target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
Between 1966 and 1994
|
9. The applicant, Mr Celalettin Yöyler, is a Turkish citizen who was born in 1941 and is at present living in Istanbul (Turkey). Until June 1994 the applicant lived in the village of Dirimpınar, attached to the Malazgirt district in the province of Muş.
|
5 February 1996
|
16. On 11 December 1995, the applicant was released to open arrest. The court-martial hearing, fixed for 20 November 1995, was adjourned in light of the delay in receiving the medical records. The hearing was then fixed for
|
15 years old
|
8. On 8 November 2005 the applicant and his friends stole an item from a man. Between 15 and 30 January 2006 the applicant and a group of his friends partly attempted and partly succeeded in stealing the handbags of nine elderly women through threats or the use of force. The applicant was
|
4 June 2002
|
51. On 2 June 2002 the applicant travelled to the Shali military commander's office and talked to the military commander, who told her not to worry and reassured her that all would be fine with her husband. On the same day she also travelled to Grozny, where she complained in person and in writing to the Chechnya administration and the military commander's office. On
|
8 July 2005
|
31. On 6 July 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office sought the assistance of the Italian Interforce Police Liaison Office in Albania (“the Interforze”), as regards the status of the applicant’s child in Italy. On
|
19 September 2002
|
18. In August and October 2003 the Vorkuta Town Court inquired the experts about the progress in their work. On 1 April 2004 the experts informed the Town Court that the expert report had been submitted to it on
|
29 January 1999
|
10. On 11 May 1995 the Fier Commission recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 55,200 sq. m of which 8,186 sq. m were restored. It also decided that the Commission would decide on the compensation of the remaining plot at a further moment. On
|
of 16 years
|
20. The relevant provisions of the Hague Convention, which entered into force in respect of Romania on 30 September 1992, read, in so far as relevant, as follows.
Article 3
“The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.”
Article 4
“The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age
|
16 April 2004
|
25. Under a rule which made it unnecessary to wait until the end of the grace period if there was evidence that the dispute between the tax authority and the taxpayer was insoluble, the Ministry did not wait until
|
twenty-three years and six months
|
31. Taking into account the Supreme Court’s judgment and its legal interpretation of the crime in question, the District Court once again found the applicant guilty of, inter alia, the criminal offence of endangering public safety, the illegal acquisition, possession and trafficking of firearms, the making of serious threats, extortion, and attempted bodily harm and sentenced him to
|
2 July 2002
|
15. Meanwhile, on 16 July 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 29 September 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her complaint finding that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. In particular, it found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that she had failed to attend the hearing of
|
19 March 2007
|
20. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning M.M.’s death, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of chemical analysis report no. 2375 dated
|
9 November 1992
|
13. On 30 June 2011, acting on behalf of the municipality, the prosecutor brought an action against Kh., L. and Ya. to seek repossession of the flat and the annulment of all transactions executed in respect of it. The prosecutor argued that Kh., had never resided in the flat and that the flat had never been transferred to him from the municipality under a privatisation scheme. The prosecutor asked the court to invalidate the privatisation agreement of
|
15 December 2000
|
10. On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of
|
the following seven days
|
15. On 21 March 2009 the DPP made an application to the County Court under paragraph 36 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act for a seven-day extension to the period specified in the warrant for further detention. The extension was sought as the results of further forensic tests which had been sent for analysis to a laboratory in Great Britain were expected to become available within
|
15 June 2010
|
20. The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining his claims and adding that the spelling of his name differed in the various documents because the transcriptions from Arabic had been made by different persons. He had his passport but had been afraid to hand it over to the Migration Board for fear of being returned to Libya. His relationship with N. was serious; they were married and lived together. It would also become known in Libya that he was homosexual if he were to apply for a residence permit from there, which would expose him to a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment. Moreover, he would not be able to apply for a residence permit from Libya since Sweden had a consulate only in Benghazi. He submitted a copy of his passport, from which it appeared that he had been granted a Schengen visa by the Maltese Embassy in Tripoli in May 2010 and that he had entered Sweden on
|
29 September 1998
|
