 October 2010 the applicant received a letter from the Pula Municipal Court by which a copy of the service note of 12 September 2008 was forwarded to him. This letter reads:
“As to your request of
|
1 July 2004
|
18. On 4 August 2004 the applicant asked the Velika Gorica County Court to serve the decision of 30 July 2004, ordering his continued detention, on his officially appointed counsel, M.K. He also complained that he had not yet seen his officially appointed counsel. He further alleged that as early as
|
twenty-two years and six months’
|
15. On 9 December 1997 the trial court, which had a military judge on its bench, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment in accordance with Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The prison sentence was increased by half, pursuant to section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Consequently, the applicant was sentenced to
|
14 November 2002
|
8. After the murder of 23 September 2002, the applicant was not found at his permanent address. Following inquiries by an investigator at the Haskovo regional investigation service, it became clear that he was not in prison and had not left the country. On
|
10 July 2009
|
25. On 9 June 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the first, second and third applicants’ appeal regarding the length of their detention following the adoption of the District Court’s decision of
|
7 April 2005
|
14. On 13 April 2005 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court dismissed their appeal. It observed that throughout the proceedings the applicant had been submitting that she had accepted the project on the basis of information provided by spouses P. that the roof of the planned extension of the building would be flat, while ultimately they had a sloping roof built. The applicant had reiterated that this had made impossible for her to proceed with her own extension plans. The court held that it had not been shown whether during the original proceedings which had led to the issuance of the building permit the applicant had indeed been properly informed about the technical details of the project.
15. In the meantime, on
|
25 June 2007
|
19. On 7 June 2007 the applicant requested the Immigration Appeals Board to reconsider its decision of 23 February 2007 regarding her expulsion. She argued that the measure could entail a permanent separation between the applicant and the children, that she had not been guaranteed any right to return to Norway after expiry of the prohibition on re-entry and that the father was unlikely to enable the applicant to exercise contact rights in her home country. She conceded that her offences when seen in isolation could provide a basis for expulsion. However, she disputed that the measure would be proportionate in that insufficient weight had been attached to the fact that her expulsion would lead to a separation between her as a main carer and her two small children. On
|
27 January 2003
|
102. As to the investigation into the terrorist attack itself, it was decided to discontinue criminal prosecution of the forty terrorists killed on 26 October 2002. At the same time the investigation continued in respect of other presumed terrorists, in particular Mr Talkhigov, and the time-limits for completing that investigation have been repeatedly extended. On
|
11 December 2008
|
13. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a request for the return of his three under-age children to the U.S., under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, to the U.S. Central Authority responsible for the obligations established by the Hague Convention. On
|
21 October 2004
|
18. On 21 October 2004 A.I., M.I. and R.I. were again taken to separate rooms and questioned. They understood from the questions that Yeraly Israilov had been suspected of aiding a distant relative who had been a member of illegal armed groups. The young men denied either knowing that relative or anything about his whereabouts. M.I. and R.I. claimed that on
|
27 November 2002
|
18. On 19 November 2002 the applicant requested his release and, in the alternative, the reduction of bail to EUR 60,000 to reflect his personal situation. He also submitted that his advanced age should be taken into account. In a decision of
|
the following day
|
6. On 21 May 2006 the applicant, a former police officer, was arrested on the Georgian-Turkish border on suspicion of smuggling drugs into Georgia. According to the record of the applicant’s body search carried out on the spot, 650 Subutex pills were found in a pocket of his jacket. He signed the record, noting in his own handwriting that he did not object to being searched in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant exercised his right to remain silent at that time, as well as during an examination he underwent as a suspect
|
four years’
|
49. In April 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery. On 9 April 2004 the Mayskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic authorised his detention pending an investigation. On 30 September 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to
|
4 October 1995
|
33. On 17 June 1996 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), sitting as a bench of three judges, dismissed their appeal.
