target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
17 October 2003
|
8. In a final judgment of 29 September 2004 (“the judgment”), the Timișoara Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal. It ordered the company to revoke its dismissal decision and to pay the applicant pecuniary damages in the form of all her salary entitlements from
|
10 May 2010
|
14. The applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against O.P. She argued, inter alia, that her neighbours had witnessed how O.P. assaulted and forced her into his car on the evening of
|
11 July 2000
|
13. On an unspecified date in 2002 the Prime Minister requested the Prosecutor General's Office to conduct an investigation into the lawfulness of the privatisation. On 17 February 2002 the Prosecutor General informed the Prime Minister that he had verified the lawfulness of the privatisation and had found it to be “in strict compliance with the legislation in force”. The Prosecutor General also informed the Prime Minister that the lawfulness of the privatisation had been thoroughly verified during the proceedings ending with the final judgment of
|
21 August 1998
|
21. On 14 May 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Orenburg Regional Court, which was to be forwarded together with the case file to the Supreme Court. The applicant then wrote to the Orenburg Regional Court to inquire about the progress of the case on
|
14 September 1993
|
11. On 4 April 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Governor of Łódź in which she complained that she had not been allowed to participate in the proceedings. She submitted that she should have been treated as a party to them and that she had not received an answer to her application of
|
9 September 1994
|
21. Meanwhile, in late 2005 the Minister of Healthcare was dismissed from his position and charged with a number of criminal offences, including offences involving abuse of official power. On 20 April 2007 the Assize Court convicted the Minister of Healthcare on several counts, one of them being his failure to execute the judgment of
|
more than three years
|
23. Taking the applicants’ request as such a suggestion, visiting rights could not be granted. From all the material in the possession of the District Court it was evident that F. was vehemently opposed to meeting the applicants, while at the same time he had developed a close and positive relationship with his mother. The District Court acknowledged that the applicants had a genuine concern for F.’s well-being; however, in the present situation the interests of the applicants did not coincide with the child’s best interests. Given that F. had not been in contact with his foster parents for
|
8 December 2006
|
28. On an unspecified date in 2006 a bailiff enforced a 2003 judgment in favour of the company, according to which it had to be paid by private third parties MDL 25,353 (EUR 1,643). Since the company had debts worth MDL 429,727 (EUR 24,580), on
|
1982 and 1983
|
15. During the proceedings an expert report and an additional report were submitted to the court registry on 8 February 1990 and 30 April 1992 respectively. According to the expert, a first section of the land had been irreversibly altered in 1982, and a second section in 1983, through the public works performed. The total market value of the occupied land in
|
five years’
|
38. In a judgment of 7 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeals as to the establishment of the facts and the defendants’ guilt, and upheld the Regional Court’s judgment in respect of those issues. However, it decided to reduce the applicants’ sentences to
|
6 December 2000
|
8. On 2 February 2001, the main shareholder of Demirbank, namely Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş., brought administrative proceedings against the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu – hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”) before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the decision of
|
14 December 2000
|
12. During the retrial, of the twenty-five hearings held between 26 August 1999 and 21 January 2002 two were adjourned at the applicant’s request.
On 8 September 2000 the Court of First Instance held that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae, considering the case to be within the competence of the Regional Court. On
|
14 August 2001
|
11. On 9 August 2001 the applicant lodged an application for release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional Court. The application was sent by the administration of the remand prison on the same date and was received by that court on
|
4 January 2001
|
24. On 10 October 2000 the Kraków Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 January 2000. On 15 November 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal and upheld the decision to extend his detention. The applicant’s lawyer was present at both court sessions. At a session held on
|
March to December 2012
|
7. On 7 March 2012, the indictment of the prosecution against, inter alios, Y and Z was registered before the District Court of Reykjavík. At a preliminary hearing they pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against them. From
|
30 September 2005
|
95. On 15 May 2007 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, stating that she had not been informed as to whether the investigators had taken the steps necessary to comply with the court order of
|
twenty-year
|
96. The President of the Supreme Court considered it unfortunate that the committee had failed to mention that the applicant had been held since his conviction in the Ajarian Ministry of Security prison, in breach of the law. He noted that Mr David Assanidze, whose televised remarks ought, in the committee's eyes, to have prompted the Supreme Court of Georgia to convict the applicant, was serving his
|
2 July 2008
|
60. On 3 February 2005 the applicant filed a civil action under Article 417 of the Civil Code seeking compensation for a breach of Article 6 and other provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had allegedly been committed by domestic courts and penitentiary facilities in relation to the applicant’s main criminal case (VIII K 168/00).
