target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
10 January 2012
|
21. On 14 August 2013 the Government made the following observations on the above-mentioned letters. The entry ban was still in force and the applicant could therefore not freely return to Switzerland. However, he retained the possibility to apply for permission to enter Switzerland as a tourist or even to request reconsideration of the entry ban. In July 2007, one month after the final decision of the Federal Supreme Court, the applicant – who at that time was probably still living in Switzerland – had unsuccessfully applied to the authorities of the Canton of Geneva for permission to return to Switzerland. In 2008 he had further applied for a Swiss work permit. The cantonal authorities in Geneva had however dismissed his request because of the entry ban in force. The applicant had not submitted any further requests to the Swiss authorities. The Government also informed the Court that on
|
between February and June 2002
|
10. On 7 June 2002 the Regional Court authorised the applicant to leave the Czech Republic for Russia until 18 June 2002, on condition that he attended the first hearing, scheduled for 19 to 21 June 2002. This was the fourth time such a request by the applicant had been granted. The applicant had made three previous trips to Russia,
|
November 2003
|
9. On 10 February 2004, during reconstruction of events which was conducted by investigator Ch. and recorded on video, the applicant showed where he had buried V. and Sh., and the police sent their bodies for forensic examination. The experts established that the victims had died of cold in
|
the weekend after
|
134. Having heard all the relevant parties and submissions the Commissario della Legge delivered its decision on 21 September 2010. Noting the high level of conflict persisting between the parties and their representatives, it considered that the decision must be temporary and subject to further change. It ordered joint custody, that the child be schooled in San Marino, that she be placed with the father during the week and with the mother at weekends, that Christmas and Easter festivities would be spent with the mother with the exception of Christmas Eve, Epiphany and
|
10 February 1992
|
7. In 1992, in the context of criminal proceedings for large-scale money laundering conducted against the applicant before the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island (“the Rhode Island District Court”), the Austrian courts were requested under letters rogatory to seize assets which had been found in two safes in Vienna rented by the applicant. On
|
10 July 2001
|
15. On 28 May 2001 the police investigator dismissed the applicant's complaint of partiality. The applicant's complaint against this dismissal was rejected by the head of the Prague Investigation Office on
|
13 March 2002
|
48. On the basis of this report, the investigator concluded that the measures resulting in civilian casualties had been absolutely necessary within the meaning of Article 39, part 1 of the Criminal Code (as in the previous decisions of
|
313 hearing days
|
33. The Court of Appeal further rejected the applicants' contention that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the action was an abuse of process or that the trial was conducted unfairly, observing as follows:
“Litigants in person who bring or contest a High Court action are inevitably undertaking a strenuous and burdensome task. This action was complex and the legal advice available to the [applicants] was, because of lack of funds, small in extent. We accept that the work required of the [applicants] at trial was very considerable and had to be done in an environment which, at least initially, was unfamiliar to them.
As a starting-point, we cannot however hold it to be an abuse of process in itself for plaintiffs with great resources to bring a complicated case against unrepresented defendants of slender means. Large corporations are entitled to bring court proceedings to assert or defend their legal rights just as individuals have the right to bring actions and defend them. ...
Moreover the proposition that the complexity of the case may be such that a judge ought to stop the trial on that ground cannot be accepted. The rule of law requires that rights and duties under the law are determined. ...
