target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
17 October 2001
|
21. In the meantime, on 16 October 2001 having regard to the findings indicated in the bone scintigraphy, the International Law Department of the Ministry of Justice consulted the Directorate General of Criminal Law Issues as to whether a writ of mandamus (yazılı emir) should be issued to restart the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. On
|
the past five years
|
25. T. also considered it necessary to note that the article contained a number of statements with contemptuous, angry stylistic connotations expressing a distinctly negative assessment of the actions of Russia’s servicemen and governance of the military and political authorities of Russia, such as “this criminal madness by the [bloody] Kremlin regime”, “Russia’s invaders and their accomplices, who have been committing excesses in the territory of the CRI for
|
11 January 2007
|
9. According to the Government, on 10 January 2007 at around 10.15 p.m. the police officers asked the applicant to go with them to the police station. The applicant refused, shouting obscenities. His reaction made the officers suspect that he might be in possession of a weapon which he could use against them. They made the decision to use force to arrest the applicant, and when he resisted they restrained him, using a combative technique. The police officers then took the applicant to the police station, where he was subjected to a medical examination due to his inebriated state. The medical report prepared on
|
16 February 2002
|
17. On 28 February 2002, after a new report of concern, this time by a named third party, Mr R, who was a police officer, the child welfare services at Hillevåg opened a new investigation (hereinafter referred to as “the second investigation”). The source referred to an incident which he had observed while off duty near an ice hockey arena on
|
October 2002
|
34. On 26 April 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. It examined, in particular, witness I. Sh. (see paragraphs 24 and 28 above) who stated before the court that the applicant had not complained about any ill-treatment by the police officers and that he had not seen any injures on the applicant. According to Mr I. Sh., his previous statements to the contrary had been false and had been given at the request of the applicant’s parents and defence counsel in order to help the applicant. Two other witnesses, Mr R. and Mr S., who had also been held in the applicant’s cell at some point in
|
between 19 September and 10 December 2002
|
21. On 24 August 2012 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals by Mr S. Selami and the applicants and allowed the appeal by the Solicitor General. It overturned the lower court’s judgment and awarded Mr S. Selami the equivalent of EUR 9,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage due to his “unjustified detention
|
more than three years
|
64. On 28 February 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court, sitting in private, gave the applicant leave to call one witness and denied his request for an inspection of the detention facility. It held that, since
|
24 May 2000
|
25. On 12 September 2000 the Zadar State Attorney's Office lodged a bill of indictment against the applicants and four other persons, including T.J., one of the officers who carried out the search of the first applicant's vehicle on
|
16 May 1997
|
23. On 21 August 1997 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost), supplementing it on 25 September 1997 upon the Constitutional Court’s (Ústavní soud) request of 2 September 1997. He complained that he had not been duly invited to the hearing held before the Municipal Court on
|
9 April 2008
|
34. Following the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment of 4 May 2011 (see paragraphs 52-55 below), the applicant again requested the Marburg Regional Court to order his release. On 30 August 2011 the Marburg Regional Court refused to suspend the applicant’s preventive detention, ordered retrospectively on
|
21 November 1998
|
25. The Government contended that a copy of the above resolution was sent to the applicant on 14 January 1998. The applicant maintained, however, that he never received it and that he only became aware of the decisions of the Prosecutor's Office not to open a preliminary investigation on
|
30 December 2002
|
52. The applicant further complained that during the pre-trial proceedings he had not been allowed to choose his lawyer and that the lawyer appointed to represent him by the investigator had had a “preconceived” attitude towards his duties and had not been “interested in defending” him. The applicant stated that no lawyer had been present during the search of his rented house on
|
28 January 1998
|
11. On 4 December 1997 the parties requested that the District Court adjourn a hearing, which had been scheduled for later that day, because they wanted to settle the case out of court. The hearing was adjourned until
|
24 April 2001
|
29. On 9 February 2001 the Regional Court appointed a medical expert who submitted his opinion on 24 March 2001. On 3 April 2001 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to comment on this opinion, which he did on
|
1 December 2005
|
24. On 6 December 2005 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the latter extension. On 16 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the contested decision. On 15 December 2005 the applicant himself appealed against the decision of
|
8 April 2010
|
7. On 26 February 2011 the Pest Central District Court remanded the applicant in custody under Article 129 § 2 (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on suspicion of aggravated murder within the meaning of Article 166 § 1 of the Criminal Code. It summarised the suspicions against him, referred to police reports, an autopsy report, the victim’s medical documents, examinations of various exhibits and witness testimonies, and concluded that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had poisoned the victim on
|
7 April 2004
|
17. On 21 June 2002, at the close of the prosecution case, the trial judge dismissed the gross negligence manslaughter charge, on the grounds of lack of causation and the charge of misconduct in public office, on the ground that there was no evidence of “deliberately overlooking” the risk that Mr Alder was in need of medical care. All officers were acquitted and their suspension was lifted. Further to the Attorney-General’s request for an advisory opinion on the elements of the offence of misconduct in public office, on