The Constitutional Court held, as it had previously held in its judgment of
|
18 April 2002
|
13. On 8 October 2001 E.’s representative C.M. lodged a separate appeal against the judgment of 20 September 1999. On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice decided that the appeal by E.’s representative should be examined by the Chişinău Regional Court, since most of the judges in the Cahul District Court had already sat in the case. On
|
about nine months
|
14. In the course of the proceedings sixteen hearings were adjourned, out of which three times because of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings, once because of the failure of the respondent’s representative and five times because of the parties’ failure to attend the hearings. On seven occasions the hearings were adjourned for a total period of
|
between March 1992 and May 1993
|
12. On 25 June 1998, the indictment was submitted to the City Court according to which the applicant (and five co-accused: A, B, N, M and R) were charged of “tax asset stripping” committed jointly. The applicant was charged with fifteen counts out of a total of fifty-nine committed
|
9 November 1999
|
14. On 9 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the Zvolen District Court’s judgment of 4 March 1996 and instructed the first instance court to take further evidence. The case-file was returned to the District Court on
|
14 December 2006
|
8. On 12 December 2006 the police proposed that the Kranj District State Prosecutor’s Office request the investigating judge of the Kranj District Court to issue an order demanding that the ISP disclose both the personal data of the subscriber and traffic data linked to the IP address in question. On
|
20 June 2002
|
14. In the course of the court proceedings the first applicant provided the court with a document, issued by the National Investigation Service, certifying that at that time no criminal proceedings were pending against him. He also submitted written observations in which he claimed that he had never been involved in the activities mentioned in the classified internal document. He also referred to his family situation, the Convention and the case of Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (no. 50963/99,
|
13 September 1999
|
28. On 9 April 2005 an investigator with the town prosecutor’s office issued a decision, finding no evidence of criminal conduct. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“Policeman Kul. explained that on the morning of
|
12 May 2004
|
15. A similar note indicating “type of admission: police” appears on the admission form dated 25 August 2006. A letter from the police dated the same day gave the same reasons as those set out in the letter of
|
11 August 1997
|
10. On 17 February 1997 the Rožňava District Court ordered the applicant and a third party who had guaranteed the applicant's debt to pay a sum to the creditor bank. The judgment became final on 20 August 1997. On
|
1 July 2014
|
47. In order to decide on that proposal, the court decided to consult the case file concerning the above-mentioned custody proceedings (see paragraph 22 above and 60-81 below). Eventually, the court decided to hear the first applicant via video link on
|
18 September 2006
|
14. On 28 August 2006 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court scheduled hearing dates for 3, 9, 13, 16 and 17 October 2006. JH was summoned to testify on 9 October 2006. On 11 September 2006 JH’s mother informed the trial court that JH resided in the USA where he was attending school. She produced photocopies of the plane tickets. On
|
24 October 2006
|
7. On 6 October 2006 the Senica District Court (okresný súd) remanded the applicant and two of his alleged accomplices in custody from 3 October 2006 onwards. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged, that the offence had been committed in an organised way, and that therefore there was a risk that he could put pressure on witnesses, contact other perpetrators and tamper with evidence. The court relied on the testimony of P.P., who allegedly had been warned by one of the applicant’s accomplices about instructions from the applicant not to cooperate with the police. On
|
10 December 2001
|
13. On 4 March 1998 the applicant lodged another appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court. The hearing, which was originally set for 15 March 1999, was subsequently adjourned to
|
12 November 2013
|
47. Replies to the letters rogatory having been received, the court re-activated the terms applicable to the compilation of evidence on 5 November 2013. It adjourned the case once again for oral submissions. Further evidence was heard on
|
23 October 2002
|