On 8 May 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, considering that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate some of his allegations and to demonstrate that the remainder of the alleged procedural shortcomings and the actions of the respondent had been unlawful or linked with any damage which the applicant might have suffered.
On
|
a further three months
|
16. On 21 March 2013 the case of Mr Lysenko and seven co-defendants was remitted to the Saratov Regional Court for a trial by a jury. On 18 September and 12 December 2013 the Regional Court extended the authorised period of detention in respect of the applicant and three other co-defendants, each time for
|
forty-eight hours
|
80. When authorising further detention the judge had to examine, among other things, whether the alien concerned had concealed his or her identity or refused to cooperate and whether he or she had any means of subsistence (section 54.1, paragraph 1, parts 1 and 2 of the Immigration Law). The alien had the right to appeal against the detention order issued by the court within
|
2 October 1999
|
43. On 8 November 2001 the commander of military unit no. 40911 replied to Mr Khamzayev’s complaint of 30 October 2001, stating, inter alia, that the block of flats at 224 Kalanchakskaya Street had not been listed among the targets selected for a strike by the federal air forces, that the latter had not received any orders to carry out such a strike on
|
the present day
|
11. The court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour on 25 August 2003, 11 October 2004, 31 May 2004, 1 June 2004 and 21 January 2005 (see paragraph 8 above) became final on an unspecified date. They remain only partly enforced to
|
6 August 2000
|
95. Witness “Petrov” stated that he had participated in a rescue operation on 6 August 2000 as wingman of the pair of MI-24 helicopters. He confirmed that he had seen from a distance of two kilometres a white Niva car and five [rather than six] armed men, who after “Ivanov’s” warning shot had got into the car and started driving away, although “everybody knew that a car must stop at a shot or even a helicopter’s flight”. “Petrov” submitted that he had not been authorised to communicate with the command centre but had heard “Ivanov’s” communications and confirmed that “Ivanov” had reported about the car and the people to the command centre and twice received an order to destroy the vehicle. After the second order from the command centre “Ivanov” had given “Petrov” a command to fire at the vehicle, and the latter had strafed the vehicle with a machine-gun of 12.7 mm calibre, whilst “Ivanov” had fired at it with an automatic cannon of 30 mm calibre. The car had stopped but nobody had got out. He then left for the place of his location, as he was running out of fuel. “Petrov” stated that he did not know the names or military ranks of the officials who had communicated with “Ivanov” on
|
2 December 1999
|
13. At the 23rd hearing on 23 June 1999 and 24th hearing on 18 November 1999 the District Court adjourned the case in anticipation of the outcome of the taxation proceedings which were now pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). In two decisions of
|
21 May 1994
|
40. On 3 September 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant's complaint. It established the facts as follows:
“As a result of his hunger strike, the applicant lost eleven kilograms within a very short time and was further behaving in an uncooperative, refractory manner and did not miss an opportunity to attract attention, which – from the applicant's point of view – is probably legitimate and comprehensible but also resulted in his not being treated in the most attentive and gentle way.