As to the conduct of the trial, we note that the
|
four years'
|
17. On 3 March 2006 the Yasamal District Court delivered a judgment finding the applicant guilty under Articles 29 (attempting to commit a crime) and 186 (deliberate destruction of or damage to property) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to
|
August 1999
|
89. On 4 October 2000 the Second Division of the Council of State, examining an appeal lodged by the individuals concerned by the authorisation of criminal investigation issued by the Interior Ministry (see paragraph 87 above) and acting under Section 9 of Law No. 4483 (see Relevant domestic law, paragraph 133 below), lifted the criminal investigation authorisation issued by the Interior Ministry. The Council of State held that responsibility should be attributed to the specialists who had planned the building project, emphasising that many of the buildings destroyed on 17
|
17 January 2003
|
14. On 8 April 2009 the Ministry executed the judgment of 23 February 1998: the applicant was reinstated in his previous post and an amount of AZN 9,155.12 (approximately EUR 9,063) was paid to him as compensation for lost earnings, in addition to compensation awarded by the judgment of
|
30 November 2013
|
16. On 13 July 2013 Act no. CXXXV of 2013 on the Integration of Cooperative Credit Institutions and the Amendment of Certain Laws Regarding Economic Matters (“the Integration Act”) entered into force. It was then amended in several aspects, including by Act no. CXCVI of 2013 on the Amendment of Certain Laws Regarding the Integration of Cooperative Credit Institutions (“the Integration (Amendment) Act”) with effect from
|
17 October 1996
|
24. The applicant's lawyer and the Treasury both appealed against the award. The applicant's lawyer contended on appeal that the amount of compensation was insufficient reparation for his wrongful arrest and detention. He did not challenge the dates of detention as determined by the court. The Treasury considered that the amount awarded was excessive.
According to the relevant rules governing the functioning of the Court of Cassation in litigation of this nature, the case file at the Karşıyaka Assize Court was referred to the competent division of the Court of Cassation through the intermediary of the office of the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. On
|
13 October 2005
|
14. In their observations on the admissibility of the case, the Government stated that the authorities had killed a total of ninety-five insurgents in the anti-terrorist operations mounted in response to the attack of
|
16 May 2003
|
24. On 29 April 2003 the applicant was admitted to the hospital of facility UK‑272/6, where he stayed until 27 May 2003, undergoing tests and consultations with a wide range of medical specialists and being given treatment for cardiac ischaemia, exertional angina and hypertension. On 8 May 2003 the applicant was examined by a panel of medical experts and was recognised as having a second-degree disability (medium). On
|
four years and six months'
|
17. Mr Gözütok was a member of the HADEP party council. A number of documents and books prepared by PKK members having been found in his law firm, on 4 June 1997 the Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of lending assistance to the PKK, contrary to Article 169 of the Criminal Code then in force, and sentenced him to
|
3 March 2009
|
12. In the meantime, the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office initiated administrative proceedings against the applicant on charges of having insulted the accused police officers and having resisted arrest. On
|
19 March 2000
|
5. On 19 December 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of kidnapping a certain J.M. On 21 December 1999 the Zielona Góra District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until
|
18 December 2011
|
6. The applicants, Mr V.M. and Mrs G.S.M., and four of their children were born in 1981, 1977, 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2011 respectively and live in Serbia. Their eldest daughter, who was also an applicant, was born in 2001 and subsequently died on
|
the year 2000
|
15. The Court of Appeal further found that the publication in issue was directly linked to the applicant’s public status. She had been included in the list of experts to be appointed by the courts since
|
1 April 1998
|
12. Following an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 providing that the judgments of the regional courts were no longer appealable before the Supreme Court of Cassation, but before the newly established courts of appeals, on
|
13 October 1994
|
27. In the meantime, on 6 December 1994, the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and by Mr Choděra, had lodged a third constitutional appeal, this time against the Municipal Court's ruling of
|
18 June 2008
|
28. On 13 March 2009 the Varna District Public Prosecutor, to whom the file was sent for competence reasons following a legislative amendment, refused to open criminal proceedings (see paragraph 37 below) against the police officers. She found that a special police operation aimed at gaining access to the offices of the company and seizing unlicensed software had been carried out on
|
the second day
|
