target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
24 May 2006
|
23. By a decision of 26 April 2006 the District Court scheduled a hearing in the case and ordered that the applicant should remain in custody. No time-limit for this detention was indicated. The applicant’s request for release was rejected on the ground that the initial decision ordering the applicant’s detention had been taken in accordance with the requirements of Articles 97, 99 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and that, at present, the court found no reason to revoke or change the applicant’s preventive measure, given, in particular, the necessity to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Moscow City Court on
|
21 December 1953
|
9. On 3 August 1977 the applicant and the three other plaintiffs brought an action in the Seydişehir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) against Zehra Özden and five defendants. The applicant and his co-plaintiffs stated that the land in question had belonged to their and the defendants' testator (muris), A.E. They alleged, however, that A.E. was not the owner of the land before his death since he had transferred the land to their mother in 1953. In support of this allegation they submitted a title deed dated
|
August 2009
|
25. On 28 January 2011 the High Court of Ireland gave an interim order. It considered that the Irish courts had jurisdiction to decide on the custody of A and had retained that jurisdiction after her wrongful removal in
|
fifteen days’
|
9. On 24 June 2004 the Gegharkunik Regional Court found the first applicant guilty under Section 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences of maliciously disobeying lawful orders of police officers and sentenced him to
|
25 January 2000
|
12. On 24 January 2001 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the appeals. The court rebutted the argument concerning the allegedly unlawful composition of the bench, relying on the President’s Decree of
|
12 December 2007
|
116. It would appear that the proceedings, currently pending before the Karlovac Commercial Court, have been stayed since 14 February 2008 when that court issued a decision to that effect, because Retag had on
|
21 June 2001
|
52. The applicant was granted victim status on 30 May 2000 and questioned on that date and on 27 February 2001. His numerous requests were included in the case file. The applicant’s wife was interviewed on
|
23 November 2010
|
6. On 27 January 2010 the Tirana District Court accepted in part the applicant’s action against his dismissal. It ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and the payment of damages corresponding to five months’ salaries. By final judgment of
|
14 May 1996
|
8. The court held hearings on 27 July and 5 December 1995. On 1 February 1996 the applicant asked the court to issue an interim order to safeguard his claim in the proceedings. On 2 April 1996 the court refused his request. On
|
18 March 2013
|
7. On 25 March 2013 the Speaker initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. He submitted a proposal to the plenary to fine him – under section 48(3) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament – 131,410 Hungarian forints (approximately 450 euros) for using a blatantly offensive expression.
The Speaker’s proposal reads as follows:
“SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT
Decision in disciplinary matter
Proposal to impose a fine
According to the minutes of Parliament’s session of
|
23 February 1981
|
19. It is a matter of contention, whether the applicant had been detained, whether his expulsion was ordered by a court and whether he was deported (see paragraphs 56-59 below).
(e) Artur SARKISIAN and Andrei SARKISIAN (born respectively on
|
1 November 2016
|
12. The decision of 14 October 2015 (see paragraph 11 above) was subsequently annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. On
|
14 May 2002
|
28. In the meantime, on 23 April 2002, the applicant had instituted proceedings before the Stavanger City Court to obtain a declaratory judgment (fastsettelsesdom), maintaining that there was no legal basis for conducting an investigation against him. He also requested an interlocutory injunction suspending the investigation pending judgment in the case. The City Court found that it was not possible to bring the matter before the courts and on
|
5 November 2009
|
35. On 20 May 2010 the applicants’ lawyer wrote to the Zagreb Municipality State Attorney’s Office complaining that since her last letter of October 2009, there had been further incidents of violence and harassment against the applicants. The relevant part of the letter reads:
“...