The applicant had repeatedly shouted and disturbed the peace in his cell, which he shared with several other inmates. On
|
11 January 2006
|
27. On 4 September 2006 the Privatisation Agency itself sent a letter to the applicant, explaining that the decision to privatise the debtor, by means of a public auction, had been adopted on 11 January 2006. It then, inter alia, referred to Article 31 of the Amendments and Additions to the Privatisation Act (see paragraph 45 below) and concluded that the enforcement proceedings at issue had to be stayed, ex lege, for a period of two years beginning on
|
19 February 2003
|
41. At the request of the police, the captain explained the Admiralty Court's decision to the applicants and the reasons why their repatriation was necessary. The applicants had refused to be repatriated and reacted to the suggestion aggressively. In this connection, the Government relied on two letters/reports prepared by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Limassol Police dated
|
18 May 2000
|
37. At about 4.30 a.m. on 13 June 1990 members of the police and gendarmerie brutally charged the demonstrators in University Square. The arrested demonstrators were driven away and locked up at the Bucharest municipal police station. The 263 arrested individuals (or 262, according to the decision to commit for trial of
|
20 January 2011
|
14. On 21 September 2011, the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full bench, rejected the appeal by a majority. It found that the applicant’s complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision of 2 July 2010 was manifestly ill-founded. As regards his complaint about the unfairness of the proceedings in absentia, and the domestic courts’ dismissal of his application for leave to appeal out of time, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicant had not complained about the domestic courts’ decisions taken in absentia (see paragraphs 6-8 above). It further found that that complaint was in any event time-barred. It also reasoned that in the present case the Supreme Court’s unifying decision no. 1 of
|
12 November 1999
|
18. The Constitutional Court received the Administrative Court’s request on 19 February 1999. The Administrative Court submitted three further requests raising the same issue, which were received by the Constitutional Court on 13 July, 21 October and
|
16 April 1937
|
32. In 1999 the applicants Adrian Lupaş, Nicolae Lupaş, Ovidiu Lupaş, Verginiu Lupaş and Ana Teodosiu brought an action against two third parties for recovery of possession of two plots of land measuring 469.32 sq. m and 459 sq. m at 30-32 Patriei Street, which occupied part of the land that had formed the subject of the Bucharest Court of Appeal's judgment of
|
11 June 2001
|
11. The applicant also unsuccessfully brought proceedings against the United States claiming reimbursement of the social security contributions which she had been ordered to pay by the Austrian authorities and a part of which the employer was, under her employment contract, obliged to refund. In those proceedings the United States authorities refused to serve the summons to attend the hearing. The Austrian courts dismissed the applicant’s request for a judgment in default. Their position was upheld by the Supreme Court’s judgment of
|
15 December 2003
|
41. British forces in Basra arrested the first applicant on 30 April 2003 and the second applicant on 21 November 2003. They were initially detained at a facility run by American forces known as “Camp Bucca”. On
|
the period between 1947 and 1952
|
118. Section 1 of the Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property (“the Restitution Law”), which entered into force in February 1992, provided that the former owners, or their heirs, of certain types of real property nationalised by virtue of several specific laws dating from
|
12 and 13 December 2009
|
19. Also on that day, the applicant’s legal representative requested that the Hakkari public prosecutor provide him with copies of the documents in the investigation file, which he was authorised to receive despite the restriction order. He further requested the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant. According to the applicant’s submissions, his lawyer was only provided with the medical reports of
|
31 March 1995
|
6. On 4 August 1994 S.K. died. An inventory of his estate was conducted on 1 November 1994. The applicant did not report in the inventory the money which was still in her account in Luxembourg. On 20 January 1995 she confirmed the inventory of the estate on oath before a court. She did not mention the money in her Luxembourg account. On
|
9 December 2003
|
13. On an unspecified date a general meeting of company C. adopted, by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the majority shareholder. On
|
5 December 2005
|
27. As the applicant had failed to specify his claim for costs and expenses and since the lawyer whom the applicant had appointed to represent him had made no submission to the Constitutional Court, the latter decided not to make any award under that head.