14. On 29 September 1998 the Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board’s recommendation that the applicant should be transferred to a category D prison. He directed that the applicant should be moved to a category C prison. The reasons for his decision were set out as follows in a memorandum of
|
sixty days following 31 January 2001
|
12. On different dates the applicants applied to the Board and claimed compensation arguing that they had lost their shares in Demirbank, as a result of its transfer to the Fund. The Board did not respond to the applicants’ claims within the statutory period. The applicants therefore applied to the administrative courts and requested the annulment of the Board’s implied rejection of their compensation claims. However, the administrative courts dismissed the applicants’ cases as out of time on the ground that they should have initiated proceedings at the latest within
|
4 July 2011
|
6. The first applicant worked as a foster parent at the Călăraşi office of the Office for Social Care and Child Protection (Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială şi Protecția Copilului, hereinafter “the DGASPC”) from 1999 to
|
fourteen days’
|
10. After holding a hearing, the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. In its decision of 17 June 2002 it found that an alcohol level in the applicant’s breath of 0.59 mg/l could be considered to have been confirmed, since allowance had to be made for a possible inaccuracy in the result of the breathalyser test. Consequently, it convicted the applicant under sections 5(1) and 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for a fine of between EUR 581 and EUR 3,633, and reduced the fine to EUR 1,000 with
|
17 July 2005
|
47. It quashed the first applicant’s conviction in respect of the offence of failure to perform her duties and of exceeding her authority (point IV of the operative provisions of the trial court’s judgment). The reason given was that the offence had become subject to limitation on
|
21 to 22 January
|
12. On the morning of 21 January 2000 the applicant and Larisa D. set off for Grozny. The applicant took her passport and 500 roubles (RUR), of which she paid RUR 100 for the bus trip to the outskirts of Grozny. They spent the night of
|
20 June 2007
|
109. The relevant part of the statement given by lawyer S.S. reads as follows:
“I remember that I participated in the questioning of the defendant on the premises of the Fifth Police Station in Zagreb on
|
29 February 2008
|
12. On 6 February 2008 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of fifteen months (judgment no. 53/2008). This decision was certified on
|
11 January 1999
|
37. On 20 October 1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 24 November 1998 a legal-aid lawyer was appointed for her. On
|
4 March 2004
|
22. When questioned A. testified that at the end of December 2003, on the order of his superiors, he had established a relationship of trust with the applicant, who had also introduced him to V. and Ku. He further stated that with the support of the police department he had helped the applicant to find accommodation. She had moved into a flat in the dormitory block belonging to the police department with V. and Ku. On
|
8 April 1999
|
10. In 1996 the applicants brought before the Bucharest District Court an action for recovery of possession in respect of property that had been nationalised by Decree no. 92/1950. Situated in Bucharest, at 184-B Calea Griviţei, the property consisted of a house divided into flats and the land on which it was built. At the time, one of the flats was occupied by E.D. under a tenancy agreement entered into with the State in 1986 and extended until
|
fifteen-year
|
19. On 22 November 2004 the Khanty-Mansi Town Court resumed the proceedings and delivered a new judgment on the same day. It held that the refusal to register the Surgut Church had been unlawful because in the absence of a certificate showing its
|
12 October 2006
|
28. The first-instance judgment was challenged by the applicant and his counsel. In his appeal the applicant argued, inter alia, that the trial court had breached the rules of criminal procedure by placing excessive reliance on the practice of reading out the statements given by witnesses in the course of the investigation. He alleged that the trial court had failed to clarify all relevant circumstances of the case, in particular by refusing to hear the thirteen witnesses indicated in his pleading of
|
12 May 2004
|
23. By an interlocutory judgment of 17 June 2004 the Târgu‑Mureş Court of Appeal, in the absence of the applicant, who had been summoned, but in the presence of his chosen lawyer, suspended the appeal proceedings against the interlocutory judgment of
|
8 December 2009
|
9. On 16 November 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal re-examined the review request and allowed it. The court relied on grounds other than those relied upon by the defendant in framing the request. In particular, the court relied on a Government decision from 2005, in accordance with which the disputed goods had been transferred to the defendant’s control. The court quashed the final judgment of
|
26 July 2006
|
11. On 27 November 2004 the second applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 23 February 2001. The debt due to him by the judgment of 1 February 2001 was paid to him in several instalments, the final one being made on
|
12 March 2002
|
9. On 8 March 1999 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 5 February 2002 the applicant urged the court to decide on the appeal.