100. From the documents submitted by the Government and from their observations, it follows that in 2006, within the same set of criminal proceedings, the investigators questioned and granted victim status to other persons whose property had been damaged on
|
12 March 2009
|
43. On 12 February 2009 the proceedings were resumed, only to be suspended for the seventh time on 12 March 2009 for the same reasons as given in the decision of 14 November 2008. However, on 7 April 2009 the District Court found the decision of
|
7 September 2005
|
41. It appears that the co-accused changed his lawyer. As a result, the hearing was postponed until 11 July 2005 and then until 29 August 2005. The hearing of 29 August 2005 did not take place because of the failure of counsel to appear. The hearing was adjourned until
|
fourteen years’
|
6. On 28 December 2001 the Tomsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of membership of an organised criminal group, several counts of attempted aggravated murder, intentional destruction of property and arms possession and sentenced him to
|
at least 1997
|
5. On 30 December 1994 the Mayor of Mykanów issued a decision granting building permission for a certain M.N., the proprietor of a plot of land adjacent to the applicants’ house, to construct a butchery and abattoir on his property. Since
|
20 September 2002
|
42. In response to the applicant's complaints about the prosecution authorities' failure to investigate his ill-treatment complaints thoroughly, on 14 November 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, at final instance, upheld the decision of
|
from 31 May to 19 June 2007
|
42. In prison IZ-48/1, Mr Korobeynikov stayed in cell 4 (from 29 November to 7 December 2006), cell 161 (from 7 to 12 December 2006), cell 190 (from 12 December 2006 to 18 January 2007), cell 157 (from 18 January to 31 May 2007), cell 144 (
|
12 March 2011
|
50. The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of breaching public order by swearing at the location indicated by the police, and that he believed that the motive for his arrest had been his participation in the demonstration of
|
1 February 2005
|
16. According to the Government, two hearings scheduled for 23 December 2004 and 17 January 2005 were postponed following the prosecutor’s request for a stay in the proceedings or in view of his absence from a hearing. Another delay in the proceedings occurred when the prison transport service did not bring the applicant to the courthouse. The hearing on
|
10 December 2014
|
57. By a letter of 14 April 2015, the Deputy Head of the Prison Service refused to allow Mr Bagirov to meet the applicant in the prison. The relevant part of the letter reads as follows:
“Your request for the organisation of a meeting in the penal facilities and detention centres with the persons detained in the penal facilities and the convicted inmates in order to provide them with advocacy services has been examined.
It is explained that, as your advocacy activity at Law Office no. 6 has been suspended by decision no. 29 of
|
14 October 2005
|
18. The Government submitted to the Court a decision of non‑prosecution issued by the Şişli Chief Public Prosecutor’s office on 17 February 2006. It appears from this decision that on 21 October 2005 a criminal complaint was lodged by a certain K.K., who alleged that the applicant had attempted to denigrate the Republic and to influence the trial of Hrant Dink by his editorial opinion dated
|
Until 19 April 1994
|
13. On 8 February 1988 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention in France. After his extradition to Germany, he served the remainder of the sentence imposed on him in the judgment of 1972.
|
1 October 2008
|
12. On 16 June 2009 the prosecutor’s office applied to the Botanica District Court for a detention order in respect of the applicant. The reason relied upon by the prosecutors was that the applicant had absconded from prosecution when she left the country on
|
1 March 1994
|
12. As to the applicant's compensation claim, the court adjourned the hearing of 17 February 1994 as the employer's report about the amount of the difference in salary had not been communicated to the applicant in time. At the hearing of
|
December 1989
|
9. At the time of his death Mr Jokela possessed, inter alia, the following properties in the centre of Nakkila municipality: Saha 1:15, Saha I 5:55, Saha I 5:78 and Saha II 3:20. The size of the properties came about 2.9 ha in total. Mr Jokela had purchased a third of the land for 300,000 markkas (FIM) in
|
22 June 1999
|
104. Ramazan Ayçiçek had been imprisoned by Lice Public Order Criminal Court on 10 June 1994 for aiding and abetting the PKK and he was transferred to Diyarbakır E Type secure prison on 25 July 1994.