On
|
eight years’
|
14. The second applicant alleged that the police had suspected her of having been involved in the first applicant’s political activities, but she had only known that he had participated in several demonstrations and political meetings. In 1997 they had moved to Andijan because of their work there but they had kept their house in Tashkent, where they were registered, and went there once a week. After she had received a summons to appear before the prosecutor, she had been forced to sign a travel ban. Her brother had been sentenced to
|
4 November 1999
|
30. On 25 November 1999 by the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 1 November 1999. The court confirmed the conclusions of the first instance court to the effect that “the placement in custody as a preventive measure could be imposed on the sole ground of gravity of the [committed] offence”. On the basis of a medical certificate issued by the detention facility on
|
1 January 1998
|
14. On 5 March 1998 the Praga-Południe District Office informed the applicants of the above resolution and of the possibility of exercising a right of pre-emption in respect of the remaining flats. The right of pre-emption had been introduced as from
|
20 December 2005
|
11. By judgment (решение) of the same date, the Town Court held that the applicant's claim for a higher pension was to be dismissed in full. Its findings were based on the Law on Labour Pensions and the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court no. 25 of
|
19 February 2002
|
9. On 26 September 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action against the Sisak Municipality and the Sisak Market in the Sisak Municipal Court, seeking payment of a sum of money on account of his investments in certain premises. The applicant stated that in July 1991 he left the town of Sisak fearing for his personal safety. He returned to Croatia in 1996. As a result, he was not able to lodge his claim within the five-year statutory time-limit. In his oral evidence given on
|
23 February 2016
|
6. On 2 June 2015 the applicant asked the Federal Migration Service to issue him a travel passport. His application was refused by reference to the fact that he had been convicted on two occasions and given suspended sentences which had not yet expired (see, for details, as regards the first conviction, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14,
|
the same day
|
28. On 31 May 2001 Mr Kolev wrote to the Minister of the Interior and also gave interviews to the press in which he stated that he had learned that the Chief Public Prosecutor had ordered the fabrication of criminal charges against him, which would consist of drugs being “planted” on him with the aim of having him arrested on drug charges and silencing him. This information was published widely. On
|
8 December 1998
|
49. On 18 August 1999 the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition as being manifestly ill-founded. The decision stated, inter alia, that decision no. I. ÚS 30/99 of 28 June 1999 concerned merely the interpretation of the relevant provision of the Constitution. It did not, as such, retroactively affect the validity of the decision on amnesty of
|
10 June 1996
|
18. On 23 August 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk granted the applicant's action in respect of the household items but upheld the seizure of the car, finding as follows:
“The court has established that on
|
14 September 2011
|
57. Furthermore, in 2010 the applicant applied to have a number of the provisions of the implementing regulations of the Prisons Act declared void as regards the conditions for the execution of his life sentence. His application was dismissed with final effect by a judgment of
|
5 February 2009
|
51. On 12 November 2008 the Lublin‑Północ District Prosecutor upheld a decision given on an unspecified date by the police to discontinue an investigation into charges of disclosure of information protected by law, an punishable under Article 266 of the Criminal Code committed by Dr W.S., possibly also by other doctors working at that hospital, ²by the director of the hospital who had spoken to the press about the applicants’ case and by priest K.P. The applicants appealed submitting that information about the applicants’ situation had been disclosed to the general public.
On
|
the period of nine years
|
27. The third certificate was issued on 12 November 2002 by Dr Th. Constantinides, a cardiologist specialised in internal medicine. It reads as follows:
“I first examined Mrs Eleni Vrahimi in June 1998. At the time, Mrs Vrahimi was complaining of chest-pain and super ventricular tachycardia.
From the medical history of the patient, it transpires that since 1989 she has been suffering from 1) Phobia (Claustrophobia), 2) Headaches and 3) Chest-pain with recurrent episodes of SVT (Super ventricular Tachycardia) and ventricular Extrasystoles. The symptoms first appeared in 1989.
The investigation of the headaches showed normal Brain Computer Tomogram.