b) Complaint of
|
the age of fifty-seven
|
8. The applicant challenged the administrative decision before the Hradec Králové Regional Court (Krajský soud), arguing that given the fact that he had cared for two children, he was entitled to retire at
|
27 January 2000
|
9. On 15 December 1999 the respondent filed an application raising certain preliminary points of law to be tried before the main petition. The application was set for 21 December 1999 and then for 31 January 2000. In the meantime, on
|
11 December 2009
|
31. On 3 November 2009 a copy of the inquiry was produced and one person gave evidence and produced documents. On 13 November 2009 another two police officers and a lawyer gave evidence and produced documents. A fingerprints expert was appointed. Another hearing was held on
|
December 1991
|
9. On 4 August 1988 the applicant filed a request for an industrial licence (Konzession) for chimney sweeping in Linz. On 31 March 1989 he filed an alternative request to start chimney sweeping in a specified administrative area (Kehrgebiet). Following a new regulation concerning the division of those administrative areas which entered into force in
|
29 September 2006
|
30. In the meantime, on 22 August 2006 Mr Järve appealed against the district prosecutor’s decision to the State Prosecutor’s Office, which, by a decision of 22 September 2006, dismissed the appeal. According to the decision, the applicant had initially accepted Mr Järve as counsel, chosen by his parents, and had gone along with the tactics proposed by Mr Järve of denying the charges. However, during the evening of 7 August 2006 he had decided to tell the truth. It had been explained to him that his statements had contradicted those given by A. and K., who were also suspects at that stage of the proceedings. There might have been the need to arrange a confrontation with A. and K., whose counsel of choice was Mr Järve. Thus, the question of whether Mr Järve could properly act as the applicant’s counsel had arisen. The applicant had understood the problem and had decided to continue with R. acting as his counsel. He had submitted a written request terminating Mr Järve’s services as counsel and advising that he wanted R. to act on his behalf. He had also requested that Mr Järve and his parents not be informed about the crime he had committed before he had had an opportunity to talk to his mother in person. The state prosecutor considered that Mr Järve should have been informed about the termination sooner, and should have been given the documents indicating the applicant’s wishes. The state prosecutor noted that the applicant had asked to have G. as his counsel and R. as his substitute, and that he had dispensed with Mr Järve’s services. On
|
January to October 2002
|
9. On 22 January 2003 the Koszalin Regional Court refused to exempt the applicant from court fees. The court’s reasons for this decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“...
Despite the court’s request, the applicant has failed to provide information concerning his business activities. The documents submitted concern the SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company (Zakład produkcyjno-uslugowy) located at Morska Street in Koszalin. However, from the insurance policies submitted, it appears that the applicant insured two companies, both located at Morska Street in Koszalin: SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company and the Private Car Transport Company (Przedsiębiorswto Prywatnej Komunikacji Samochodowej).
...
It is therefore not clear what type of business activities the applicant is involved in at Morska Street in Koszalin (...).
The documents submitted by the applicant show that he has already received PLN 360,572.68 [approx. EUR 90,142] as partial compensation from Warta S.A. According to the applicant, this amount did not compensate him for the damage actually incurred. However, there are no reasons to believe that the applicant’s business collapsed because he received only partial compensation.
