target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
9 November 1999
|
26. From 26 May to 27 November 1999 ten hearings were scheduled, but adjourned owing to the absence of the applicant or his representative. No witnesses were heard and no other procedural measures were taken. On
|
23 October 2001
|
82. On 28 August 2007 serviceman A.K. was re-interviewed as a witness. From the partly illegible copy of his interview record it follows that he confirmed his earlier account of the events and stated that he did not remember the names of the servicemen who had been with him in Starye Atagi on
|
5 July 2016
|
17. On 12 May 2016 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow upheld the Russian FMS’s decision. On the same date the applicant’s lawyer lodged a brief statement of appeal («краткая апелляционная жалоба»), pending receipt of a reasoned judgment in written form. By
|
19 April 2006
|
32. The applicants supported their submission with a number of documents, including eight responses by the administration of detention centre IZ-25/1 to their requests for information lodged in 2006: five responses dated
|
1 October 2005
|
45. The Latvian Government provided the following response to the CPT’s reports on visits to Latvia:
Response as regards visits from 27 November to 7 December 2007(CPT/Inf (2009) 36):
“According to requirements of [sections] 28, 386 and 387 of the Criminal Procedure Law (effective from
|
21 November 2001
|
18. The first applicant lodged an action against the Anapa Town Bailiffs Service, complaining that the bailiffs had failed to enforce the final judgment of 21 November 2001. In particular, the first applicant argued that the Company had been an active legal entity, that its shareholders had regularly convened meetings since 2001, that the issue of compliance with the judgment of
|
29 January 1997
|
43. The trial court, noting that all defendants except Yaşar Soyyiğit had since been posted elsewhere, decided to send letters rogatory to the courts in whose jurisdiction the two absent defendants were living and asked those courts to take statements from them. The trial court also decided to send letters to the Registry Office for Births, Marriages and Deaths to ask for the birth registry records of the defendants. The trial court, noting that the applicant had “inadvertently not been summonsed”, decided to summons him for the next hearing on
|
October 2005
|
69. On 2 June 2008 the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer T.S., whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators. Ms F.A. reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had also participated in the abduction along with officers M.D. and I.T. Officer T.S. stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in
|
15 March 2002
|
33. On 10 January 2002 the Taganrog Town Court issued a judgment by which Mr S. should return the car to the applicant. On 28 February 2002 a writ of execution was issued. The applicant submitted it to the bailiffs and asked them to calculate an approximate cost of the search. On
|
23 August and
|
16. On 19 August 2010 the applicant sought judicial review of the extradition order, referring, inter alia, to a fear of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, in particular, on account of his connections with HT. The applicant’s appeal was supported with his lawyer’s claims of
|
sixteen years old
|
7. The applicant stated that she was a Muslim and had decided, on her own initiative, to wear the niqab – a veil covering the face except for the eyes – in accordance with her religious beliefs. She said that she had taken the decision to wear the full-face veil when she was
|
6 November 2007
|
17. In the case of Ms Sadagat Ahmadova, on 12 April 2007, the Yasamal District Court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher and that the IDP family occupied the flat unlawfully. However taking into account the fact that the defendant IDP family could not return to their permanent place of residence in Lachin and, in the meantime had no other place to reside, the court held that the execution of its judgment should be postponed until they could return to Lachin or be provided with another place of residence. The applicant appealed against this judgment claiming misinterpretation of the relevant law. On
|
2 April 2004
|
82. On 23 March 2005 the High Commercial Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant bank and upheld the first-instance decision. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:
“The bankruptcy judge [of the first-instance court] when examining the [applicant bank’s] argument [raised] in the objection [to the final distribution list] that ... section 87a of the Bankruptcy Act have been breached ... correctly applied provisions of the Bankruptcy Act ...[T]he assessment of ... whether it could legitimately have been assumed that there existed an obligation of the bankruptcy estate on the ground of unjust enrichment to return ... the amount of HRK 168,618,419.60, was carried out on the basis of: the final decision of the Karlovac Commercial Court ... of
|
between 1997 and 2003
|
13. Indeed, from as early as 1994 a number of agricultural firms (in particular Floramiata Spa) instituted proceedings (following administrative refusals) complaining about the matter, and consistent case-law in favour of the agricultural firms was established by the Italian courts, including the Court of Cassation. The applicant companies submitted that
|
27 November 2006
|
13. Hearings in the case were held on 23 May, 24 June, 5 July, 6 July 2005, 22 August, 21 September, 28 November and 19 December 2005; 23 January, 27 March, 27 April, 5 June, 26 June, 6 August, 19 October and
|