57. On 14 August 2006 the investigators again questioned Mr V.Ts., who stated that on 27 February 2000 he had been taken from home by military servicemen who had arrived in an APC. The witness and his neighbour Mr Sh.Ts. had been transferred from the vehicle to an Avtozak lorry, in which they had met a number of their fellow villagers, including Murad Gelayev. The Avtozak had taken the detainees to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, where they had been subjected to beatings and put into a basement. There the men had been stripped naked and subjected to further beatings by abductors who had kept taking turns to beat the detainees. On
|
19 January 1997
|
18. On 9 April 1997 the applicant made an application to the Indictment Division for his immediate release on the ground that he was being detained arbitrarily as the judge’s initial warrant of commitment had ceased to have any effect on
|
21 January 1997
|
25. The Court of Cassation noted that in March 1990 (see paragraph 23 above), at the time when the site development plans had been approved, no implementation scheme (programma di attuazione) had been in force. In that connection the court referred to its case-law to the effect that an implementation scheme had to be in force at the time of the approval of site development plans (Court of Cassation, Section 3,
|
12 until 18 March 2004
|
25. On 14 March 2002 the applicant had an ileocaecal valve implanted and post-surgery rehabilitation therapy. In the subsequent months, he remained under close medical supervision in the hospital in Chorzów and then in Gliwice. The applicant was considered to be in good health when he finished his therapy in May 2002 and was released home. In June 2003 he was hospitalised again. In March 2004 he had a heart attack. He was in hospital from
|
11 August 2006
|
6. On 31 August 2006 the Z. no. 4 Police Station lodged a criminal complaint with the Z. County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Z.) against the applicant. The relevant part of the complaint reads:
“On
|
13 May 2001
|
12. The relevant decisions were given on 12 October 2000 (prolonging his detention until 5 January 2001), on 28 December 2000 (ordering his continued detention until 13 February 2001), on 8 February 2001 (extending his detention until
|
the same day
|
12. In his affidavit to the Moldovan police given on the same day, V.K. submitted that for the purpose of stopping the car, two hedgehogs had been deployed at the entry and exit of the checkpoint. Two other soldiers from the left checkpoint (one Moldovan and one Transdniestrian) submitted on
|
January 2006 until June 2006
|
28. On 3 November 2005 Gy.B. initiated civil proceedings before the Regional Court against the applicant, requesting the court to acknowledge the renovation and building he had carried out in the apartment. Upon his request, the proceedings were suspended on two occasions, from
|
15 December 1995
|
16. The Agreement on Civilian Implementation outlines the mandate of the High Representative – the international administrator for Bosnia and Herzegovina, established with the authorisation of the United Nations Security Council by an informal group of States actively involved in the peace process (called the Peace Implementation Council) as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1031 of
|
15 November 1995
|
13. On 3 November 1995 the applicant requested the prosecutor to release him on bail. This was refused on 6 November 1995 on the ground that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had not ceased to exist and that there were no circumstances justifying his release under Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant appealed against this decision, but his appeal was dismissed on
|
18 September 2006
|
20. On 18 September 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision of 19 August 2006. The applicant appealed against the decision of
|
26 October 2003
|
23. On 30 November 2004 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance ordered the applicant and the publishing company jointly to pay compensation to Prof. Dr. D.So. of TRL 12,000,000,000 for the article of
|
31 March 2010
|
65. On 23 December 2009 the applicant lodged a similar civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Katowice Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and the degrading conditions of his detention. On
|
12 July 2002
|
10. On 3 July 2002 the City Court extended the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention for three months, that is for the period from 1 July to 1 October 2002. The court relied on the fact that the defendants had been charged with particularly serious criminal offences. The applicant appealed against this decision on
|
25 May 2001
|
17. No firearms were found in the prison during the searches carried out in the immediate aftermath of the operation, or during the searches carried out on 12 January, 16 January, 18 January, 19 January, 23 March and
|
Several days later
|
8. The applicants say that on several occasions between March and November 1998 they were violently assaulted by skinheads in the Slovak Republic. Indeed, in November 1998 Mr Čonka had been so seriously injured in an assault that he had had to be hospitalised. The police had been called but had refused to intervene.