(q) Report dated
|
5 September 1997
|
21. In connection with an appeal by the first applicant to the Pontevedra Audiencia Provincial against one of his decisions, investigating judge no. 5 said in a report to the Audiencia Provincial on
|
12 January 2005
|
7. In the ensuing two sets of criminal proceedings instituted by I.M. by way of private prosecution, the applicant was found guilty of two counts of defamation (kleveta). By a judgment of 17 December 2004 the Varaždin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Varaždinu – hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) fined the applicant 3,475 Croatian kunas (HRK)[1] and ordered him to pay I.M. HRK 2,660[2] for the costs of the proceedings. By a judgment of
|
30 August 2005
|
22. According to the information submitted by the Government, the next hearing had been scheduled to take place on 11 May 2005, but had been adjourned at the applicant’s request; the next one had been scheduled to take place on
|
30 June 1998
|
6. On 23 May 1998 S.D. made a written undertaking to pay a debt to K.A., a third person, by 30 May 1998. On the latter date S.D. made another written undertaking to pay a debt to S.N., a third person, by
|
18 December 2003
|
40. On 7 July 2004 the SRJI requested from the Malgobek prosecutor’s office information on the progress in the investigation into the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. In reply, on 31 July 2004 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office submitted that the investigation in case no. 03540030 had been stayed on
|
7 November 2008
|
14. On 9 April 2009 the Frankfurt am Main District Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the penal order as inadmissible and dismissed her application for reinstatement of the proceedings. The court considered it proved that the penal order had been served on the applicant on
|
eight years’
|
9. On 1 March 2005 the Segezha Town Court held the last court hearing. According to the applicant, he was not notified in advance of the hearing which prevented him from preparing for it. The court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to
|
16 February to 19 May 2000
|
9. Copies of medical records presented to the Court indicate that in 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis accompanied by bacterial excretion and tuberculous papillitis of the kidneys and right ureter. From
|
13 August 2009
|
30. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 20 November 2003 and 25 November 2008. He complained that during the appeal proceedings in 2008 he had not been afforded an opportunity to have access to the materials in the case file; the appeal court had not appointed O. as counsel and had not adjourned the hearing. On
|
17 October 2011
|
12. On 2 January 2012 he also lodged a complaint against the detention order, referring to his second asylum application. He referred to a decision of the Austrian Asylum Court (Asylgerichtshof) of 1 December 2011 in which the Asylum Court had granted suspensive effect to an appeal lodged by an Algerian asylum-seeker, stating that a real risk of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights could not be excluded in case of the transfer of asylum-seekers to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation. The Asylum Court had based its reasoning on a letter from the Austrian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) dated
|
26 August 2010
|
17. On 16 November 2010 the mother’s lawyer again inspected the case file and, on 18 November 2010, she lodged extensive written submissions. She explained the development of her client’s relationship with the applicant and described it. She submitted that, in connection with her falling out with the applicant, the mother had sought care from a mental health specialist; and that the child was closely attached to the mother and their separation was unthinkable. In addition, she submitted a letter from an association in Slovakia supporting women in need attesting that since
|
16 May 2006
|
24. The applicant appealed, complaining of a lack of justification for extension of his detention. On 31 May 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal noting that the decision of the Nasimi District Court of
|
30 September 1993
|
35. On 30 November 2000 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the applicant bank's appeal on points of law against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994. It held that pursuant to Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal on points of law was admissible if a party to the proceedings could not act as a result of a procedural step taken by the court. According to the law then in force, compulsory administration became effective on the date on which the relevant entry was made in the Companies Register; the applicant bank's own statutory body was therefore empowered to act on its behalf until that date and to appeal against the ruling of the District Court on the registration of the compulsory administration in the Companies Register. The District Court had then to notify its ruling to the applicant bank. However, in the present case the applicant bank had validly appealed against the ruling concerned to the Municipal Court, which had considered it on the merits. Seeing that the ruling was not reasoned, notification of it could not improve the procedural position of the applicant bank. The Supreme Court added that the fact that the applicant bank had not received the text of the CNB's proposal for the entry concerning the compulsory administration in the Companies Register did not remove the applicant bank's right to act in proceedings before the court as provided for in Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In so far as the appeal on points of law concerned the entry of the first extension of the compulsory administration in the Companies Register, the Supreme Court pointed out that section 29 of the Act as in force at the time when compulsory administration had been imposed provided that compulsory administration became effective on the date on which the relevant entry was made in the Companies Register, the functions of the statutory body of the bank being suspended by the appointment of a compulsory administrator until the compulsory administration ended. In the present case, on