the same day
|
9. On 2 February 2000 the applicant’s family decided to travel to Katyr‑Yurt, which the applicant’s father described as a “peace zone”. The applicant’s father drove his black Volga car; her mother and brother Magomed sat in front, while the applicant, her sister Madina and brother Ruslan, as well as two cousins, Khava and Luiza Abakarovy, were in the back seat. On
|
14 September 2010
|
32. In the meantime, on 18 April 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan sent his Russian counterpart a request for the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan. The request was based on the charges brought against the applicant under Article 168 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan and contained assurances that he would not be extradited to a third country without the consent of the Russian authorities, that no criminal proceedings would be initiated and that he would not be tried or punished for an offence which was not the subject of the extradition request and would be able to freely leave Uzbekistan once the court proceedings had terminated and the punishment had been served. The request was further accompanied by certified copies of the decisions to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant and to bring criminal charges against him, the court order of
|
12 October 2004
|
11. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by a lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On
|
31 December 2007
|
62. The (Federal) Execution of Sentences Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz) lays down rules for the execution of sentences of imprisonment in prisons and for the execution of measures of correction and prevention depriving the persons concerned of their liberty (see section 1 of the Act). Its provisions were applicable in all Länder until
|
30 October 2003
|
16. The prosecution requested the Basmanniy District Court to extend the applicant’s detention three times to let him study the prosecution files. On 28 August 2003 the court extended the detention until
|
eighteen months
|
42. On 4 July 2002 the Minister for the Environment and Water decided not to accept the EIA and sent it back for revision. She noted some serious omissions in its estimation of the health risk to the population arising from the reclamation scheme, the lack of information about the hazardous substances involved in the scheme, and the fact that the team which had drawn it up did not include an expert on the health and hygiene‑related aspects of the environment. The Minister instructed the experts to revise the EIA and, in particular, to make a comparative study of the existing analyses and make an additional chemical analysis of the sludge laid on the pond. It was to be specifically checked for heavy metals and mercury content. The taking of samples for that analysis had to be done in the presence of the persons concerned. The experts were also to indicate the tailings' permeability, before and after the pond's capping with soil cement, as well as the permeability of the underlying rocks and the stability and the permeability of the soil cement after
|
6 November 2015
|
54. An investigation into the gang rape (violenza sessuale di gruppo) of the applicant on the night of 30 January 2014 was opened concerning two suspects. The case was set down for preliminary hearing on
|
23 June 2003
|
15. On 8 February 2003 the Kielce District Court remanded the applicants in custody on reasonable suspicion that they had committed the drug-trafficking offences. It had regard to the evidence obtained so far in the case, in particular the witnesses’ statements, the classified evidence, the expert reports and the results of the search. The court noted that the applicants’ statements contradicted the other evidence in the case. On
|
31 July 1987
|
17. On 14 May 1987 the Salonika prefect modified the development plan (ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο) for the area in which the applicants' plots of land were located, which he designated as a “green area” and “sports and leisure zone”. This decision was confirmed by a decision of the Minister of the Environment and Public Works dated
|
13 June 2013
|
77. On 9 July 2013 the release officer of SIZO-3, Mrs L.S., was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. The relevant parts of the interview records read as follows:
“... [The prosecutor’s decision to release Mr Mamazhonov on
|
8 October 2001
|
48. By letter dated 11 December 2001 the Deputy General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation advised the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Cyprus that the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Chelyabinsk region had conducted an examination in respect of Ms Rantseva’s death, including a forensic medical examination. He forwarded a request, dated
|
the period from 1997 to 1999
|
76. A written explanation given by Mr T., the head of the local council of Bratskoye, on 12 January 2007 states that the applicant and his brother used to live in Bratskoye but no longer reside there. According to Mr T., in 1995 the applicant was assigned a plot of land of 1.5 hectares for construction purposes and the applicant built a storage facility and two houses thereon. The explanation further states that in
|
One day later
|
23. On 14 August 2010 the second applicant received a parcel from his representative. It had been opened by the administration of the correctional colony for the purpose of censoring. The parcel contained documents from the Court, sheets of blank paper and two crossword puzzles. The second applicant received the documents and blank paper. The crossword puzzles were transferred for censorship.