|
30 March 2011
|
18. On the application form, the applicant stated that he had managed to contact a lawyer at around 8 p.m.
In his written observations to the Grand Chamber, the applicant alleged that towards 11 p.m., he and one of his colleagues had been taken to the prosecutor’s office on the first floor. The prosecutor, another man and two women were present in the office. The prosecutor allegedly suggested to the applicant that he state that the commanding officers at Bucharest police section no. 5 were guilty of corruption. He added that in exchange, the applicant would not be placed in pre-trial detention and would be able to see his family again soon. The applicant asked for assistance from a lawyer of his choosing. The prosecutor replied that the two women present were officially appointed lawyers and asked him to select one of them to assist him. The applicant refused. He claimed that the prosecutor began to “insult him” and to threaten that if he did not cooperate, he would be placed in detention and would be forbidden family visits. He was taken out of the office by a gendarme, who was instructed to prevent him from speaking to anyone and from going to the toilet without the prosecutor’s permission.
At the public hearing on
|
18 April 1994
|
14. On 12 May 1995 the investigator in charge of the case drew up his final report, concluding that chief sergeants B.I. and H.T. should be tried for wilfully inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr Nikolov and thus having negligently caused his death, contrary to Article 124 § 1 of the CC (see paragraph 37 below). He also concluded that the two officers who had arrested Mr N.R. should be tried for inflicting light bodily harm on him. He noted, inter alia, that all of the officers had denied any wrongdoing, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, had drawn no lessons from their act and had shown no signs of remorse. He also noted that chief sergeant B.I. and one of the officers who had assaulted Mr N.R. had been charged with inflicting light bodily harm on another person on
|
25 August 2000
|
8. At the same time the applicant enclosed a copy of her application to the Chairman of the National Public Commission for Investigation of Offences and Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus of
|
8 March 2007
|
17. In a letter dated 13 March 2007, the Reintegration Minister of the Republic of Moldova informed the second applicant about the refusal of the Transdniestrian and Russian members of the JCC, to examine the incident relating to the seizure of his car. The second applicant was also informed that the Ministry of Reintegration had brought the applicant’s case to the attention of the United States, European Union and Ukrainian ambassadors to Chisinau. A general issue concerning respect for human rights in Transdniestria was raised by the Moldovan representative to the OSCE on
|
28 December 2001
|
16. Subsequently, on 17 November 2004 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court, claiming compensation. On 13 October 2005 the Istanbul Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s case, holding that he had failed to bring his case within the one-year time-limit following the decision of the Bakırköy Assize Court dated
|
14 March 2006
|
32. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention and on their constitutional counterparts, the applicant made four main complaints.
First, after her arrest, the applicant had not been informed promptly of the reasons for it and of the charge against her.
Second, in violation of the applicable procedural rules, the applicant had not been informed of her procedural rights as a person charged.