On 1 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on
|
the end of that year
|
20. On 20 August 2002 the first applicant and on 14 October 2002 the second applicant lodged observations in reply. Both applicants had previously been informed by the Federal Constitutional Court, at their request, that the court would not take a decision before
|
24 April 1998
|
22. On 8 June 2004 the Prosecutor General's Office wrote to the Ministry as follows:
“...during the proceedings [between Oferta Plus, Moldtranselectro and the Ministry of Finance] Oferta Plus and Moldtranselectro presented invoices for MDL 15,608,692, of which by
|
four or five days
|
140. The interveners, including the applicant, did not attend this hearing. The court examined five master sergeants, Yusuf Karakoç, Mustafa Ten, Süleyman Altuner, Murat Gömek and Ramazan Baygeldi. They all stated that a military doctor carried out examinations every day in the detention area of the interrogation centre. Some of them added that the interrogation centre conformed to the requisite standards and that the rooms where interrogations were conducted were not equipped with sound insulation. Therefore, if Yakup Aktaş had been tortured or subjected to violence during his interrogation then the sounds of his cries and screams would have been audible outside those rooms, but they had not heard anything of that nature. According to Master Sergeants Yusuf Karakoç and Ramazan Baygeldi, the defendant Major Özen had gone on leave
|
every two months
|
10. On the same day, the police (immigration branch) issued a detention order in terms of the Immigration Act (Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta) and Subsidiary Legislation 420.06 “Reception of Asylum Seekers Regulations” (hereinafter “the Reception Regulations” – see Relevant domestic law below) on the grounds that the elements on which the applicant’s application for international protection had been based could not be determined in the absence of detention, in particular due to the risk of absconding. He was informed that he had the right to appeal this decision before the Immigration Appeals Board (hereinafter “the Board”) within three days. He was further informed that the Board would automatically review this order within seven days from the date of its issuance, which could be extended by a further seven days; and that if he remained in detention a further review would occur
|
12 June 2007
|
44. On 17 April 2007 the Federal Court of Justice refused the applicant company leave to appeal on points of law on the ground that the case did not raise a question of fundamental importance and was not necessary for the development of the law or to guarantee uniformity of the case-law. On
|
27 April 2004
|
133. Lawyers M.A. and V.Y. stated that on 24 April 2004 they had received telephone calls from investigator A.H. who had invited them to the Military Prosecutor’s Office to take up the applicants’ defence, since a lawyer’s participation was mandatory in cases involving servicemen. They were presented to the second applicant, who was asked to choose between them, so he chose lawyer M.A. Lawyer M.A. stated that, from that moment, he participated in all the interviews and confrontations involving the second applicant. On
|
26 June 2001
|
37. By letter of 13 June 2001 the first deputy commander of the United Group Alignment in the Northern Caucasus (первый заместитель командующего ОГВ(с) в СКР – “the deputy commander”) informed the Nadterechny District Court that the judgment in the applicant's favour had been executed and the defendant units had left the applicant's estate. In reply, on
|
29 November 2001
|
15. On 27 May 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal lodged by the Chief Doctor of the Hospital against the judgment of 29 November 2001 for want of substantiation. The institution of the cassation proceedings did not suspend the enforcement of the judgment of
|
10 November 2015
|
10. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had erred by dismissing part of his claim as time-barred, that the conditions in Lukiškės Remand Prison had not improved and that his health had deteriorated because of them. On
|
16 August 1999
|
32. On 17 July 1999 the applicant was administered a blood test in the facility hospital against his will. His father complained to the facility administration. The administration replied, by letter of
|
between 25 October and 2 November 2007
|