|
March and April 2011
|
33. In March 2010 the applicants identified several eyewitnesses to their relatives’ detention. On 9 March 2010 three local residents testified to the investigators that on the night in question they had seen a VAZ 2109 car being blocked on Bolshoi Prospect by a dark-coloured off-road vehicle, following which persons wearing civilian clothes and armed with hand pistols had dragged the passengers and the driver out of the VAZ, handcuffed the detained men and put them in different vehicles (a dark minivan and a VAZ 2110) and then left. Some of the assailants had been wearing masks. One of them had got into the VAZ 2109 and driven away in it. The whole operation had lasted for two or three minutes; one of the men had filmed the events with a video camera, while another had directed the traffic to avoid the lane. The witnesses described one white minibus with tinted windows and one smaller light coloured minibus. The witnesses used terms such as “like in crime reports” or “like in a movie”. They referred to different times in connection with the events (between 8.30 p.m. on 25 December and 1 a.m. on 26 December). One additional witness, L., questioned in March 2011, identified the off-road vehicle as a UAZ-Patriot and the minivan as a Ford Transit. He specified that each of the four men had been made to lie face down on the road and that their hands had been handcuffed or tied behind their backs. As soon as they had been placed into the Ford minivan, one of the assailants had collected the items – hats, mobile phones – which had fallen on the ground. Two or three passers-by had been in the street at the time; at least one person had been walking a dog. As soon as they had left, a man had picked up a hat left on the ground and placed it on the fence. As can be seen from subsequent documents, in
|
recent weeks
|
17. On 4 July 1997, the Assistant Chief Probation Officer prepared a report that stated:
“[The applicant] had demonstrated, and recently admitted, that his behaviour has been both self-destructive (through drug misuse, relationships with others and a suicide attempt) and that he posed a risk to a minor. ... The area of risk to the public stems from his relationship with a minor.”
She noted that there had been an openness about long-standing problems and some degree of insight coming out of the crisis of
|
11 December 2009
|
8. On 16 November 2009, after the investigator had reclassified their actions as a more serious offence, the Zavolzhskiy District Court in Tver ordered the applicant’s placement in custody, citing the gravity of the charges and the fact that he had recanted. The District Court interpreted the latter element as amounting to the risk of an obstruction of justice. On
|
21 December 2006
|
9. On 14 December 2006 the investigation judge requested a report from the Korenica Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Korenica) on the suspects’ personal circumstances. On the same day the investigation judge scheduled a hearing, with an identification parade, for
|
28 August 2003
|
12. On 11 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office took a decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. The decision confirmed that on
|
5 July 2006
|
12. On 27 June 2006 the trial court summoned witness Ł.K. by post. It also requested the police to serve a summons on this witness. The police carried out an inquiry and established that Ł.K. was living in England at an unspecified address and that the date of his return to Poland remained unknown. On
|
6 February 2002
|
13. On 24 January 2002 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention on the ground that the applicant's release would be contrary to public policy, given the seriousness of the offences she was accused of and the risk of generating society's mistrust in the judicial system.