Third, the decision of the Regional Court of
|
February 2003
|
33. According to the applicant, the general conditions of his detention in those facilities were similar. Relying on written statements by his former fellow inmates, he argued that he had been detained in three different cells in facility no. IZ-47/1 and ten different cells in facility no. IZ-47/4. The cells had six sleeping places and housed from eight to twenty-five inmates. Given the lack of beds, inmates slept in shifts. The sanitary conditions were unsatisfactory. The lavatory pan was not separated from the rest of the cell. At no time did inmates have complete privacy. Anything the applicant happened to be doing – using the toilet, sleeping – was subject to observations by warders or inmates. The cells were infected with bedbugs and lice but the administration did not provide any insecticide. Windows, measuring 0.6 square metres, were covered with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light and fresh air. The bars were only removed in
|
21 January 2011
|
12. On 20 December 2010 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal against the decision of 17 December 2010 alleging that there were no grounds for the applicant’s extradition and that he should be released. The appeal hearing was first scheduled for
|
4 July 2006
|
5. In March 2002, the applicant, who was a working as a civil servant, was dismissed due gross misconduct. He applied to the administrative courts to have the annulment of that decision. In the course of the proceedings, on
|
18 February 1999
|
10. On 8 February 1999 S. obtained a certificate from the National Bank of Moldova confirming the credit agreement with “Kungan Overseas Corp.”. It transferred MDL 20,150,000 to the State budget within the new deadline established by the Auction Commission. On
|
the latest three days
|
32. Section 73 of the Federal Law on international mutual assistance in criminal matters of 20 March 1981 contains a provision on safe conduct in Switzerland:
Section 73: Safe conduct in Switzerland
“1. A person habitually resident abroad and who appears in Switzerland in a criminal case pursuant to a summons may neither be prosecuted nor restricted in his personal freedom on the basis of reasons that pre-date his entry into Switzerland. 3. The safe conduct provided for in paragraph 1 shall cease when the person leaves Switzerland and at
|
30 March 2002
|
15. On 8 April 2002 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance, accusing the applicant and Mr Z.K. of theft on 6 February 2002 and of attempted theft on
|
The same day
|
13. During the night of 24 May 2003 the applicant, still being detained at the police station, asked to use the toilet. When allowed to use it, he cut his left-hand arterial vein. When the resultant bleeding was seen he was delivered to a local public hospital.
|
Two days later
|
12. On 3 February 1996 Emin Yıldırım was admitted to Diyarbakır General Hospital in a coma. A computed tomography brain scan revealed a severe haemorrhage in the left frontoparietal region.
An explanatory note attached to the back of the scan image referred to the haemorrhage as “chronic”, in other words resulting from bleeding over a prolonged period.
A life-threatening clinical presentation emerged from subsequent examinations.
|
18 June 2005
|
54. On the same date, the second applicant was also questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case. His statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first and third applicants. The second applicant was subsequently questioned again on two occasions: on
|
three months
|
73. On 27 May 2003 the Head of the medical unit informed the applicant's mother that the applicant had undergone a medical examination. The results of the examination were communicated to the uro-oncologist Dr M., who recommended another examination within
|
12 January 2008
|
47. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and twelve other persons in Tunisia on charges of membership of a terrorist organisation, aiding and abetting the organisation and providing financial support to that organisation. According to a document translated from Arabic into Turkish by the applicant, on
|
13 December 1993
|
18. There are also inconsistencies in Mr D.O.’s statements as to whether he saw Mr Stefanov’s fall at all. When first questioned about the incident on 8 June 1993, he stated that he had not directly seen Mr Stefanov jump. During his second questioning on
|
about three months later
|
17. In particular, the applicant submitted that upon arrival he and other detainees had been forced to run through a corridor of soldiers who beat them with great force using rubber truncheons, rifle butts and wooden hammers. While standing naked in the shower room the applicant was also severely beaten. Some time later while in Chernokozovo the applicant was hit with a rifle butt on the head so hard that it left a deep wound on the left side of his head. The scar was still clearly visible
|
several years
|
21. In his report of 7 December 1989 on the UN operations in Cyprus, the UN Secretary General stated, inter alia:
“A serious situation, however, arose in July as a result of a demonstration by Greek Cypriots in Nicosia. The details are as follows:
(a) In the evening of 19 July, some 1,000 Greek Cypriot demonstrators, mostly women, forced their way into the UN buffer zone in the Ayios Kassianos area of Nicosia. The demonstrators broke through a wire barrier maintained by UNFICYP and destroyed an UNFICYP observation post. They then broke through the line formed by UNFICYP soldiers and entered a former school complex where UNFICYP reinforcements regrouped to prevent them from proceeding further. A short while later, Turkish-Cypriot police and security forces elements forced their way into the area and apprehended 111 persons, 101 of them women;
(b) The Ayios Kassianos school complex is situated in the UN buffer zone. However, the Turkish forces claim it to be on their side of the cease-fire line. Under working arrangements with UNFICYP, the Turkish-Cypriot security forces have patrolled the school grounds for
|
26 May 2000
|
15. On 20 December 2000 and 15 May 2001 the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 9 April 2001 and 13 July 2001 respectively, pending the examination of the request filed by the defendants for supervisory review of the judgment of
|
8 October 2003
|
30. On 28 October 2003 the Nalchik Town Court heard the applicant's complaint against the order of 30 May 2003 annulling his residence permit. The court noted that a residence permit could only be annulled in case of repeated violations of residence regulations, but that this provision was no longer applicable as the administrative proceedings against the applicant had been terminated by the decision of
|
22 April 2003
|
15. On 31 July 2002, after the conviction of 10 January 2002 (see paragraph 9 above), the competent authority of Neustadt ordered the expulsion of the applicant to Turkey. It referred, in particular, to the applicant’s prior convictions. On
|
twenty or twenty-two days
|
21. The applicant explained that he had been in Lebanon for thirty days during the summer of 2009. He had no contacts there but his mother and sister. His other sister lived with her husband and their five children in a refugee camp in Syria. He had stayed there for
|
10 February 2009
|
21. In the evening of 9 February 2009, two guards entered the cell and found the applicant’s son using a wet towel to cool his face. He told them that he had been attacked by D.M. because of a dispute over a USB network key. The operative head of the prison then talked to both prisoners, who reached agreement. After the incident, the applicant’s son’s personal belongings were searched. It was discovered that his computer was connected to the internet and drugs were found in his cupboard. The computer and the drugs were seized. Following the search, the applicant’s son repeatedly said that he would cut or hang himself and that he would not survive the night. The applicant’s son was then transferred to a special cell with video surveillance, where he remained from 10.55 p.m. On
|
1 February 2000
|
11. The applicant appealed to the Uusimaa County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) (which later became the Helsinki Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen)). He requested an oral hearing and that the tax inspector as well as an expert appointed by the applicant be heard as witnesses. On
|
recent years
|
16. During the night of 17 August 1999 the Izmit region, located on the coast of the Marmara Sea, was hit by an earthquake of a magnitude of 7.4 on the Richter scale. The earthquake was one of the deadliest to hit Turkey in
|
13 September 1991
|
18. On 9 September 1991 the mayor of Plăieşii de Jos purchased a dismantled wooden stable in order to provide the Roma with materials for the reconstruction of their homes. The purchase price of 110,400 Romanian lei (“ROL”) was funded by the County of Mureş, following a decision by the Prefect on
|
10 March 2004
|
13. According to the Government, following the public pronouncement of the judgment, the Regional Court had notified the applicant of his right to appeal against conviction and had explained “procedural issues pertaining to lodging an appeal” to him. The Government provided the Court with typed notes signed by the applicant and his lawyer and certifying that they had been served with a copy of the judgment of
|
16 June 2000
|
56. On 15 June 2000, in response to the applicant’s numerous requests, the investigator dealing with his case ordered that a forensic medical report on the applicant’s state of health be obtained. In its report no. 83 of
|
thirty years’
|
16. A report of an interview with his offender supervisor dated 20 January 2009 notes:
“When the question of his current sentence plan targets was raised, he stated that he would not do any of the courses as he hates classrooms and he will not be forced into doing them. When it was explained that this attitude would make it extremely difficult for him to make any progress in his sentence and through the prison system, he stated that he did not care and would stay here ‘for
|
15 October 2003
|
21. Later in 2000 the applicant brought a tort claim against sergeant I.S. and the Pazardzhik police department. On 14 June 2000 the Pazardzhik Regional Court dismissed the claim. On 25 March 2002 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld its judgment. The applicant's ensuing appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme Court of Cassation on
|
6 November 1998
|
7. On 1 October 1998 the first-instance court ordered an expert examination in order to calculate the revenues received by the company and the payments due to the applicant company. On the same day the court suspended proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. By a ruling of
|
the period between 2000 and 2009
|