|
November 2002
|
26. There has been contact between the police and family members, their solicitors or the Centre. In particular, there were meetings on 21 January 2000 with Chief Superintendent McCann; on 19 December 2001 with Detective Inspector Aiken and in
|
8 April 2003
|
8. The Ministry of Defence subsequently filed an action with the Kayseri Civil Court against the applicant for the reimbursement of his educational expenses. On 3 May 2004 the Kayseri Civil Court ordered the applicant to pay the Ministry of Defence 5,050,500,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 3,000 euros (EUR)), plus interest running from
|
19 April 2007
|
54. At its preliminary hearing on 21 May 2007 the Assize Court rejected the requests by the applicant and his co-defendants for release and authorised their continued detention pending trial. In particular, in connection with the applicant’s specific argument that his detention was unlawful following the expiry of the relevant period on
|
10 December 2001
|
14. It was concluded that these circumstances, as well as “the first applicant’s head injuries sustained as a result of the explosions” could have been the reason why the first applicant slandered Major I. On
|
10 January 2012
|
41. On 17 January 2012 the DGASPC asked the SPAS to continue to monitor and advise the applicants’ family and to indicate to it those aspects that it still considered deficient in the visit that had been carried out on
|
19 November 2002
|
11. Apatit was privatised in 1994. In the following years the authorities made several attempts to return Apatit to State control, claiming that the money due under the privatisation contract had not been paid by the buyers. In March 2002 Mr Lebedev, one of the top managers in the Yukos group and the applicant’s personal friend, proposed a friendly settlement of the dispute on behalf of the buyers. The State privatisation authority having accepted that offer, on
|
12 January 2014
|
38. On 12 September 2013 the Lublin Regional Court, in view of the applicant’s state of health and his neurological and orthopaedic problems, granted him leave to undergo the operation outside prison. The applicant was scheduled to return to prison on
|
20 December 1988
|
24. Another complaint together with a civil-party application was lodged on 18 November 1988 and 3 February 1989 by the association “Sons and daughters of France's Jewish deportees”. It was lodged not only against the applicant and Maurice Sabatier but also against Jean Leguay and René Bousquet, both former senior officials with the rank of prefect under the Vichy regime, and Norbert Techoueyres, who at the material time was the detective superintendent nominated to act on the directions of the public prosecutor. In a judgment of
|
26 January 2013
|
20. By a decision of 18 April 2011 the first-instance court in the first case convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced her to five days’ “administrative” detention. By a decision of
|
September 2003
|
45. Apart from the applicants, the authorities also questioned the applicants’ relatives and a number of the second applicant’s neighbours. As can be ascertained from the Government’s submissions, two of the neighbours were questioned in
|
28 September 2012
|
59. On 15 February 2012, the third applicant made a regular application for a residence permit on the basis of his family life with his parents and siblings in the Netherlands. This application was rejected by the Minister on
|
sixty-nine years old
|
11. At 4 p.m. that day the applicant was informed by a senior investigator that she was being placed under provisional arrest (laikinas sulaikymas), on the basis of Article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see “Relevant domestic law” below). The decision to arrest the applicant indicated that she was suspected of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distribution (see paragraph 27 below). Provisional arrest had been deemed necessary in order to prevent her from fleeing, interfering with the investigation or committing further crimes because it was suspected that she had previously hidden drugs from the investigators (see paragraph 9 above). The record of the provisional arrest, drawn up at the time of the arrest, stated that the applicant had been explained her rights, including the right to a lawyer, and that she had refused to sign the record. The applicant was placed in the Šakiai police station in a nearby cell to her son. Her husband was informed of her arrest. At that time the applicant was
|
23 December 2005
|
16. On 3 November 2005 the respondent was duly served for the first time, the summons having been sent to Kotor, Montenegro, on which occasion he was both provided with the applicant's claim against him and informed about the next hearing scheduled for
|
some two years later
|
11. In July 1999 the applicant wrote to the SAB, seeking a review of the decision concerning his clearance. On 8 September 1999 the SAB responded, refusing to change the “findings of the Security Police of the Ministry of the Interior, in accordance with which it is impossible to issue Andris Ternovskis the first category special clearance on the basis of section 9(3)(6) of the Law on State Secrets”. Section 9(3)(6) provided that clearance would not be issued to persons suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness or who were otherwise deemed unsuitable for work with State secrets (see paragraph 32 below). It was
|
11 December 1987
|
10. The applicant has been physically disabled since the age of seven. He was adopted by Mr Bernard Poirrez, a French national, under the terms of a judgment of 28 July 1987 of the Bouaké Court of First Instance. On
|
twenty-three years
|
20. By a judgment of 26 April 2013 the Constitutional Court allowed the appeal in part and quashed the first-instance judgment in part.