On
|
12 April 2011
|
25. By a judgment of 28 November 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action of 28 July 2011. It held that ordering the Court of Cassation to examine his appeal on points of law would breach the principle of legal certainty. In addition, an unconstitutionality objection had been raised by the applicant after the proceedings had ended on
|
2 March 2006
|
39. On 11 and 28 September 2006 and on 20 October 2006 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings, giving similar reasoning to that given in respect of its decision of
|
22 April 2002
|
9. On 29 March 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 7 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on
|
30 May 1997
|
37. On 14 December 1995 Bucharest District Court ordered the Financial Control Office to employ the applicant as from 20 October 1992 and to pay him ROL 2,000,000 for damages and ROL 100,000 for court fees. That judgment became final on
|
4 March 2010
|
74. Mr H.K., who was the Macedonian Minister of the Interior between November 2002 and May 2004 and Prime Minister between June and November 2004, gave a written statement, certified by a notary public on
|
8 October 2003
|
33. On an unspecified date the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a motion for prolongation of the applicant's detention until 31 January 2004. On 3 October 2003 the Court of Appeal notified the counsel about the hearing scheduled for
|
14 January 2014
|
12. On the same date, 25 July 2014, the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s exclusion until 2030. In its decision it did not cite any documents submitted by the FSS as serving as the basis for the ban, apart from noting that the measure had been imposed on the basis of the report of
|
the autumn of 1994
|
18. On 11 November 1993 the first applicant's lawyer filed additional pleadings. On 18 November 1993, he asked for the hearing, then scheduled for 7 February 1994, to be postponed. On 18 November 1993 the City Court informed that a postponement would mean that the hearing could not be held until
|
25 February 1999
|
17. On 14 September 1998, a summons charged the applicant with the offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the financial investigator's requirement to answer questions or otherwise furnish information, contrary to paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Order. On
|
9 December 2009
|
73. On 5 December 2009 the Leninskiy investigation department issued a formal warning (представление) to the chief of the Leninskiy ROVD. It stated that the police department had not carried out any of the investigative steps ordered by the investigators, and had thereby hampered the investigation and precluded it from establishing the circumstances of Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction. The chief was instructed to take the necessary steps to remedy the shortcomings and to consider taking disciplinary action against those responsible for the inactivity. On
|
22 October 1997
|
11. On 29 September 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). PUV cross-appealed.
On 29 September 1997 the applicant also sought exemption from paying the court fees.
On
|
between 27 March and 31 July 2013
|
36. Between 5 September 2012 and 13 March 2013 the applicant participated in a social reintegration programme entitled “The Right Moment” (focusing on issues such as the mapping of problems, emotions and thoughts; expression and verbalisation of feelings; coping with conflict and tolerating different viewpoints) and
|
4 April 2000
|
33. On 9 July 2003 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant's lawyer. The court held that the applicant had unlawfully acquired and possessed drugs but that he should not be held criminally responsible since he had been in a deranged state of mind. The court further held that no compulsory medical measures should be imposed on the applicant, who had already undergone treatment following the court's decision of
|
19 October 1994
|
12. On 18 January 1994 the Regional Prosecutor's Office (Окръжна прокуратура) in Sofia, acting under section 154 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the suspension of the applicant's term as the mayor of Samokov as there was a danger that he would obstruct the investigation. Upon the applicant's appeal this decision was confirmed by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Главна прокуратура). On
|
23 July 2003
|
12. On 14 August 2003 the Regional Court examined the appeal in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The Prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, considered that the appeal should be dismissed. The Regional Court upheld the detention order of
|
25 June 2003
|
18. On 5 November 2003 the Attorney General’s representative sent a memorandum to the prison governor worded as follows:
“...please inform the prisoner Thomas Boulois