8. Having received an assignment to write an article on prostitution and the fight against it in the Khabarovsk Region, on 12 May 2009 the applicant wrote to the head of the Khabarovsk Region police department by registered letter, asking for statistical data for his research. The relevant parts read:
“[I am] interested in [receiving] information for
|
the day before
|
16. On 10 May 2005 the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court, having deliberated in private, decided to adjourn its decision in view of the voluminous observations and requests to take evidence submitted by the applicants’ counsel
|
1997 and 1998
|
45. In February 1996 the applicant signalled a medical problem which turned out to be a swollen salivary gland. In April 1996 a medical doctor recommended surgery, but the applicant was only operated in July 1998. The applicant maintained that he had been refused timely surgical help despite his suffering. His medical records disclose that the swollen salivary gland problem persisted throughout
|
8 September 2010
|
37. R.K. was informed about the findings of the fourth expert report on 2 August 2010. She complained to the district prosecutor that she had not been given the opportunity to submit additional questions to the expert, in particular, whether having collided with the car, the motorcycle could have risen up in the air and landed in a different lane, as claimed by some eyewitnesses (see paragraph 28 above). R.K. also complained that the expert had relied on low-quality photographs of the motorcycle but had not examined the motorcycle itself, and that the report’s findings had been incorrect. On
|
16 August 2012
|
8. On 29 March 2012 the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Magnitogorsk sentenced him to thirteen years and ten months’ imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on
|
25 June 2003
|
19. By a decision of 23 December 2005 the Galați Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor’s office and increased the applicant’s sentence to four years’ imprisonment. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. The appeal court acknowledged that the applicant had not been officially notified of the charges against him and he had likewise not been heard by either the investigating authorities or by the first‑instance court. It further held that this situation was the fault of the applicant, who had left the country on
|
five years’
|
7. In March 2010 the applicant was taken into custody and placed in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Київський слідчий ізолятор) (“the SIZO”). On 13 July 2010 the Obolonskyy District Court, Kyiv, sentenced the applicant to
|
9 October 2006
|
38. The decision of 2 December 2008 also referred to the applicant’s statements that immediately before his arrest he had been drinking, and to statements by the investigator from the district police and a police officer who had guarded the applicant at the hospital on
|
19 December 1995
|
19. In the course of the trial the court heard the accused, some of the police officers who had been injured during the bombing of the police vehicle and the police officers who had taken part in various measures during the applicants' detention. During the hearing of one such police officer, the first applicant and another co-accused asked the court not to hear him, alleging that this man was a torturer and had tortured them. The court further examined the video recordings of the reconstruction of events concerning the bombing of the police vehicle. On
|
from October 1997 until June 1998
|
17. The owner of the farm hostel gave evidence on the applicant's behalf. The record of his statement reads, inter alia, as follows:
“[The applicant], under a pseudonym, had stayed at his farm hostel
|
28 July 2000
|
15. According to a letter from the Head of the Medical Department of the Prison Directorate for the Kaliningrad Region, submitted by the Government, the applicant was on admission to the remand centre examined by the general practitioner, the dermatologist, the venerologist and the psychiatrist who found his health to be satisfactory. In the course of a check-up two days after his arrival, on
|
2 August 2007
|
30. Upon a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant on 29 November 2006, regulatory offence proceedings were also initiated before the Budapest XX District Mayor’s Office against Gy.B. for trespass. On
|
the same day
|
11. On 28 March 2008 the applicant’s parents filed a criminal complaint against the police officers involved in his arrest, alleging that as a result of the excessive force used during his arrest, their son’s arm had been broken. On
|
13 September 2000
|
9. On 12 and 13 September 2000 the daily newspaper Sp!ts published two articles, written by the applicant and his colleague Ms S., in which doubts were expressed about the amount of coincidence allegedly involved in the finding of the weapons. The article of
|
16 December 2014
|
55. On 21 November 2014 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) extended the detention of the applicant and his co-defendants. The applicant appealed, complaining that the extension order had been based on the same reasons as before and had been issued in respect of all co‑defendants without examining their particular situations. On
|
18 February 2014
|
23. The first applicant appealed, repeating his previous arguments. He further complained that the District Court had not conducted an in-depth examination of the case. In particular, the District Court had not taken into account the opinion of
|
8 September – 6 November 1961