|
22 September 2002
|
12. On 10 June 2002 the applicant was examined in the ophthalmology ward of the Bytom Remand Centre hospital. The doctors, however, decided not to operate on the applicant’s right eye socket in the Remand Centre hospital, since special facilities had to be in place. Therefore it was decided to have the operation performed at Warsaw Medical University Hospital on
|
May and September 2011
|
28. Following signs of some positive changes in his personality following a number of meetings with the prison’s social service, the applicant was permitted to leave the prison for one to two days under the supervision of the prison staff in
|
4 January 2016
|
26. On 14 December 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint as inadmissible, citing the second paragraph of section 55(b) of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 36 below). The decision was served on the applicant on
|
29 June 2000
|
11. During hearings before the Istanbul Assize Court, the accused police officers claimed that the applicant had shown resistance at the time of his arrest, which explained the marks found on his body. Consequently, at the hearing held on
|
from 7 March 2002 until 11 August 2005
|
27. The District Family Support Centre (PCPR) awarded the applicant the following amounts in financial support for the foster children:
for D.K. from 7 March 2002 until 11 August 2005 – 26,308.30 PLN and an additional 6 630,80 PLN for personal care of the child;
for R.K.
|
between the dates of “20 November 1994 and 10 November 1994”
|
47. On 10 November 1994 a reply was given to the Secretary of State for Human Rights, who had apparently enquired on 2 November 1994 whether Hüseyin Koku had been treated at the Kahramanmaraş State Hospital for injuries sustained as a result of torture. The reply stated that
|
25 March 1988
|
30. In court hearings Ma., and police officers Sh. and G. testified that no pressure had been brought to bear on the applicant at the time of the visit to his home. Witness Mb. testified that he did not remember the circumstances of that visit and witness Z. testified that she had seen “a doctor entering [the applicant’s house?] alone, followed several minutes later by a police officer”. She had then seen the applicant getting into an ambulance. Ma. also submitted that the applicant’s hospitalisation had been in compliance with temporary instructions nos. 16 and 17 “On procedure for the conduct of preliminary psychiatric examination of citizens” and “On procedure for urgent hospitalisation of mentally ill persons” (“Instructions nos. 16 and 17”) appended to Order no. 225 of the Ministry of Health of the USSR of
|
1 December 1999
|
12. In the main proceedings, the case was again considered before the Ljubljana Local Court as a result of the re-opening decision of 13 May 1996 and the Constitutional Court's decision of 16 January 1997 (see paragraphs 9 and 10).
At the hearing held on
|
21 January 2000
|
13. By decision of 25 July 2000 the Military Division of the Supreme Court of Russia (Военная коллегия Верховного Суда Российской Федерации), sitting as a bench of three professional judges, examined and rejected the arguments of the prosecution and the alleged victims and upheld the judgment of
|
27 June 2019
|
15. On 30 June 2014 the enforcement judge ordered F.T.’s arrest. F.T. was arrested on 10 July 2014 and started serving his custodial sentence on 11 July 2014. The detention centre confirmed by letter that F.T. would remain in custody until
|
more than two years’
|
11. On 22 July 2005 the Centru District Court issued a detention warrant in the first applicant’s name for a period of ten days. The grounds for detention were that he was suspected of committing a serious offence punishable by
|
12 September 2000
|
39. On 14 September 2000 the applicant's lawyer complained to the district prosecutor's office, requesting that a criminal case for torture be opened against I.M., Ya.M. and two other unidentified police officers. She indicated that on seeing the applicant on
|
30 June 1999
|
34. Next hearings were fixed for 14 December 1998 and 4 January 1999. On its session held in camera on 7 December 1998 the Regional Court decided to request the Supreme Court to prolong the applicant's detention until
|
between 12 April and 5 October 2000
|
95. On 2 May 2002 a prosecutor at the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic drew up a report “on the results of the internal inquiry into the actions of the officials of the prosecutor's office of the Achkhoy-Martan District during the examination of the applicants' complaint about inhuman treatment in the Achkhoy-Martan VOVD and the Chernokozovo SIZO