that by decision of the Prison Board
[the] request for prison leave ... [is] refused in view of the risk of deportation (an application was made to the Ministry of Justice on
|
29 August 2014
|
19. On 31 August 2104 the applicant was released. His passport, seized upon arrest, was not returned to him. He was served with a decision by the St Petersburg and Leningrad Region Interior Department, dated
|
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
|
7 February 2007
|
19. On 7 February 2007 the Dubrovytsya Court, following a request by the Zlagoda company to modify the procedure of enforcement of the judgment of 3 March 2003, ordered cross-cancellation of the debts under that judgment in the amount of UAH 11,133[5] and ruled that Zlagoda was to pay the applicant UAH 6,661[6]. The ruling of
|
September 2001
|
56. On 12 February 2002 the public prosecutor's office instructed a panel of experts (made up of Mr Balossino, Mr Benedetti, Mr Romanini and Mr Torre) “to reconstruct, even in virtual form, the actions of M.P. and Carlo Giuliani in the moments immediately before and after the bullet struck the victim's body”. In particular, the experts were asked to “establish the distance between M.P. and Carlo Giuliani, their respective angles of vision and M.P.'s field of vision inside the jeep at the moment the shots were fired”. It appears from the file that Mr Romanini had published an article in
|
12 April 2002
|
55. On 21 August 2001 the applicant filed a complaint but received no response. On 24 December 2001, his lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. The applicant referred the matter to the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. At the hearing of
|
21 October 2009
|
19. The Government, in a memorandum of 26 January 2011, acknowledged the basic facts as submitted by the applicant. They confirmed that a special operation had been carried out in Goyty, in Sovetskaya Street, on
|
the same day
|
12. On 27 December 2006 the Korenica Social Welfare Centre submitted their report to the Gospić County Court on the applicant’s personal circumstances. The report stated that the applicant and his family, who had left Croatia during the Homeland War, had returned to Croatia in 2001 and since then had lived in their own house in Korenica. Before his arrest the applicant had been employed as a driver in Rijeka, Croatia. On
|
18 April 1997
|
77. On 11 April 1997 he made a similar application, submitting that at the hearing of 10 April 1997 the court had heard evidence from him and he had explained all the circumstances relating to his the charges laid against his wife. The court dismissed the application on
|
18 November 1999
|
17. On an unknown date in early 1999 the applicant applied to the Zakarpatye Regional Department of Justice for compulsory enforcement of the September 1998 judgment. The warrant of execution was on several occasions sent to the Zakarpatye Regional Department of the State Treasure. However on
|
11 September 2000
|
13. On 19 June 2000 it reopened the proceedings and scheduled a further hearing for 13 July 2000, as the expert had used documents in his report which had not yet been introduced in the proceedings. It granted the parties two weeks to make their comments. At the applicant's request, the Court postponed the hearing to
|
27 February 2008
|
10. The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrations-domstolen) in Stockholm. He maintained his earlier submissions and added the following. He had been harassed in Ethiopia due to his foreign appearance, his mother being Eritrean. He also claimed that he had been accused by the Government of being a spy. He submitted an arrest order issued by the Ethiopian authorities on
|
4 February 2005
|
14. On 10 June 2003 the police lodged a complaint with the Split Minor-Offences Court against three individuals, including J.M., for disturbance of public peace and order, alleging that they had physically attacked the applicant, kicked her entire body, pulled her by the hair and pushed her down the stairs, all the while shouting obscenities at her. The first hearing in the proceedings was held on
|
the following day
|
9. On 3 May 2005 the applicant contacted BUP in a state of despair and, in response, a social emergency unit (social beredskap) went to the applicant’s home, accompanied by police and a chief physician from the adult psychiatric clinic. The authorities found the interior of the home completely destitute; there was hardly any furniture and there was no electricity or running water. The applicant was in a confused state and blamed the mess in the house on S. The social emergency unit decided immediately to place the children, together with the applicant, in a temporary family home (jourfamiljehem)[1]. On
|
28 September 2010
|
19. On 9 October 2010 the applicant requested the Pula Municipal Court a copy of the service note by which the Pula County Court’s second-instance judgment of 19 November 2007 had been served on him. His letter reads:
“I have received your letter of
|
between 15 October 1997 and 3 August 1998
|
11. In a contract of 3 August 1998 the applicants allowed the municipality to use the property in return for a monthly rent of 3,646,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). The municipality also agreed to pay the applicants BGL 34,637,000 as compensation for use of the property
|
16 January 2003
|
21. The applicant pointed out that the civil action he had brought before the Pula Municipal Court had been transferred to the Administrative Court and that he had then withdrawn that action. Consequently, on
|
10 June 2005
|
23. On 22 January 2007 the court granted the application. It ordered that the applicant’s counsel be granted access to the surveillance information collected in the criminal case. It further instructed the police to submit to the court the surveillance authorisations (prosecutor’s authorisation LÄRP 16/273 and the authorisation given on
|
the ten years prior to 9 May 1999
|
13. On 9 April 1999 the applicant applied to be registered on the special electoral roll for the elections to Congress and the provincial assemblies on 9 May 1999 in the municipality of Nouméa. He was refused registration on the ground that he could not show that he had been permanently resident in New Caledonia in
|
twenty-four hours
|
16. The other test involved mustard gas and was described in the records as “H sensitivity and penetration”. According to the applicant, it followed the same format as that in 1962.
The Government added the following detail: the mustard gas test was designed to test the performance of protective clothing and was carried out in two parts. The first was a sensitivity test to determine an individual's sensitivity to mustard gas and it involved the placement of a dilute solution of the gas on the participant's upper arm. If after
|
3 September 2004
|
28. As regards the latter two, in a statement dated 3 September 2004 officer T. also mentioned the use of physical force – as well as special techniques – “to calm the applicant down”. In a statement dated
|
5 June 2006
|
30. The court found that the applicant’s guilt had been securely established in particular by the statement given by C., which was not the only evidence against the applicant, her statements having been corroborated by further indirect evidence, such as the testimony of her mother, in whom C. had confided at the material time. The appellate court also found that, although C. and her mother had not had a close relationship before, C. contacted her out of fear for her and her brother’s life and described the acts of coercion carried out by the applicant. Witness C.’s mother also claimed that the initial anonymous criminal complaint sent by email to the Prague 1 District Prosecutor’s Office had been sent by the applicant, who had thus lodged a false accusation. Her testimony was examined in detail. The indirect evidence also included text messages sent by the applicant on
|
7 June 1999
|
9. On 20 May 1999 the town administration requested that examination of the case be postponed until their representative returned from vacation. The applicant and his representative appeared at the hearing of
|
25 February 1999
|
33. On 26 June 2006 the Cologne Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Aachen Regional Court decision of 30 March 2006. It did not share the view expressed by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision dated
|
30 September 2005
|
9. On the same day A.L-iani, the Khoni prison governor, informed in writing the head of the Western Georgian investigation department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry's investigation department”), the authority in charge of custodial institutions, and the Georgian General Prosecutor's Office, an unrelated authority which supervised investigation procedures within the Ministry of Justice, that Mr Tsintsabadze had committed suicide by hanging himself in the storeroom of the prison between the hours of 7 and 8 p.m. on
|
5 July 2007
|
8. In May 2000 Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, who had been the speaker of the Chechen Parliament (“the Parliament of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria”) in 1997-99, was abducted from his house and disappeared (see Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01,
|
24 January 2000
|
21. On 1 March 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant and his defence counsel as groundless and upheld the order of 24 December 1999 and the decision of 20 January 2000.
(c) Detention order of
|
30 June 1977
|
9. On 28 May 1971 the Chrzanów District Court (Sąd Powiatowy) gave a decision (postanowienie) declaring that, under the will of M.H. (the applicant’s mother-in-law), her estate be inherited by her three daughters Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.K. (the applicant’s wife) and by her granddaughter (M.S.).