|
9. The applicant was born in 1960 and he lives in Leicester. He is the eldest of three children. He was in voluntary care with the social services' department of the local authority for five periods during his childhood:
|
7 October 2007
|
27. On 17 September 2007 the same court rejected a further appeal by the applicant against the decision of 7 August 2007. The court noted that following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 7 March 2007 the domestic law had been amended, and it was now possible for a person lacking legal capacity to institute proceedings to have the incapacitation order set aside. However, the amendments to the CCP had been introduced by the law of 9 May 2007, which would enter into force only on
|
26 April 2012
|
55. On 25 April 2012 the applicant asked the Court of Appeal Prosecutor’s Office to take over the case on the grounds that the case was complex and the proceedings had been lengthy. The Prosecutor General granted his request on
|
three years’
|
16. On 4 January 2006 the Town Court, having examined the case in the course of proceedings in which the applicant was represented by an advocate of his choice, found the applicant guilty of abuse of position as charged, and sentenced him to
|
21 October 1996
|
30. On 15 June 1995 the Slovenj Gradec District Public Prosecutor’s Office (Okrožno državno tožilstvo) asked the applicant’s lawyer to add his client’s deposition to the file, which he did on 20 June 1995. On
|
29 June 1990
|
5. On 28 August 1990 the applicant and his wife filed an action with the Bardejov District Court. They claimed that the defendant should be prohibited from entering the plots of land in their ownership and from interfering with their right to peacefully enjoy that property. They also requested that an interim measure should be issued. In the action, the plaintiffs stated, inter alia, that one of the relevant plots had been expropriated from them by the Bardejov National Committee decision of
|
between 22 November 2000 and 18 June 2001
|
15. Between June 2000 and June 2002 the District Court scheduled some fourteen hearings. Eight hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of one or more of the individuals taking part in the proceedings, excluding the applicant. Four hearings were postponed on account of various court matters. No hearings were scheduled
|
10 March 1992
|
12. On 17 July 1991 the applicants instituted High Court proceedings for negligence, negligent misstatement, breach of contract, misrepresentation and breach of warranty against their own solicitors (“the applicants' solicitors”), the vendors and “the vendors' solicitors”. On
|
February 2000
|
82. The investigation explored the version that the convoy which had transported Yandiyev from Alkhan-Kala could have been ambushed and that he could have escaped or been killed in the skirmish. It requested information from a number of sources about recorded ambushes of convoys in
|
9 October 1996
|
9. The first applicant, Pavittar Singh, a British citizen born in India in 1955, and the second applicant, Paramjit Kaur, an Indian national born in 1955, are married and living in the United Kingdom. The third applicant, Pawandeep Singh, an Indian national born on
|
between 2007 and 2010
|
41. The applicants further alleged that Russia provided direct humanitarian aid to Transdniestria, mostly in the form of contributions to old-age pensions. The applicants claimed that official Russian sources stated that
|
several months
|
10. In June 2011 the applicant learned that criminal proceedings had been opened against him (see paragraph 12 below). The applicant submits that law-enforcement officers started to extort money from him, threatening him with imprisonment. Due to this he moved to a different city in Kyrgyzstan, to his sister’s home, where he stayed for
|
22 October 2001
|
18. The applicant initiated two new sets of court proceedings against the Ministry. In the first proceedings he asked the court to order the correct calculation of his pension from 1 June 1993 and to award him MDL 1,556, as well as damages of MDL 300,000. In the second proceedings he asked for the enforcement of the judgment of
|
31 March to 4 April 2006
|
16. I.B. was taken by ambulance to Giurgiu County Hospital, where he underwent pulmonary X-ray investigations but received no treatment. He was then taken to Bucharest University Hospital, where he remained from
|
the same day
|
20. On 19 September 1996 the applicant was charged with libel through falsely incriminating a public official during or in connection with the exercise of his duties or functions committed in print by another public official [Article 148 § 2 in connection with § 1 (2) and (3) and Article 147 § 1 of the CC]. He was questioned on
|
11 April 2000
|
27. On 28 November 2011 the Batman public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the officers on duty at the Batman police station at the relevant time or the three doctors who had issued the medical reports on 6, 9 and
|
9 July 1999
|
19. In the meantime, one of the members of the bench hearing the case was appointed Minister of Defence, and the Supreme Court decided to reopen the proceedings. The appeal was heard for a second time on
|
14 September 1995
|
29. On 8 September 1995 the Bitlis Security Directorate informed the Bitlis Public Prosecutor of the names of the police officers who drove the applicant from the airport to the Security Directorate as well as those of the officers who questioned him during his detention. On