It further appears from the submitted tax return forms concerning SEDNO’s business for
|
2 November 2010
|
6. On 29 January 2008 the applicants were involved in a street protest as a result of which they were arrested and detained for six hours and forty‑five minutes. On 18 December 2008 the first applicant was again involved in a street protest, as a result of which he was arrested and detained for approximately four hours and a half. Later both applicants were acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful. The facts concerning those protests were described in detail in Mătăsaru and Saviţchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 6-58,
|
19 March 1992
|
19. On 22 July 1991 the second applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court against her former employer for compensation for damage caused by work-related illnesses. The first hearing was held on
|
19 September 1996
|
29. As stated above, the applicant’s claim relating to the protection of her personal rights and compensation in this respect, which formed a part of her original action of 18 June 1992, was dealt with by the Bratislava I District Court in a separate set of proceedings as from
|
6 and 20 June 2004
|
20. On 6 July 2004 I.R. again contested the enforcement of the impugned judgment of 2002, seeking to prove that its enforcement had become impossible, having regard to the precarious state of health of Th.N., following his two visits to his father’s house on the weekends of
|
26 May 2002
|
15. On 6 June 2002 two police officers, one of whom was acting as investigator, questioned Dr İbrahim Öner from the Haydarpaşa Hospital in relation to his examination of the applicant on 26 May 2002. He stated the following:
“On
|
the night of 20 to 21 April 1994
|
20. On 13 July 1994, on an application by public prosecutor D., the applicant was committed for trial before the Bihor County Court for attempted homicide, an offence prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor stated in his application that he had ordered the applicant’s arrest on the ground that the latter had evaded the criminal proceedings brought against him. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant had failed to appear for the reconstruction of the events of
|
June or July 1997
|
19. On 5 November 2004 an expert report was prepared by a mechanical engineer, who was also an expert on occupational safety, and an architect at the request of the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance. After setting out the circumstances in which the incident had occurred, much like in the previous reports submitted to the criminal court, and referring to the relevant provisions of the Labour Code and the Regulation on Workers’ Health and Occupational Safety in Construction Work, the experts concluded that H.C. bore 85% of the responsibility for the incident on account of his failure to take the necessary safety measures on the construction site, such as erecting wooden panels or other fencing around the site, taking special precautions in those parts of the site that presented a danger of falling, placing warning signs as necessary, informing the construction workers of possible hazards at the construction site and employing a guard to control access to the site. They indicated in particular that the unenclosed hole, which had been opened in
|
18 December 2008
|
39. The description of the events of the night of 12 May 2002 is based on the seventh applicant's account submitted with the application. In addition, the following accounts have been provided by the applicant's representative: the seventh applicant's account, given on
|
6 January 2002
|
22. The debtors appealed, arguing that the enforcement had become time-barred, given that the ten-year statutory limitation period running from the finality of the judgment sought to be enforced had elapsed on
|
between 2000 and 2004
|
17. By letter of 11 August 2010 Mr Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş reiterated his statement that between 1994 and 2001 the entire Lăcătuş family, numbering sixteen individuals, including the applicants, had been living in a two-room apartment at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş. According to him, the living conditions had been overcrowded, they had lacked basic necessities like food and water most of the time and they had not received any support from the authorities. He further stated that
|
29 May 2003
|
29. On 3 May 2002 the first applicant, Mehmet Er, applied to the Hakkari Civil Court of First Instance, alleging that his father had disappeared in life-threatening circumstances on 14 July 1995 and that nothing had been heard from him since that date. He asked the court to issue a decree stating that his father was to be presumed dead. This request was accepted on
|
31 August 1997
|
8. During the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended twice. The last of the relevant decisions was given on 9 July 1997 by the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) and extended the applicant’s detention until
|
23 January 2013
|
42. The majority of witnesses and victims of the criminal offences gave statements concerning solely the events of 23 January 2013. According to their statements, there was a spontaneous riot by local residents in the evening of
|
22 August 2004
|
27. The court also found no violation of the applicant’s defence rights. It noted, inter alia, that on 22 August 2004 the prosecutor’s decision to appoint B. as the applicant’s lawyer had been lawful, because at the material time the applicant had not had a contract with S. for legal representation. It also observed that on
|
2 July 2013
|