16. The first report, of a comprehensive alternative forensic expert examination, was prepared by a panel of experts at a private forensic science centre. The descriptive part of the report no. 42/k, which reflected results of an examination carried out
|
11 February and 14 December 2000
|
12. On 18 May 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 1,000 sq. m. It ordered that the plot of land should be entirely restored to the applicants. On
|
about two or three months ago
|
67. She further said that she had wanted to bring some medicine for her son in prison, but the prison governor had not given the permission to do so. She stated: “The medicine for tuberculosis or flu, general painkillers, I used to bring them regularly. However, the ones like animal fat were first allowed only
|
May-June 2005
|
90. In a letter of 7 February 2005 the Main Department for Civil Defence and Emergency Situations of the Primorskiy Region notified the second applicant of the allocation in 2004 of funds for work to repair the consequences of the flood of 7 August 2001. According to the letter, the work was scheduled for
|
From 28 April to 4 May 2007
|
18. The applicant accepted the veracity of the information submitted by the Government as regards the cell numbers and size, the number of sleeping places per cell and the periods of his detention there. As regards the cell population, the applicant submitted as follows:
Cell no.
Period of detention
Surface area (in square metres)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
109
|
24 November
|
28. By a judgment of 14 November 2007 the Cluj County Court dismissed O.M.M.’s request for a psychological evaluation of the child, on the ground that it would be inconclusive for the case, and allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. It also allowed the applicant to take the child away from O.M.M.’s home every year on
|
8 December 2005
|
31. On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General, claiming that there were no legal grounds for joining the applicant’s case to Farhad Aliyev’s case because they had each been charged with totally unrelated offences. On
|
16 April 1996
|
10. On 31 March 1996 the applicant asked the Chamber of Lawyers to strike him out of the List of Lawyers (Rechtsanwaltsliste) for health reasons. On 30 April 1996 the Chamber of Lawyers informed the applicant that it had taken note of his request. However, the Government submitted that the plenary assembly of the Chamber of Lawyers had struck the applicant out of the List of Lawyers on
|
20 February 2002
|
54. On an unspecified date, the first applicant sought an injunction in the Hamburg Regional Court against any further publication of the photo that had appeared in the magazine Frau Aktuell, issue no. 9/02 of
|
sixteen years old
|
6. Mr Burhaan Abdullahi Elmi entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat on 16 August 2012. Upon arrival, he was registered by the immigration police and given an identification number (12U-029). During the registration process the immigration authorities asked the applicant to provide his personal details, including name, nationality, and age. He informed them that he was born in 1996 and therefore was
|
14 and 15 April 2003
|
20. The Government, relying on a certificate issued on 10 December 2007 by the director of facility no. IZ-37/1, submitted that during the period in question the applicant had been detained in three different cells. Cell no. 135, where he was detained on
|
six months’
|
15. On 15 June 2001, at the second hearing, the Istanbul public prosecutor presented his opinion (esas hakkında mütalaa) to the first‑instance court in the absence of the applicant. In his opinion, the public prosecutor advised that the court should find the applicant guilty as charged. The Istanbul Criminal Court accordingly convicted the applicant at the end of the hearing, and sentenced him to
|
2 February 2006
|
8. On 14 February 2006 the applicant was taken into extended detention on remand (gevangenhouding) for thirty days by order of the Haarlem Regional Court following a hearing in camera. This decision stated the following grounds:
“considering that the Regional Court finds, after examining the case, that the suspicion, indications and grounds which have led to the order for the suspect’s initial detention on remand still obtain;
considering that the existence of these grounds is borne out by the conduct, facts and circumstances stated in the order for the suspect’s initial detention on remand, given on
|
20 September 2007
|