It considered that at the time of the declaration the taking (of the land on which the shop had stood) had been certainly in the public interest, specifically the building of roads giving access to the public. It was true that use of that plot of land had changed in 1972, as it had been decided to build a snack bar (and later to lease it) to see to the needs of the users of the square, as well as the civic centre, government offices, and a bus terminus. Thus, in the Constitutional Court’s view the fact that it had been rented out to third parties had not diminished the public interest in the taking. Nevertheless, there had been a violation of the applicants’ property rights in so far as they had been deprived of their property for a number of years without any compensation. In particular they had received no compensation whatsoever for the part of the property taken and not used, which had been returned to them only after
|
11 July 1996
|
9. In July 1996, there were disturbances throughout Northern Ireland. On 7 July 1996, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had announced that they would not allow a march by the loyalist Orange Order from Drumcree Church to the Orange Lodge in Portadown to pass through the mainly Catholic residential area of the Garvaghy Road. Members of the Orange Order gathered in the area, and demonstrations occurred in Londonderry (Derry) and Belfast. On
|
28 April 1959
|
8. In 1959, the applicant acquired freehold ownership of plot 565, Nicosia, with a frontage on Jason Street, which is now called Georgios Grivas Digenis Avenue. She was also issued with a Certificate of Registration of Immovable Property by the Land Registry Office, Registration No. B662, dated
|
2 February 2004
|
13. In execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Director of the CASH invited the applicant to inspect the case file. By a reasoned judgment of 13 May 2005, he confirmed that her contract would not be renewed in the following terms.
“As a result of the judgment of the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal dated
|
25 November 1990
|
202. The four photographs submitted by the Government (see paragraphs 171-172 above) were shown to him and he was reasonably certain that the body depicted in the photographs was that of the man on which he had performed the post-mortem examination on
|
1 August 2003
|
29. Regarding the length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court found that the criminal proceedings at issue started only on 29 February 2000 when the arrest warrant against the applicant was issued. They ended on
|
7 August 2009
|
14. According to the police officers, when Alexei Vlasi ran up the stairs, they thought he was the suspect they had been after. They claimed to have been convinced that the victim was the suspect they were looking for and that they only realised their mistake after he had been shot. However, during a confrontation which took place later, police officer B. admitted he had known Alexei Vlasi for a long time. The following description of the police officers’ version of events was made after a video reconstruction of the scene, which was filmed during the investigation with the participation of police officer C. on
|
21 March 2005
|
16. On an unknown date in 2004 the applicant retained a licensed expert to prepare a plan of the vineyard and requested the land commission to validate it. The latter refused. Following an appeal, in a final judgment of
|
8 December 2003
|
19. Upon returning home the first applicant did not immediately seek medical help; that came at a later stage. The first applicant obtained the following medical statements and submitted them to the Court:
1) Medical statement issued by a neuropathologist at the 3rd Grozny town hospital, dated
|
3 November 1994
|
17. The applicant did not attend the hearing held on 6 September 1994. The court informed the parties about her pleadings. In view of their large volume and failure to produce copies for the other parties, the court ordered the applicant to provide it with the necessary number of copies and granted the other parties seven days to comment on her pleadings. The hearing was adjourned until
|
5 April 2005
|