|
16 May 2017
|
13. On 3 February 2017 the Procurator General filed a request for the applicant’s extradition with the Joint Court. A hearing was initially fixed for 21 March 2017 but, at the applicant’s request, was rescheduled for
|
two years and eight months
|
68. The decision stated that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 17 March 2000 until 26 November 2002 (the date of lodging the complaint to the Constitutional Court), that is, a total of
|
11 November 2008
|
29. On 16 February 2009, relying on the rules regulating the burden of proof, the first-instance court issued a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. It held that, owing to his failure to pay for the costs of the expert report, the court had not been able to establish the exact amount of the monthly payments. In its reasoning, the first-instance court stated that the Vukovar County Court, in its decision of
|
10 December 2000
|
15. The third and fourth applicants are the brother and mother of Magomed Magomadov (born in 1969),[1] who was an officer with the Staropromyslovskiy district police department of Grozny. In the evening of
|
28 September 2000
|
8. By judgment of 7 August 2000 of the Novovoronezhskiy Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) the first applicant was granted 2,117.38 Russian roubles (“RUR”, approximately 84 euros, “EUR”) to be paid by the State. The judgment came into force on
|
a week later
|
162. On 19 January 2009 the applicant’s other daughter Ms Madina Kh. was questioned by the investigators. As regards the circumstances preceding her father’s abduction, she stated that in November 2000 her brothers had been arrested in Astrakhan and convicted of kidnapping a businesswoman, Ms M.P. Her father had gone there to find out why his sons had been arrested. He had also been arrested and
|
28 November 1996
|
12. By a decision of 28 March 1997 the Vukovar Municipal Court declared the defendant’s appeal inadmissible as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit, finding that the last day for lodging the appeal had been
|
12 September 2003
|
49. The Government furnished copies of the records drawn up during the applicants’ detention as well as medical reports. According to the records of 3 September 2003 concerning the examination of detained aliens, the second applicant complained of a headache, psoriasis and rheumatic heart disease, and the third applicant complained of psoriasis. According to the same records, on
|
30 April 2003
|
39. On or about 1 April 2003, the Brecknell family applied for permission to apply for judicial review inter alia for a declaration that there had been no adequate investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband as required by Article 2 of the Convention and requiring that the Secretary of State provide for an Article 2-compliant investigation. Leave was granted by the High Court on
|
September 2006
|
48. On 11 May 2009 the District Court dismissed the action, considering that the overall length of the proceedings at issue had not been unreasonable despite one particular delay, particularly because the applicant had in fact known the result of the proceedings after the Supreme Administrative Court’s first judgment of
|
9 April 1997
|
13. On 25 July 1996 the applicants instituted civil proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register. They requested the court to enter their title to plot no. 6271 in the land and mortgage register. Hearings were held on 8 January and
|
6 March 1996
|
27. On 13 February 1996 the applicant challenged the public prosecutor's decision of 6 April 1994 before the President of the Siverek Assize Court. The President, on the basis of the file submitted to him, dismissed the applicant's challenge on
|
15 October 2008
|
18. On 6 October 2008, when conducting a preliminary examination of the bill of indictment, the Special Court again reviewed the grounds for the applicant’s detention and ruled that he should remain in detention. On
|
12 April, 2 and 17 July 2007
|
27. On 1 February 2007 supplementary questions were put to the expert. On 14 March 2007 the files were sent to the expert, after both parties had made the required advance payment for the expert fees. On
|
between 13 September 2000 and 2 June 2004
|
9. In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant lodged, between 2 August 2000 and 10 March 2004, nine preliminary written submissions.