9. Also on 18 June 2007 the CASA sent the applicant company aviation instruction no. 2585 requesting it to undertake measures with a view to remedying some of the irregularities before 20 July 2007 and other irregularities before
|
21 April 2006
|
7. On 4 January 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court. After she had rectified her appeal on 27 February 2006 and the District Court had sent the case file to the Supreme Court on
|
December 1993
|
8. The applicant brought the matter to the attention of the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities on 2 June 1993. On 14 December 1993 the Vidin District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the incident and in
|
23 May 2001
|
31. From 21 to 23 May 2001 the investigators questioned S. and some other witnesses who brought further clarifications into the incident in the bar K. Furthermore, they undertook a number of other procedural steps in order to complete the investigation. However, they could not question K-va who had resided in Turkey. On
|
2 June 2006
|
21. On 24 January 2007 the Prague Municipal Court upheld that decision. In respect of the period up to 20 March 2003, it held that rents had been regulated by several regulations. Although these had subsequently been repealed by the Constitutional Court, its judgments were not of retroactive effect and thus the previous contractual relationships remained unchanged. As a result, no compensation could be awarded for that period. As regards the subsequent period, the court held that the impossibility of reaching an agreement on deregulating legislation by Parliament could not be qualified as an “incorrect official procedure” within the meaning of the State Liability Act. State responsibility could however flow from general liability under civil law. Yet, it would be very difficult to establish a causal link between the damage and an unconstitutional failure on the part of the State to enact deregulating legislation. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s judgments nos. Pl. ÚS 20/05 and I. ÚS 489/05 (see paragraphs 105 and 118 of Annex II), the court held that as of
|
28 February 2003
|
60. On the same day the Rostov Regional Court examined the case on appeal. The court heard submissions by the judge rapporteur and prosecutor, but the applicant's counsel was not present at the hearing. The judgment of
|
between 1 February 2014 and 1 June 2017
|
9. On 17 February 2017 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the public school remaining in its premises, requesting its relocation, as well as damages for the use of the premises for the period
|
12 December 2009
|
17. Later that day, the applicant was brought before the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court, where he pleaded innocent and asked to be released. The applicant’s legal representative noted that his client had been beaten during his arrest and that he had not sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as the result of a fall. The applicant was subsequently detained on remand on suspicion of membership of the PKK on account of his alleged involvement in the events of
|
28 September 2005
|
21. On 21 October 2005 the applicant’s representatives, Mrs Moskalenko and Mrs Arutyunyan, submitted observations in reply to the Government’s memorandum and claims for just satisfaction. They enclosed, in particular, the following documents:
(a) legal-assistance agreement no. 032 of
|
December 1963
|
99. The Report contains one page on which information on Yusuf Ekinci's personal background and activities is set out. This pages states:
“Yusuf Ekinci
Son of Kamil, and born in Lice-Diyarbakır in 1942.
In June 1963 he was a second year student at the Ankara University, Faculty of Law. He was known as a pro-Kurdish socialist. In
|
1 April 2002
|
32. On 4 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the decision of 1 April 2002, but his appeal was never considered. The Government submitted that on 26 July 2002 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court had extended the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of
|
24 September 2004
|
31. On 29 November 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 24 September 2004 and remitted the case to the investigator for additional examination. The prosecutor noted that the decision of
|
A week later
|
31. The applicant was taken to the intensive care unit of remand prison no. IZ-77/1, where he continued his drug regimen in line with the hospital’s recommendations. The doctors were, however, unable to ensure any improvement in his conditions.