22. On 6 June 2013 that court granted another extension of the applicant’s detention until 24 November 2013. The decision concerned eleven defendants. Along with the gravity of the charges, the court based its decision on the findings that “the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed” and that “no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings”. The Moscow City Court upheld that extension order on
|
the period of approximately twelve months
|
22. That decision was sent, inter alia, to the Social Services Department of Milan, which was the authority responsible for implementing supervisory measures. That authority carried out one inspection, at the prisoner's home and his place of work, during
|
27 January 2004
|
25. The applicant’s lawyer complained about the enforced attendance order to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. He asserted that the applicant had had a good reason for missing the interview: he had been out of town on a business trip and had not personally received the summons. As a witness he had been free to travel. On
|
8 December 2014
|
32. On 25 November 2014 the second applicant and the Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, represented by the State Attorney’s Office, reached a settlement by which the State was to pay the second applicant the following amounts: 150,000 Croatian Kuna (HRK) for non-pecuniary damage for the killing of his mother; HRK 75,000 for non-pecuniary damage for the killing of his sister; HRK 12,800 for pecuniary damage concerning the expenses incurred for the stone erected on the grave of his mother and sister; and HRK 2,500 for costs he incurred in the civil proceedings. The said amounts, together with the applicable interest rates, were paid to the second applicant on
|
30 November 2000
|
20. Further decisions on the prolongation of the applicant's detention were given by the Regional Court on 21 December 1999 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2000) and 21 June 2000 (extending that period until
|
three-month
|
59. Although the exact number of those deported was unknown, the Constitutional Court considered that the numbers would probably be low, since the unregulated status of the “erased” had generally been tolerated. It also struck down the
|
5 February 2000
|
121. On 22 March 2000 the Novye Izvestia ran an article entitled “Chechen Civilians Shot by OMON from Dagestan?” The article referred to information from the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office, according to which servicemen from the Ministry of Defence had not been involved in the killings of 67 civilians in Aldy on
|
15 April 1998
|
52. The Sofia Court of Appeals gave judgment on 17 October 2002. It held that the limitation period for claiming damages for the accident of 1 July 1988 had been five years and had expired on 1 July 1993, whereas all increases of the applicants’ claims for non‑pecuniary damages had been made after the latter date. Therefore, only the original claims could be allowed. Accordingly, the court upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment of
|
15 November 2002
|
46. Overall, the Government submitted 17 documents, which included:
(a) a list of documents contained in the file of criminal case no. 61149, from which it can be ascertained that the file comprised at least 132 document running to 150 pages;
(b) a procedural decision of
|
the previous academic year
|
5. In September 2000 the applicant, a teacher at the Blidcha secondary education school (hereinafter “the School”; Блідчанська загальноосвітня школа), learned that his teaching hours, and, accordingly, his remuneration, were reduced as compared to
|
22 November 1996
|
26. On 27 October 2005 the Hamburg Regional Court, having held a hearing on 29 September 2005, allowed K.'s action and ordered the applicant to pay him medical fees amounting to EUR 10,587.93 plus interest at a rate of four per cent starting from
|
four-months’
|
79. The Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance brought the criminal proceedings that had begun on 4 September 1996 (see, paragraph 68 above) to an end. In a decision of 13 January 1998 it convicted Halil Al of non-compliance with court orders and sentenced him to
|
10 March 1994
|
36. On 6 December 1993 the case file was submitted to the Supreme Court for a decision on the defendant's appeal against the City Court's decision of 26 June 1993. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as being inadmissible on
|
9 January 1995
|
29. The main file on the investigation into A.T.'s disappearance is the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's preliminary investigation file no. 1998/130. It contains 108 documents. The six previous investigation files, which were finally incorporated into this file, are as follows:
(i)the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/748 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(ii)the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/70 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(iii) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/6950 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(iv) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/685 (this investigation ended with a decision to discontinue the prosecution);
(v)the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/286 (this investigation began following the Ministry of Justice's intervention and ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(vi) the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/7840 (this investigation ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci);
(vii) the Silvan Public Prosecutor's office file no. 1996/286 (the investigation was reopened and ended with a decision of no jurisdiction ratione loci).