|
21 September 2001
|
10. On 12 June 2001 the Board of Warsaw City examined the request and dismissed it in its part concerning a surface area of 2,205 square metres. Apparently the plot had been divided, on an unspecified earlier date, into two parts, the other part covering 478 square metres, with the State Treasury listed as its owner in the local land register. The applicant appealed. On
|
February 2013
|
18. The dangerous detainee regime was further extended on 22 May 2013. The Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission again based its decision on the fact that the applicant had ill-treated another prisoner. It also referred to the request for an extension of the regime made by the director of the remand centre, who relied on the fact that in
|
30 September 2010
|
10. On 30 March 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 2009. Subsequently, the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on 21 December 2009 (detention extended until
|
1 April 2013
|
73. The court also examined information given by the Ismayilli RPD and the MNS, described in the judgment as follows:
“According to letter no. 2/117 of the Ismayilli District Police Department dated
|
18 September 2007
|
10. In the meantime, on 8 July 2009, the third applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the length of the labour proceedings. On 29 September 2009 the Supreme Court rejected (отфрла) her claim as having been submitted outside the statutory six-month time-limit, which, in her case, started to run on
|
the last four years
|
31. On 18 June 2013 the Presidents of the Co-Chair countries of the Minsk Group issued a Joint Statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict.
“We, the Presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries – France, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America – remain committed to helping the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict reach a lasting and peaceful settlement. We express our deep regret that, rather than trying to find a solution based upon mutual interests, the parties have continued to seek one-sided advantage in the negotiation process.
We continue to firmly believe that the elements outlined in the statements of our countries over
|
17 December 2007
|
136. The documents in the file submitted to the Court do not indicate whether Mrs Mocanu was kept informed about developments in the investigation into the aggravated unlawful killing of her husband following the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s judgment of
|
10 February 2003
|
16. On 28 November 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 16 May 2001 as unfounded.
It was held that, as for its substance and irrespective of the formal designation of the applicant’s contract, his relation with his former employer was one falling within the category of appointment within the meaning of Article 27 § 5 of the Labour Code. The applicant’s appointment thus could be, and in fact had been, cancelled. As the defendant had no other appropriate posts for the applicant, the termination of his employment was justified and lawful under Article 46 § 1 (d) of the Labour Code. On
|
the period 2001–2004
|
50. Despite the refusal of her request, as she did not wish to be regarded as a Bulgarian citizen, the applicant refused to apply for Bulgarian identity papers and as a result encountered certain difficulties in respect of health care, housing, etc in
|
the same day
|
7. The asylum proceedings started on 25 March and, on 9 April, the applicants were interviewed by the refugee authority, an agency belonging under the jurisdiction of the Office of Immigration and Nationality. On
|
30 December 1999
|
24. On 1 June 2005 the Dokuchayevsk Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The court further decided:
“In accordance with part 3 of Article 42 of the C[riminal] C[ode] of Ukraine in the wording of 1960, the ultimate punishment shall be determined for the multiple offences, by the partial addition of the sentences under the judgment of the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk of
|
sixteen years old
|
11. During the registration process upon her arrival, in the absence of an interpreter, the applicant’s age was recorded as twenty-six (born 1986). She claims to have told the authorities that she was
|
20 April 1999
|
20. On 17 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that (i) the length of both the bankruptcy proceedings of 1999 and the execution proceedings of 1999 was excessive, (ii) he had not recovered the arrears of salary which his former employers owed him, (iii) the executions officer had infringed the execution contract of
|
2 February 2011
|
6. On 29 March 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit crimes and blackmail, and was placed in the Cluj County Police detention centre. On 28 July 2009 he was transferred to Gherla Maximum Security Prison (“Gherla Prison”) where he remained until
|
25 August 1998
|
30. On 24 June 1998 the House of Lords allowed the filing of the appeal petition out of time. On 30 July 1998 the applicant again applied for the release of the monies held by the Publisher, which was refused by the Treasury Solicitor on
|
9 January 2004
|
40. On 9 January 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. According to the applicant, on 5 May 2004 an official of the Goyty village administration gave him a letter from the district prosecutor’s office dated
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.