For
|
15 December 2001
|
33. On 5 February 2002 the investigators requested the Military Commander of the United Group Alignment (UGA) to inform them whether their servicemen had detained the applicants’ relative. On an unspecified date the UGA replied that on
|
22 March 2010
|
9. The applicant started to serve his prison sentence, which had originally been imposed by the Zagreb County Court on 4 July 2005 (see paragraph 6 above), in Bjelovar Prison (Zatvor u Bjelovaru) on
|
29 June 2004
|
65. It follows from the court records that the prosecutor submitted that victim Mr Ya.B. had categorically refused to appear at the hearing on 6 December 2005. He had feared physical reprisals by the accused, as had been confirmed by a report by police officer Sh. and by the victim’s own written submissions to the court in which he had explained his refusal to appear before the court with his fears to give statements against the accused. The prosecutor further submitted that during the preliminary investigation victim Mr A.K. had refused to confront the applicant in person because he had been afraid of him. His mother too had stated that she had feared reprisals from the applicant. Victim Ms P. had feared the applicant, considering him to be dangerous for her and her family. Victim Mr V.B. and witness Ms S. had left Sinegorye for fear of reprisals from the applicant and had decided to give statements only when he had been detained on remand. Witness Ms K. had explained that her husband, witness Mr S.K., had feared reprisals from the applicant and his co-defendants. The applicant argued that after those persons’ questioning at the preliminary investigation, including the time after his release on
|
27 August 2010
|
60. On 25 May 2011 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan allowed the applicant’s appeal and to oblige the investigator to restore his violated rights. It found that the investigating authority had failed to carry out a full and comprehensive investigation, to show due diligence and to comply with the requirements of the Court of Cassation’s decision of
|
23 January 2003
|
14. Subsequently, for about a year the courts at two levels of jurisdiction (first and appeal) reconsidered the admissibility of the applicant’s cassation appeal. In particular, on 3 September 2002 and
|
Three years
|
77. The Kyrgyzstan chapter of Human Rights Watch’s “2014 World Report” reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Shortcomings in law enforcement and the judiciary contribute to the persistence of grave abuses in connection to the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. Ethnic Uzbeks and other minorities remain especially vulnerable. Courtroom attacks on lawyers and defendants, particularly in cases related to the June 2010 events, occur with impunity.
Government officials and civil society representatives formed a national center for the prevention of torture in 2013. In practice, ill-treatment and torture remain pervasive in places of detention, and impunity for torture is the norm.
...
|
8 July 2011
|
100. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court and on 15 September 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed it, reiterating its arguments from the decision of
|
10 November 1994
|
14. On 6 October 1994 the Považská Bystrica District Court requested that the above-mentioned criminal file be returned to it because it was needed in connection with a different criminal case. The Regional Court returned the case file on
|
2 October 2008
|
46. In a letter of 6 October 2008 the same authority replied to a letter from the applicant’s mother complaining of the applicant’s poor medical treatment. The reply stated, in particular, that in connection with the deterioration of the applicant’s eyesight, the prison authorities had sought his admission to the Gaaza prison hospital in St Petersburg but that their request had been refused. It went on to say that on
|
1 April 2009
|
16. Accordingly, by a decision of 3 June 2009 the court awarded the applicant’s house to D.D. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that his house had been sold for less than one-fifth of its value, which had not been sufficient to settle the creditors’ claim in full. In so doing he referred to the reasons given by the Sisak County Court in its decision of
|
3 February 1988
|
10. On 26 October 1985 Mr Papadopoulos filed a civil action for libel with the District Court of Nicosia. The applicants filed a memorandum of appearance to the writ on 5 November 1985. The plaintiff's statement of claim, which, by virtue of Order 20 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, ought to have been filed within ten days after the appearance, was delivered to the applicants on
|
three days'
|
12. On 15 October 2003 the Graz-Umgebung District Authority dismissed the applicant's objection and issued a penal order (Strafverfügung) in which it convicted him of speeding and imposed a fine of EUR 180 with
|
31 July 2003
|
14. Subsequently, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the District Court made two application to the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On
|
9 January 1992
|
10. On 3 December 1991 the applicant was charged before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Gothenburg with aggravated drunken driving and driving without a driver’s licence. According to the record of the police investigation, he did not request the assistance of a public defence counsel. On
|
the 4th day of June, 1993
|
66. On 4 June 1993 the Irish Minister for Tourism and Trade adopted the European Communities (Prohibition of Trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Regulations 1993 (Statutory Instrument no. 144 of 1993), the relevant part of which provided as follows:
“3. A person shall not contravene a provision of [Regulation (EEC) no. 990/93]. 4. A person who, on or after
|
8 December 1995
|
21. Chief Superintendent A.K. was subsequently appointed reporting officer to assist the prosecutor in investigating the case. On 11 December 1995 İ.D. was brought before Halil, who recognised him. The reporting officer then interviewed Halil, who repeated what he had already said and added that İ.D. and M.Y. had hit him on the hands, “backside” and legs; when he collapsed under the blows, they apparently took him to a cell and threatened to “come back” unless he told them where he had hidden the money.