|
eighty days
|
34. On 6 September 2000 the head of the criminal investigation unit reported that because Mr Denisov had intentionally delayed the review of the case documents and had refused to review them on several occasions, he and his lawyer had been given
|
5 June 2002
|
178. He returned to Slovenia on several occasions. In 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police in Slovenia because he was working without a permit. He was prosecuted, ordered to pay a fine and on
|
2 July 2004
|
17. On 5 March 2007 the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office once again refused to open a criminal case against the police officers, having discerned no corpus delicti in their actions. It referred in particular to the findings of the police internal inquiry, according to which the applicant’s allegation was unsubstantiated. As regards the applicant’s injuries documented on
|
30 June and 18 October 2001
|
52. The Government further submitted that the investigating authorities had granted the status of victim to the applicant, but failed to specify the date. According to them, the applicant had been questioned on
|
29 August 2001
|
14. On 25 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued two decisions. By virtue of the first decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued starting from 1 July 2002. By virtue of the second decision, the Board revoked the initial decision of
|
27 September and 11 October 2011
|
5. The applicant was detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison periodically between 7 June 2011 and 25 May 2012. He was held in other facilities between 21 June and 5 July 2011; 30 August and 6 September 2011;
|
16 August 2004
|
57. On 13 July and 5 August 2004 the North Caucasus military prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s requests for assistance in establishing her son’s whereabouts to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. On
|
more than five years
|
23. On 14 May 2013 the Federal Administrative Court, on the applicant’s appeal, reduced the duration of the re-entry ban to seven years due to proportionality considerations. It found that the conditions in Article 67 §§ 2 lit. a and 3 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals for the issuance of an entry ban for a period of
|
18 February 2004
|
9. In the fresh proceedings a panel of two different professional judges and three different lay judges of the Split County Court heard evidence from A.B. in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer on
|
October 2005
|
45. In June 2005, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 61149 that had been opened into the abduction of Vakhid Musikhanov. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government replied that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of “the documents [disclosing military information and personal data concerning the witnesses], and without the right to make copies of the case file or transmit it to others”. In
|
26 May 2005
|
15. On 26 May 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 March 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 6 July 2007 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, dismissed the appeals in cassation of P.V., P.O. and the applicant, and upheld the decision of
|
10 December 2009
|
48. As regards the article of 10 December 2009, the court noted that it had been published the day before B.’s appearance in the criminal court and that it clearly suggested that he was guilty, as he was portrayed as an individual against whom there was “a series of sufficiently strong presumptions [that he had committed] the offence of undue influence”. It took the view that the court below had wrongly regarded the aim of informing the public as prevailing over the means used, namely illegal methods whereby extracts had been selected from statements collected in an investigation in order to show that B. had committed the offence of undue influence, whereas there had been no judicial decision to that effect. It could be understood by the reader that B. was not telling the truth about Mrs Bettencourt’s mental health and that his guilt was “doubly suggested” in the introduction (citing an extract from the prosecution document, which fell under section 38) and in the conclusion. It added as follows:
“... The reasoning given by the court below is tantamount to legitimising the practice, which is legally prohibited, of publishing extracts from an investigation file before they are read out in open court, first, on account of the interest of the subject, and secondly, while noting B.’s claim that his right to be presumed innocent was breached.
The court cannot agree with the reasoning of the court below ...
The article of
|
2 October 2014
|
14. Following a suggestion by ZPH that there was no need for the applicant’s further hospitalisation, on 29 September 2014 the head office of the Prisons Administration ordered his transfer to Zagreb Prison. On
|
28 November 2000
|
23. On 23 October 2000 the applicant filed his last appeal against his detention. He claimed that the length of the detention itself, which at that time was over nineteen months, was in contravention with the aims and purposes of the measure to detain a defendant on remand. He claimed that there was no longer evidence that he might abscond, re-offend or hinder the investigation and objected to the courts' reliance on the seriousness of the offence as the primary ground for refusing his appeals against his detention. The Varna Regional Court ruled on this appeal after having delivered its judgment at the hearing on
|
19 July 2001
|
10. On 23 May 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court refused their application because the enforcement proceedings were still pending and because they had in the meantime advanced by thirty positions on the waiting list. On