24. On 15 May 2006 the Supreme Court, in written proceedings, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It noted that non-pecuniary damage was always to be compensated when a loss of life had occurred because of a crime. In this case, M.B. had not questioned his liability, the dispute thus concerning only the sum to be awarded in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The Supreme Court also observed that the applicant’s grandson had died not because of M.B.’s premeditated actions, but because of his being reckless when driving and violating traffic rules. The lower courts had taken all the circumstances into account when assessing the amount of compensation. It was also noteworthy that the award of LTL 3,000 was close to the initial sum that the applicant had asked for in bringing the claim on
|
18 December 2003
|
11. The date on which the judgment was enforced is disputed by the parties. According to the Government, the judgment was fully enforced on 2 May 2005. From the applicant's submissions it follows that he had received the amount awarded by the judgment of
|
29 June 2004
|
8. On the 21 June 2004 a ship called the “Lee Frances” entered the port of Rotterdam. Part of the cargo was a single container which contained palletised drums of molasses from Georgetown, Guyana. The following day the container was searched by customs officials and certain drums – purportedly containing molasses – were found to contain 700 kg of high purity cocaine worth GBP 35 million. The officials refilled the drums with dummy contents and the ship continued to Antwerp where the container was offloaded. The applicant was arrested and interviewed on
|
the same day
|
33. On 11 November 2013 Ž.L. informed the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office that, owing to his health problems, he would not be able to come to Sisak on his own. He asked that transport to Sisak be organised for him or that he be heard in Karlovac, where he lived. In a further letter written on
|
3 August 2004
|
35. Further to legislative changes by which on 1 May 2004 the courts acquired jurisdiction to decide on issues relating to rights of contact, in June 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Maribor District Court. At the District Court’s request, the applicant supplemented his application on
|
27 September 2007
|
12. On 28 September 2006 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the first set of auxiliary proceedings (see paragraph 18) and this decision was upheld on appeal with final effect on
|
1 April 1997
|
17. The petition was refused by the reviewing authority on 14 July 1997, in the following terms:
“The Reviewing Authority has considered the petition submitted by your above-named client, and has denied it for the following reasons.
The down payment for Legal Aid was carefully calculated, and was well in line with the amount the petitioner would have had to pay under the civil system. The certificate signed by him shows clearly that he had decided not to proceed with his application for legal representation. We cannot accept that [the applicant] was in any way forced to accept this decision. He also appears to have been content to accept Captain [A.] as his defending officer.
The complaints about the petitioner being bullied were investigated by the SIB and the allegations could not be substantiated. Indeed it came to light during this investigation that the petitioner had told [another soldier] that he planned to go absent because he was merely tired of the training and the long hours being worked. In view of the SIB report, the Reviewing Authority must accept that the allegation that the petitioner was subjected to violence by a Non-Commissioned Officer cannot be substantiated, and cannot be regarded as a mitigating factor.
In considering your complaint that, had the petitioner been advised by a qualified solicitor, he would have been able to plead not guilty on the basis of duress, we had to rely on the advice given by the Judge Advocate General. He stated that a person is subject to duress when words or conduct from another person cause him to fear that he will be killed or seriously injured, if he does not commit the offence. Clearly, the petitioner could never have reasonably believed that he had cause to fear that he would be killed or seriously injured.
The Reviewing Authority notes that the petitioner had dropped his allegations of being subjected to violence by the time he appeared in Court. All Captain [A.] intended to do was to inform the Court that the petitioner did not wish to proceed with these allegations. In fact the Court was made aware of them because the letter from (sic) the Commanding Officer was read out to them.