The reporting officer then questioned İ.D., who gave the following explanation:
“... at 7 p.m. the boy was handed over to his father. According to [the complainant], the boy felt unwell at 9 p.m. and was taken to hospital, where a report was drawn up. This event was broadcast on the television channel Kanal 6. Following that broadcast, I was suspended as of
|
between 1 January 1982 and 31 December 1983
|
22. In a judgment of 27 March 2009 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced as follows:
“It follows from the verdict reached by the court and jury together, by a majority of at least ten, that [the applicant] is guilty of:
- having committed acts of sexual penetration, of any nature whatsoever, against [A.], by violence, coercion or by taking the victim unawares, in La Morlaye (Oise),
|
19 February 1992
|
9. On 3 February 1992 the court secured the claim and ordered the applicant to pay 500,000 old zlotys (PLZ) in monthly maintenance for his daughter. On 5 February 1992 the court dismissed the applicant's motion for exemption from court fees. On
|
16 May 2008
|
36. In the course of the subsequent round of pre-investigation enquiries the MDPO obtained written explanations from paramedic F. She stated that she had not seen any signs of injury on the applicant on
|
4 April 2011
|
27. On 15 June 2011 the applicants challenged these decisions before the Constitutional Court, alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, including the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention upon their interlocutory appeal against the detention order of
|
5 October 2000
|
15. In the meantime, in 1998 the applicant, in his capacity as sole trader, had also initiated an administrative action against the Ministry of Industry in which he sought to have declared partially null and void, to the extent that it related to the property, (1) the decision of the Minister of Industry to include the company in the privatisation programme and (2) the privatisation contract for the sale of the company. In a final decision of
|
22 January 2015
|
10. As regards the medical care in prison, the Government submitted that, during the first examination at Szeged Prison, the applicant had stated that he suffered from epilepsy without presenting any relevant documentation. The doctor referred him for a psychiatric examination, which took place on
|
4 December 2007
|
29. On 31 October 2007 the fifth applicant initiated a conciliation complaint before the Oslo Conciliation Board, claiming that the lessees in question did not have the right to enjoy the same conditions as previously after extension of their leases. She submitted valuations of the undeveloped value of the various leased plots made on
|
30 September 2003
|
30. On 22 January 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision of 25 November 2003 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Regional Court held that on 25 November 2003 the District Court had failed to substantiate its conclusions concerning the lawfulness of the investigator's decision of
|
22 May 1994
|
56. In a letter of 20 May 1994 the vice-president of the provincial council for the province (raion) of Făleşti rebuked G.E., priest of the parish of Saint Nicholas and a member of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, for having celebrated the Easter service on 9 May 1994 in the town cemetery, that being an act contrary to the Religious Denominations Act because the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was illegal. For the same reason he was forbidden to conduct divine service in future whether inside a church or in the open air. The vice-chairman of the provincial council warned G.E. not to implement a plan he had to invite priests from Romania to attend divine service on
|
6 June 2006
|
26. The court then stated:
“Based on such secured evidence, the court came to a clear conclusion, finding the defendant guilty as indicated in the verdict of the judgment. The defendant denies any such behaviour and actions on his part directed against [C.] as described in the judgment; however, he has clearly been proved guilty by the evidence taken. The court relied in particular on the testimony of witness [C.], who described the defendant’s actions in great detail. The testimony is consistent with further evidence taken. This includes email correspondence, which corroborates the victim’s statement and the victim’s mother’s statement to the effect that the victim had confided in her about everything on
|
15 June 2006
|
48. On 22 December 2006 the Municipal Court adjourned the hearing, stating that the case file was still with the District Court which was about to rule in respect of the respondent's appeal filed against the interim custody order issued on
|
22 October 2007
|
23. On 29 October 2007 the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from the State fee. The reasons for its decision were substantially the same as those given in the Tartu Administrative Court’s decision of
|
Between 6 September 1994 and 2 June 1999
|
9. Further to the reorganisation of the Slovenian judicial system, the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) on 30 December 1994.