On 12 November 2001 she made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held
|
11 April 2003
|
18. On 6 April 2003 the applicants requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic and the district prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation and to admit them to the proceedings as victims. On
|
1 March 2011
|
50. On 3 March 2011 the Utena District Court sent a notice to the applicant’s address in London about the pending civil case for maintenance of his son, the establishment of the new contact order and the applicant’s right to respond to V.T.’s claim. The court further reiterated the applicant’s duty to appoint a representative living in Lithuania, on whom all the procedural documents would be served by the court (Article 805 of the Code of Civil Procedure). On the same day V.T.’s lawyers informed the applicant by email about the district court’s decision to apply interim protective measures and sent him an electronic copy of that decision, in Lithuanian. It was explained to the applicant that the court decision would be translated and served on him as soon as possible by the Utena court itself or by post. The lawyer also explained to the applicant that by the decision of
|
18 May 2012
|
8. On the same day the Moscow city department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police (Articles 212 § 2 and 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code). On
|
13 November 2001
|
21. On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed an appeal hearing for 13 November 2001 and sent the case-file to the city court. It appears that the district court had not determined certain issues concerning court fees by
|
11 October 2001
|
16. Under various inter-state pension benefits agreements, some civil pensioners from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina who moved to other countries during the armed conflict continue to enjoy their full pension rights from the Federation Fund. For example, under the Agreement on Social Insurance Between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia (OG BiH Supplement on International Agreements, No. 6/01,
|
3 November 1995
|
38. On either 21 November or 1 December 1995, Pesterzsébeti Papírgyár Kft. brought another action in trespass against Castell Ltd., in the context of a challenge to a decision by the Pesterzsébet Municipality given on
|
14 March 2010
|
46. On 30 December 2009 the Kanavinskiy District Court examined that request, found that the latest extension of the applicant’s detention had been granted on 15 November 2009 [sic], and the applicant could be held in custody on the basis of a prosecutor’s order for a period not exceeding two months. The court noted the receipt of the formal extradition request from the Uzbek authorities (see paragraph 19 above), observed that the extradition proceedings had not been completed, and decided that the applicant should remain in custody until
|
28 July 2004
|
10. On 24 June 2004 that court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The reference – received at the CJEU on
|
12 October 2010
|
13. At 3 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Galytskyy District Court. He had no opportunity to study the case-file materials before the court hearing. During the hearing, the court rejected the applicant’s request to be represented by the lawyer of his choosing on the ground that the applicant was a human-rights defender and could defend himself. The applicant’s request to summon and question witnesses and examine a video made during the events of
|
23 September 1990
|
19. In a judgment of 19 November 1993, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) dismissed a further appeal by the applicants. In common with the ordinary courts, it found that both the gift and the sale were null and void. However, it reiterated that in cases such as this, in which the applicants had made a sham gift in order to attenuate the effects of being forced to sell their property on leaving the GDR, the applicable legislation was the Resolution of Outstanding Property Issues Act – the Property Act – of
|
2 November 2001
|
12. The applicant appealed. In his appeal he complained that the conclusions of the trial court as regards the circumstances of the case were wrong, that the court had failed to eliminate contradictions in the evidence, that it had left certain circumstances unexamined, that it had failed to establish the applicant’s participation in the robbery and had relied on some evidence received in violation of the procedural rules. He further complained that Mr Sh. had not been informed of his right not to testify against himself. The applicant’s lawyer further submitted:
“During the trial [the applicant] submitted that on
|
4 February 2005
|
7. The applicant states that he received the ruling of 4 February 2005 when the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it had already expired. The applicant did not provide this Court with any document certifying that he had requested the domestic courts to renew the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the ruling of
|
30 January 2004
|
70. The court further indicated that on 30 January 2004 the Head of the Disrict Police Department had requested the SIZO to bring Olga Biliak to the District Police Department on 2 February 2004. According to the SIZO incoming mail register this request has been received on
|
16 June 2010
|
42. On an unspecified date the Bailiff Service asked the District Court to explain whether proper enforcement of the judgment of 3 March 1995 required the allocation of a new flat to the applicant upon her return of Flat 2. On
|
6 March 2007
|
12. On 1 December 2005 a final report on the sale of the co-operative's assets was submitted to the regional court. It was amended on 14 March 2006 and displayed on the regional court's official notice board on
|
19 December 2008
|
38. On 5 December 2008 the Town Court, at the request of the Yoshkar Ola prosecutor, extended the applicant's detention pending extradition until 12 March 2009. On the same date the applicant appealed against this decision to the Mari-Al Supreme Court. On
|
3 February 1997
|
17. In two separate decisions of 19 March 1998, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeals against the two decisions of 2 April 1997 in relation to his claim for costs and expenses and his claim for the time spent in pre-trial detention. Its reasoning in both decisions included the following:
“It appears from the case against the co-accused B., in which the Court of Appeal delivered its final judgment on
|
12 December 2007
|
65. On 28 August 2008 the Zagreb Commercial Court issued a decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings, given that the enforcement was completed and that Retag as the enforcement creditor had on
|
10 February 1993
|
11. At the end of 1992 the applicant sent a letter to the municipality enclosing a document from the Land Registry confirming that she was the owner and the municipality as the user of the land in issue. On
|
28 June 1994
|
6. On 15 January 1992 the applicant instituted denationalization proceedings in the Ruše Municipality (Občina Ruše) seeking restitution of a property previously owned by her grandmother.