The main documents in the investigation file concerning A.T.'s disappearance are as follows:
(i) the Diyarbakır Security Directorate's letter of
|
1 October 2014
|
52. The Constitutional Court found Article 17 § 2 of the Civil Code incompatible with Articles 3 § 2, 16 § 4, 18 § 1, 19 § 1 and 43 § 2 of the Constitution in so far as it does not envisage non-pecuniary damage as a type of civil damages and does not provide for a possibility to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage by impeding the effective exercise of the right of access to court and the right to a fair trial and at the same time hindering due compliance with its international obligations by the Republic of Armenia.
The Constitutional Court stated that Article 17 § 2 of the Civil Code would lose its legal force at the latest on
|
14 July 2010
|
81. Following an additional round of pre-investigation enquiries, on 9 August 2010 the prosecutor’s office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against loggers A. and K., managers of the Main Contractor and subcontractor companies, MG, the City Council or its executive authorities, including the Municipal Construction Department, for lack of constituent elements of a crime in their actions.
The decision stated that it was the result of an investigation conducted in response to a large number of complaints in connection with the Gorky Park events, including from several members of parliament, a member of the regional council, the Pechenigy NGO (see paragraph 76 above), a number of journalists and a number of protesters, including the applicants’ then representative, Mr Bushchenko (see paragraph 2 above), and the seventh and ninth applicants. It also referred to the rulings of the District Court of 26 May and
|
the same day
|
9. On 9 February 2007 during a hearing in the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor requested again that the applicant be remanded in custody in view, inter alia, of the risk of his absconding. The court upheld the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention. According to the applicant, he challenged that decision on
|
28 April 2007
|
61. On the same date, 31 July 2007, the Dagestan MVD requested the Sovietskiy ROVD to confirm the following:
“The investigation conducted by the Makhachkala Sovietskiy district prosecutor’s office established that on
|
15 November 1996
|
10. For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of
|
27 April 2006
|
19. In October 2003 the first applicant requested a court to order Moszhilniiproekt to make available its survey report. From 2003 to 2006 different courts several times refused to examine this request due to the applicant’s failure to comply with technical formalities, to pay a court fee, and to respect jurisdiction. On
|
the night of 21 to 22 December 1989
|
14. Many people were killed or wounded by gunshot from 17 December 1989 in Timişoara, and from 21 December 1989 in Bucharest. According to a report of 24 July 1990 by the Directorate of Military Prosecutor’s Offices (Direcţia procuraturilor militare), in
|
6 January 2003
|
33. On 7 August 2003 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office informed the applicants’ representatives that on 6 January 2003 the ROVD police officers had arrested Visadi Shokkarov on the basis of a written instruction from the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office. The letter further stated that Visita Shokkarov had also been arrested and that on the same date,
|
seventy-five days
|
33. Following his detention on remand, the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-74/1. During the investigation of the criminal case against him, he was, on a number of occasions in the period from 22 June 2004 to 1 April 2005, detained in the detention unit of the Uysk police station, for a total duration of
|
16 July 2003
|
43. On 16 and 17 July 2003 the applicants and other relatives of Zelimkhan Kagirov, Rustam Shakhgareyev and Zelimkhan Latayev complained to the law-enforcement authorities about the abduction. On the same day,
|
20 March 2007
|
14. On 1 March 2007, the applicant’s solicitor informed the Secretary of State that an application had been made to the High Court for reconsideration of its decision. He relied on the affidavit sworn by an American attorney, which stated that the trial court could in fact impose the death penalty if sufficient aggravating features were found to exist in the first applicant’s case. By way of an order dated
|
6 June 2008
|
16. On 16 June 2008 the applicant was presented with a dismissal order, effective as of 10 June 2008. The dismissal was based on section 14(8) of the Public Service Act. The reason for the applicant’s dismissal was the appointment of a new Prosecutor General in 2007. According to the order, the trade unions had consented to his dismissal on
|
29 February 2012
|
43. On four occasions the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell for keeping prohibited items (in three cases a mobile telephone and in one case cash): on 14 July 2010, 22 October 2011, 12 December 2011 and
|
29 April 1999
|
33. On 11 January 1999 the District Court requested the second expert opinion and ordered the parties to lodge a sum of money with the court in respect of the expert’s costs. The ruling concerning the costs was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on
|
8 February 2001
|
27. On 27 May 2002 the applicants and their relatives wrote to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office (the district prosecutor’s office) and provided the following details concerning the circumstances of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev’s abduction. On
|
12 October 2001
|
15. On 10 October 2005 the District Court refused to approve the adoption agreement, holding that Article 182 § 2 of the Civil Code did not provide for any form of adoption producing the effect desired by the applicants. Its reasoning reads as follows:
“Ms ..., the third applicant, has sole custody of her minor son ..., who was born outside marriage. [She] shares a home in ... with her partner ... (the first applicant) and with ... (the second applicant).