On 13 February 1997 the judge to whom the case had been assigned was promoted and the case was consequently reassigned to a new judge.
|
7 July 2004
|
12. Having examined the materials in the file, the applicant company found that its request for a postponement had been accepted by the court on 23 June 2004 and a new date for the hearing had been set for
|
31 March 2001
|
12. In a letter to the applicant dated 9 April 2001 the dean of the faculty replied that the applicant had not been entitled to take part in the event without the authorities’ permission. He added that the director of the translation course had expressed misgivings as to whether the applicant was sufficiently familiar with the topic of the programme of
|
every second weekend in
|
32. On an application lodged by the first applicant, on 5 March 2010, the order of 10 February 2010 was replaced by a new order by the Centre, dated 17 March 2010, according to which the first applicant was allowed to stay with the second applicant
|
12 April 1999
|
6. On 26 November 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery. Subsequently several sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against him under the supervision of the Gdańsk District Prosecutor. They were all later joined to be conducted together by the prosecutor's decision of
|
17 October 2006
|
44. On 26 July, 7 and 8 September 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court returned the applications of Mr Rustamhodjaev and Mr Kasimhujayev because their applications could not be examined in criminal proceedings. It also pointed out that Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to detention pending extradition. On
|
8 August 2008
|
48. The applicant's constitutional complaint of 24 June 2008 was declared inadmissible on 25 September 2008 on the ground that the impugned decisions were no longer in effect since, meanwhile, a fresh decision on his detention had been adopted on
|
the same day
|
6. On 14 November 1997 the Ministry of the Interior, Kranj Criminal Police Unit (Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve - Urad kriminalistične službe Kranj) issued a decision on detention of the applicant. He was arrested on
|
19 March 2001
|
17. On 7 May 2003 the Tsentralnyy Court quashed the investigator’s decision of 27 March 2003, holding that the inquiry had been insufficient. The court pointed out the following discrepancies in the inquiry:
- the investigator had failed to establish the exact place in the Police Station where the applicant had sustained the injuries; he did not clarify whether the applicant had hit the wall himself or had been made to hit the wall by others; he did not inspect the wall;
- the investigator had closed the case against the police officers, whereas the offence as such, committed by unknown persons, was still open for investigation;
- the investigator had failed to explain the inconsistency of his conclusion with the medical expert’s report of
|
12 May 1999
|
14. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Pension Fund and, in the alternative, against both the Fund and the Icelandic State, challenging the Fund’s decision to discontinue the payments to him. In a judgment of
|
September 2001
|
18. According to the information and supporting documents submitted by the Government, on an unspecified date in 2010, the first, second and third applicants were registered with the Romanian Population Register Office as living at house no. 156 in the village of Voiniceni, Mureş starting from 1997, 1996 and 1994, respectively. In addition, starting from
|
25 July 1994
|
11. On 9 November 1994 he was charged with irregular operations with currency and securities. On 10 November 1994 the prosecutor’s decision of 25 October 1994 to authorise the applicant’s detention on remand was revoked on the ground that there had already been the court order regarding the applicant’s detention of
|
22 January 2003
|
10. On 26 December 2002 the applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 2 October 2002 and on the next day, she filed it with the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”) which, on
|
the previous day
|
49. Lance Corporal S. was a member of a patrol carrying out a check around the perimeter of a Coalition military base (Fort Apache), where three Royal Military Police officers had been killed by gunfire from a vehicle
|
the week beginning 30 October 2000
|
7. On 29 June 2000 counsel for the second applicant requested an early confiscation hearing and counsel for the co-accused, Mr. E., requested a confiscation hearing in September. The trial judge pencilled in a date on
|
21 January and
|
113. Two generals – the former Minister of the Interior and his deputy – and three senior-ranking officials were charged with the unlawful killings committed on 13 June 1990, including that of the applicant’s husband, on 12, 18 and
|
19 January 2007
|
9. On 19 January 2007 the District Court once again extended the applicant’s detention. On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court held the appeal hearing without informing the applicant in advance about the hearing date. The applicant’s counsel attended the appeal hearing and made oral submissions. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the detention order of
|
30 October 2007
|
53. On 24 September 2007 the MCI ordered the suspension of the construction work because certain technical documents were missing from the file. On 1 October 2007 the applicant company appealed to the National Construction Inspectorate (“the NCI”). On
|
11 May 1993
|
22. At a hearing held on 9 February 1993 the court, at the request of the applicant’s lawyer, granted leave to apply for the instruction of a Guardian (with special responsibility to coordinate inheritance matters) by the Magistrates’ Court. The next hearing was held on
|
2 October 1999
|
38. On 18 and 22 June 2001 respectively the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit (военная прокуратура Северо-Кавказского военного округа – “the circuit military prosecutor’s office”) transmitted Mr Khamzayev’s complaint about the attack of
|
Between 1 February 1979 and 31 December 1980
|
9. Between 13 July 1953 and 15 October 1957 the applicant paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees (Ταμείο Τυπογράφων και Μισθωτών Γραφικών Τεχνών) for 1136 working days.