On 17 April 1992 the Municipality forwarded the applicant’s claim to the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno Sodišče v Mariboru, enota v Mariboru). The court dismissed her claim twice and declared a lack of jurisdiction in the case. However, both decisions had been quashed on appeal and the case was ultimately considered by the renamed Maribor Local Court (Okrajno Sodišče v Mariboru).
On
|
September 2008
|
9. After the birth the child underwent a number of medical treatments and his condition was under the constant supervision of the competent social care services. In April 2008 an expert commission diagnosed him with incurable cerebral palsy, grave mental retardation and epilepsy. In
|
8 May – 8 September 2001
|
8. On 7 June 2001 the Vugledar City Court found that the applicant had been injured due to the fault of the SMP Mine and ordered it to pay him UAH 37,465.41[1] in compensation and UAH 800[2] of costs and expenses (рішення Вугледарського міського суду Донецької області). The court also awarded the applicant a monthly allowance of UAH 162.57[3] in compensation for loss of earnings for the period of
|
twenty-two days
|
16. On 19 April 2007 the Constitutional Court ruled on the admissible part of the applicant's complaint. It found that the Regional Court had not violated the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. It observed that it had taken
|
20 July 1999
|
16. Between 20 and 22 July 1999 Mr B.S., acting on behalf of a company, Minstroy Holding AD (“Minstroy”), asked the Sofia City Court (Софийски градски съд) to enter in the register of companies Minstroy’s election as MTFU’s new managing director, as “resolved” by MTFU’s board of directors on
|
19 October 1999
|
107. In letters of 3 June 2003 the investigator in charge requested various competent authorities to provide information as to whether the residents of Urus-Martan listed in that letter had been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups. The list of names included those killed during the attack of
|
more than two and a half years
|
32. The applicant was a stateless Palestinian who had entered Denmark in 1993 at the age of 23. He had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for comprehensive and organised resale of large amounts of hashish, for attempting to buy 200 g of cocaine, and for attempting to smuggle in hashish. Moreover, the drug trafficking had taken place over
|
a period of two months
|
13. On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, arguing that the applicant, if at large, could abscond and exert unlawful pressure on persons involved in the proceedings and seeking to have the applicant detained for
|
18 December 2012
|
9. On 30 June 2012 the ORC rejected her application on the basis, inter alia, that she had failed to support her claim that she was from central/southern Somalia with convincing evidence (in particular, she had shown insufficient knowledge about Mogadishu and her speech displayed phonological, grammatical and lexical features not typical of those spoken in Mogadishu). Her appeal was also rejected by the Refugee Appeals Board (the “RAB”) on
|
23 July 1993
|
53. This report recorded 1-2 day old bruising on the head and large ecchymotic areas on the left side of his back and costar vertebral region. There were signs of suspected broken ribs. The patient was referred to Diyarbakır State Hospital for diagnosis and treatment.
Medical report on Sadık Simpil, dated
|
8 September 2005
|
8. On 23 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 19 May 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on
|
6 September 1996
|
13. The parties disagree as to the time of the initial call and as to when the order for narcotics was made. According to the applicant, the first call from H. could have taken place either on Wednesday 4 or Thursday 5 September 1996. That call was the start of the applicant's involvement in the relevant events and the order was placed on
|
22 March 1999
|
20. On 1 December 2003 the Belogorsk Town Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the withdrawn claims and on 24 December 2003 it discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision of
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.