On
|
14 April 2006
|
25. On 17 March 2006 P.V. did not appear at the hearing scheduled before the Municipal Court, but the applicant, the police and a child psychologist were present. On the same date a forcible transfer of custody was attempted but, again, P.V.'s house was found to be vacant. The next hearing was scheduled for
|
20 April 2007
|
33. On 15 June 2011 the High Court, by a majority, delivered a final judgment in which it set out, in detail, the decisions taken by the lower courts. Reiterating that those courts alone had jurisdiction to establish the facts, it endorsed their findings of fact. It dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment delivered on appeal. As to the applicable law, it held, in particular, as follows:
“Pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 ... a distinction is made between two situations: (a) that in which the property is in the ownership of the State ... (b) that in which the places of worship and the parishes have been taken over by the Romanian Orthodox Church and in respect of which [the question of] restitution will be decided by a joint committee made up of representatives of the clergy of the two denominations, a committee which will take account of the wishes of the worshippers in the communities in possession of these properties.
In the light of those provisions, the Court of Appeal, examining an action for recovery of possession of a place of worship, correctly applied the criterion of the wishes of the (predominantly Orthodox) worshippers of the community in possession of the property, while simultaneously emphasising the unlawfulness of the reasoning of the first-instance court, which had merely compared the title deeds and ignored the special law...
However, it appears that there are 24,968 Orthodox worshippers and 509 Greek Catholic worshippers in Lupeni, that the worshippers who were obliged to transfer to the Orthodox Church in 1948 do not wish to return to the Greek Catholic Church and that an attempt has been made to resolve [the dispute] through the joint clerical committee (according to the minutes of
|
22 December 2003
|
14. On 17 June 2004 the Trabzon Labour Court ordered the applicant and his two colleagues to repay the missing money to the bank together with the “highest rates of interest applicable”. It considered, on the basis of the Istanbul Assize Court’s decision of
|
one year and four months
|
21. In its judgment of 25 July 2003 the Regional Court held that the accused police officers by jointly and wilfully inflicting bodily harm on the victim had negligently caused the latter’s death and found them guilty as charged. It sentenced the applicant to a suspended prison term of
|
25 June 1996
|
24. The Legal Aid Area Office refused legal aid for the appeal by letter dated 30 May 1996 stating that the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings. In particular, he had not made any comment on the Crown's grounds of appeal and it was not therefore possible to determine his likely prospects of success. He appealed this refusal, submitting detailed and reasoned argument. The Legal Aid Area Office, by letter dated
|
the end of July 2003
|
80. He then examined whether, on the facts, it could be said that British troops were in effective control of Basra City during the period in question, such as to fix the United Kingdom with jurisdiction under the “effective control of an area” doctrine. On this point, Brooke LJ concluded as follows:
“119. Basra City was in the [Coalition Provisional Authority] regional area called ‘CPA South’. During the period of military occupation there was a significant degree of British responsibility and authority in CPA South, although its staff were drawn from five different countries and until
|
4 February 2006
|
31. The applicant had presented several copies of his complaints to different authorities covering various aspects of the physical conditions of his detention, including one dated 4 February 2006 addressed to the General Prosecutor’s Office. In this complaint, he had described the conditions of his detention, with particular regard to poor ventilation, and had complained of arbitrary seizure of various personal belongings, including the self-made toilet cover and the string for opening and closing the window. At the end of this complaint, there had been the signature of his cellmate, A.Z., attesting that the applicant had despatched the complaint on
|
8 December 2010
|
18. The first hearing before the Regional Court was held on 13 September 2010. The plaintiff increased the amount of the claim because the applicant’s debt for services had in the meantime increased to LVL 3,173 (approximately EUR 4,515) and submitted the relevant documents. The applicant’s representative disagreed with the increase of the claim. The Regional Court admitted those documents to the case file and scheduled the next hearing for
|
13 and 14 May 2000
|