We accept that Captain [A.] was mistaken in referring the petitioner to the booklet 'Appeals and Petitions after conviction by Army Court Martial', which was out of date after
|
19 to 24 April 2004
|
120. On 11 September 2006 the first and second applicants re‑submitted their appeals, seeking to have their conviction quashed and to be acquitted. It appears that on an unspecified date the third applicant also followed suit. The applicants complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from
|
11 December 2012
|
15. Following his questioning at the police station after his arrest, the applicant complained to the public prosecutor’s office that he had been ill-treated by police officers who had tried to obtain a confession from him (for details concerning similar allegations of ill-treatment made by the applicant’s co-defendant, see Vovruško v. Latvia, no. 11065/02,
|
12 February 2002
|
15. On 12 February 2004 a Chamber of three Supreme Administrative Court judges decided to reopen the proceedings. It found that the Supreme Administrative Court could have erred in fact and thus in law when adopting the decision of
|
one day in the summer
|
65. The applicant forwarded to the Court a letter which he had dictated on 14 September 2001. In this letter the applicant submitted that there were no eye-witnesses to the abduction of his son Ender. No one at Ender's workplace had witnessed his arrest. He himself had not witnessed it either. He had been arrested, together with his other son Ali,
|
25 February until 25 March 2004
|
36. According to that information, from 11 until 25 February 2004 the applicant was placed in cell no. 31 of ward II (PC2), which measured 12.6 m² and was occupied by six people, including the applicant (2.1 m² per person). From
|
21 January 1997
|
28. On 7 May 1998 the Court of Appeal in a reserved judgment and following a hearing dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Henry stated in his judgment, with reference to section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, that it could not have been the intention of Parliament to provide that the only adverse inference that could be drawn from failure to disclose facts was recent fabrication. He quoted with approval the judgment of Lord Justice Rose in the case of R. v Roble (judgment of
|
21 June 2005
|
56. On 8 November 2005 the Head of the Healthcare Establishment (Kierownik Zakładu Opieki Zdrowotnej) of Olsztyn Remand Centre informed the applicant of the following: the applicant’s disability did not require any medical treatment; his other ailments could be treated within the prison healthcare system; bio-mechanical prostheses were not refunded by the National Health Fund; and lastly, according to the applicable law, a person with a first-degree disability required the assistance of another person in his or her daily existence. Such assistance could not be provided to the applicant in the remand centre. Nevertheless, as stated in the expert opinion of
|
the night of 29 to 30 September 1987
|
11. On 28 April 1988 two police officers drew up an official record (proces-verbaal) containing the findings of the investigation into the kidnapping and assault of Mr A. It stated, inter alia, that a number of witnesses had seen Mr G. and two other persons in bars in the town of Weesp in
|
the same day
|
62. On 18 June 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant’s other son, Mr A. S., who stated, amongst other things, that the applicant had told him that Tamerlan had been abducted from work on 9 May 2011. He further stated that at about 11 a.m. on 7 May 2011 he had been in the café at the Mustang car repair garage with his brother Tamerlan when Officer Magomed M. had arrived there and had asked Tamerlan to leave with him. Tamerlan had been put into a silver-coloured Lada Priora car and the car had driven away. The witness had immediately informed their brother, Ya. S., about what had happened and the latter had contacted a Mr Akhyad, who had apparently assisted in getting Tamerlan released at about 4 p.m. on
|
12 November 1993
|
9. However, that plan was not implemented as foreseen.
Accordingly, on 31 July 1996 the authorities met to reassess the situation and draw up a new Action Plan in accordance with the Prime-Ministerial Directive of
|
5 October 2001
|
13. The applicant’s daughter returned home and informed the family about the events at the checkpoint. Then the applicant and her relatives went to the building of the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior (the VOVD) in the town centre to find out whether the State authorities had any information about their relative. The applicant joined the crowd of local residents which had gathered outside the building. The applicant asked around whether anyone had heard about the arrest of two men at the checkpoint. Several women confirmed that they had witnessed the arrest of two Chechen men at the checkpoint on
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.