An application to the courts made jointly on
|
27 July 2005
|
18. On an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant and his co‑defendants lodged applications for release. The District Court rejected these requests on 27 July 2005, finding that their detention was lawful and justified. On 5 October 2005 the City Court upheld the decision of
|
a few days earlier
|
6. The applicant is a journalist with a nationwide evening newspaper, Ilta‑Sanomat. On 8 July 2004 Ilta-Sanomat published an article, written by the applicant, concerning the investigation into a homicide which had been committed
|
January 2001
|
79. On 28 February 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19015 under Article 127 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“... Between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 26
|
29 July 2002
|
31. On 29 February 2008 the Government sent to the Court their observations on the case and copies of the applicant's appeal in cassation of 31 August 2001 together with written amendments to his appeal dated
|
10 October 2006
|
106. On 26 November 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s husband and the father of Mr Dzhamali Sultanov, Mr Z. Sultanov, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones given by the first and third applicants. He was subsequently questioned again on
|
February 2012
|
51. On 8 April 2013 the District Court gave its judgment. It took into account the parties’ arguments and observed, as had been submitted by a representative of the children’s home, that the first and second applicants had developed close emotional ties, that at present the girl felt comfortable and calm in her father’s presence and that she missed him whenever he left the children’s home. It also observed that from
|
9 December 2009
|
44. From November 2008 until May 2009 the applicant was not allowed to see his parents, despite repeated requests (for instance on 5 March and 13, 16 and 30 April 2009). The first authorised visit took place six months after the applicant’s arrest, on 4 May 2009. On
|
16 April 2010
|
25. Following the suspension of the enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant in Bulgaria (see the preceding paragraph), on 12 January 2012, within the context of the reopening of the proceedings for recognition of the Romanian judgment, the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Sofia Court Appeal of
|
16 November 2000
|
12. On 10 August 2005 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 August 2005, claiming that limiting his right to a free choice of defence counsel was contrary to the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court of
|
more than a year and a half
|
13. The most recent detention order of 25 July 2008 was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court on 2 October 2008. The Supreme Court considered that there was no evidence substantiating the risk of absconding or interfering with justice. The investigation had been pending for over two years of which the applicant had spent
|
13 years old
|
8. On 8 September 2003 a prosecutor decided to reopen the investigation into the applicant's son's death. He found that the decision of 14 November 2001 (see paragraph 6 above) had been taken unlawfully since the investigation into the circumstances of the case had been carried out “in a manifestly unilateral and superficial manner”. He noted, in particular, that during the interviews in early 2001 witness R.H., who had said that she was a passenger in the car which had hit the applicant's son, had mentioned that her son B.H., who was
|
9 January 1995
|
30. On 7 January 2005 the Directorate sent a letter to the applicant which read as follows:
“ ... The Directorate ... has taken note of the final decision of the European Court of Human Rights (First Section) ... on the admissibility of the application in the case of Natella Kaftailova v. Latvia.
The Directorate has explored the options currently available under Latvian legislation which might make it possible to regularise your stay in Latvia; it therefore invites you to take this opportunity to have your legal status in Latvia determined and to obtain a residence permit.
On
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.