9. At approximately 9 p.m. on Friday 12 May 2000 S.D., a prosecutor from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office, ordered the police officer who was on duty at the entrance of the Courts of Justice building in Sofia to let him enter in order to seal off the applicant's office. A few minutes later he came back and handed the police officer a written order to not allow the applicant into the building on
|
between September 2007 and September 2008
|
11. On 3 November 2008 the applicant lodged an application for the reimbursement of the portion of his gross salary – in the total amount of 78,428.47 Croatian kunas ((HRK), approximately 10,900 euros (EUR) at the time) – withheld during the suspension period
|
2 March 1978
|
28. On 15 September 1997 the applicant submitted to the Municipal Office a copy of a request lodged with the court by a certain Ms H.K. She requested the court to quash the court’s decision of 18 June 1997 in the part concerning the estate of Mr M.K. She argued that already by
|
16 August 2007
|
28. Since the applicant had been refused the right of appeal against the first-instance court’s decision in her case, her lawyer wrote to the General Prosecutor’s Office requesting that an appeal on points of law be lodged before the Supreme Court of Justice. The General Prosecutor’s Office failed to lodge such an appeal. In their letter of
|
18 February 2011
|
15. On 23 December 2013 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina partially accepted the applicant’s appeal and thereby found a violation of her right to a trial within a reasonable time, due to the non-enforcement of the decision of the Municipal Court of
|
21 July 2011
|
86. On 23 June 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint with the court, challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. The complaint was rejected on 25 July 2011, because on
|
October 1984
|
12. On 17 November 1986 the Marburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. It further ordered his placement in preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) under Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 49-50 below). It found that when the conditions of his detention in the psychiatric hospital where he had been detained since
|
three years
|
36. The court agreed with the prosecutor that the case was complex. However, it noted that there had been many delays and that many of the actions could have been carried out earlier. For instance, as regards one charge against Mr M.D., witnesses were heard in July 2009,
|
13 July 1995
|
13. On 30 May 1995 the Mardin public prosecutor refused to commit the police officers for trial, taking into account the medical reports drafted at the beginning and end of the applicant’s detention in police custody, which had recorded no injuries on his body. In this regard, the prosecutor found that the applicant’s allegation of having been ill-treated in police custody was unsubstantiated. This decision was notified to the applicant on
|
December 2009
|
9. On 3 March 2010 the applicant sent another email to the Rector of the University and to several other recipients, including the members of the Senate. The email criticised the lack of democracy and accountability in the leadership of the organisation, which, according to the applicant, stemmed from the fact that all the members of the Senate were also a part of the executive authority of the University and there was thus an inadequate system of checks and balances. He also drew the recipients’ attention to the alleged mismanagement of the University’s finances. In support of this allegation the applicant relied on the conclusions adopted by the State Audit Office (Valsts Kontrole) in
|
from 25 March 2009 until 22 April 2009
|
26. The next day, on 25 March 2009, at about 6.40 p.m., the NAP asked the Bucharest Court of Appeal to remand the applicant and the other two defendants in custody (the rector was released) for twenty-nine days,
|
25 September 1991
|
17. On 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court adopted a final judgment whereby it quashed the decisions of 28 October and 21 December 1999. The Supreme Court concluded that the authorities and the lower courts had been responsible for the delays in restoring the applicants' rights under the Act. It held inter alia:
“From the material in possession it appears that the plaintiffs submitted a request to restore their property rights on
|
15 July 2002
|
16. On 7 January 2003 the Director of the Międzyrzecz Detention Centre notified the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court that the applicant had been transferred there and had been detained on the basis of the detention order of
|
the next day
|
5. On 4 November 1999 the applicant was taken by ambulance to the Psychiatric Department of Nagyatád Hospital. Pursuant to section 199 § 2 of the Health Care Act (“the Act”), the Hospital notified the Nagyatád District Court of this fact
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.