|
30 December 2010
|
11. On 10 December 2010 the applicant was transferred from a remand prison to a civilian hospital in Lyskovo on account of acute deep-vein thrombophlebitis. According to him, that condition had developed as a result of the removal of his prosthetic leg, which had caused him to place increased weight on his right leg. After successful surgery the applicant was discharged from the hospital on
|
ten months’
|
16. At the hearing held on 24 July 2003, the applicant made his defence submissions in relation to the merits of the case and denied the allegations against him. He further stated that his only mistake had been not registering Mehmet Desde and M.B. in his hotel’s guestbook. At the same hearing the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713 as then in force and sentenced him to
|
24 October 2014
|
43. After viewing them, the applicant considered that the copious documentation that had been made available to him (accounts of companies traceable to him and a series of bank transfers) only concerned the charges against him and not the alleged behaviour which had led the inquiring judge to decide to dismiss his application for bail. On
|
15 March 2002
|
29. On 20 May 2002 the applicant’s lawyer filed a request for the applicant’s release with the Governor of the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (the Simferopol SIZO). The request was based on the argument that the term of the applicant’s detention pending trial, as authorised by the Kerch Court in the detention order of
|
18 June 2005
|
22. In so far as relevant in the context of the present case, the claimant’s request for an interim injunction was rejected by the Vienna Commercial Court, which gave its decision on 29 March 2005, and by the Vienna Court of Appeal, which gave its decision on
|
more than two years
|
14. On 6 July 2005 the applicant sent the court a letter, raising the claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage by LTL 5,000 and requesting that she be awarded LTL 8,740 in total under that head. She noted that her family had been suffering for
|
8 January 1997
|
26. On 25 November 1996 she requested the court to question two other witnesses in respect of the child's attitude towards the applicant. A hearing scheduled for 13 December 1996 was adjourned upon the applicant's request until
|
12 April 1994
|
38. In stating its reasons for the judgment, the court observed, firstly:
“The Court notes that the injured party has always been present, both in the Constanţa Court of First Instance and in the Lehliu-Gară Court of First Instance, whereas the defendants have generally been absent without justification, despite having been lawfully summoned. In support of her prior complaint, the injured party, Mrs [R.M.], sought leave to produce documentary evidence. Mrs [R.M.] submitted a copy of the
|
16 April 2007
|
41. In a judgment of 22 May 2007, the Guardianship Division of the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed the father’s appeal. Having carried out an additional investigation, and taking into account the expert’s report by Dr B. of
|
12 September 2006
|
19. The applicant’s cassation appeal was dismissed on 17 April 2008 by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). The Supreme Court examined inter alia the applicant’s complaint that Judge R.K. had participated in his trial at the first and, on two occasions, the second instance. It dismissed the argument that such participation had given rise to doubts regarding his impartiality, finding that the judge in question had not been a member of the panel that had given a decision at first instance. As regards the applicant’s complaint that Judge R.K. had been a member of the panel of the second-instance court twice, the court noted that, according to the domestic law, such judge was not ex lege excluded from dealing with the case. It was however open to the party having doubts as to the lack of impartiality of the judge to challenge him or her during the proceedings; the applicant had failed to do that. Since the applicant accepted the composition of the second-instance court which gave the judgment on
|
4 April 2012
|
18. On 26 March 2012 the investigators granted Mr I.G. victim status in the criminal case (see paragraph
37 below) and ordered a forensic medical examination of the bruises received during the abduction. On
|
From 2004 to 1 February 2014
|
68. With regard to psychiatric treatment, the document submitted by the Government indicates that the applicant was treated by various French‑speaking psychiatrists. The frequency of the consultations is not specified.
|
21 August 1991
|
12. On 7 December 1989 the Company of Housing Economy (Przedsiębiorstwo Gospodarki Mieszkaniowej) informed the applicant's mother about the termination of the lease contract. This decision was enforced on
|
20 February 2001
|
38. On 30 November 2000 the proceedings were reopened in order to determine whether the criminal proceedings had been finalised. The parties were summoned for 23 January 2001. Noting the applicant’s absence, the court adjourned the hearings until
|
24 May 1999
|
9. On 18 May 1999 the court asked the Svitavy District Police Directorate (okresní ředitelství policie) to verify the identification data of the lorry concerned. The court received this information on
|
26 March 2007
|
36. Following the request of the applicant for the recalculation of his prison sentence resulting from the two criminal judgements, the one of 30 May 2001 and the last one, of 14 June 2005, taking into account the part of the prison sentence already served by the applicant, the County Court of Argeş decided in its final decision of
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.