|
13 April 2004
|
52. The Secretary of State (Ms Jacqui Smith) rejected the fifth and sixth applicants’ representations on 12 March 2008. She found that assurances given by the United States in the Diplomatic Note of
|
28 December 1999
|
16. On 9 November 1999 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings because the president of the defendant company, who was its representative, had died. Upon the applicant's appeal the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed that decision on
|
the same day
|
20. The logbook of persons brought to the Khoroshevskiy district police station indicated that the second applicant was taken there at 7.50 p.m. and released at 10.35 p.m. on 6 May 2012. The administrative file contained no record of the applicant being escorted to the police station. The record of administrative arrest compiled at 8.20 p.m. indicated that she had been taken to the police station at 8.10 p.m. and released later on
|
summer 1992
|
7. Early in 1992 the applicant began to suspect that her colleagues were aware of her illness. At that time hospital staff had free access to the patient register which contained information on patients’ diagnoses and treating doctors. Having confided her suspicions to her doctor in
|
twenty years
|
21. Under Article 6 it held that the applicant, who became aware of the expropriation in 1999, had not solicited the action of the authorities. Nevertheless, it was unacceptable that the Commissioner of Lands, who had the duty to take action, had, in
|
the last year
|
7. The proportion of Roma students at the Göllesz Viktor Remedial Primary and Vocational School was 40 to 50% in the last ten years. Statistical data indicate that in 2007 Roma represented 8.7% of the total number of pupils attending primary school in Nyíregyháza. In 1993,
|
20 December 2005
|
16. On 28 January 2002 the applicant was transferred to facility no. IZ‑77/3 and placed in cell no. 524, measuring 32.74 square metres. The Government, relying on a certificate issued by the director of the facility on
|
the last years
|
25. A dissenting opinion of Justice Rzepliński was attached to that judgment. He had regard, firstly, to considerations which could be said to have constituted the ratio legis of the Press Act when it had been adopted in 1984. He noted that the 1952 Constitution, in force at that time, guaranteed neither the right to freedom of expression nor the right to respect for family and private life in any form comparable to the current constitutional regulations. At that time all media had been subject to preventive censorship and it was ultimately the State which decided what could be published or broadcast. The opinion further read, inter alia:
“The provisions of the Press Act regarding the authorisation requirement were only, at that time, an additional safeguard against the press publishing any information given to journalists by the communist party or State agents if such information was capable of jeopardising the interests of then political power.
[Given that constitutional background, it is only natural that] the Press Act did not provide for any distinction in respect of the authorisation requirement between the persons exercising public functions and all other persons. Thus, that Act provided for identical protection, by way of the criminal law, of persons holding public offices who were, for that reason, obliged to provide information about their acts to journalists, playing the role of “watchdogs” of the public powers on behalf of public opinion, and all other, “private”, persons. (...)
Moreover, the Press Act failed to indicate any time-limit within which a journalist could reasonably expect that authorisation would be granted or refused. (...)
While it is true that during
|
thirty-two years previously
|
11. The applicant submitted that the main reason why her sister had lodged the action for the annulment of her adoption had been to preclude her from inheriting half of the ten hectares of land and to keep all the property inherited from their adoptive mother for herself. In this respect she claimed that the lawfulness of the adoption order had never been questioned before, although it had been issued
|
1 June 2006
|
101. On 12 September 2006 the General Prosecutor decided to quash this decision and to terminate the proceedings for the lack of corpus delicti, with reference to Article 35 § 1 (2) of the CCP. The General Prosecutor found, in particular, that at the material time the CC did not prescribe an offence for the act of unauthorised abandonment of the place of alternative labour service and such an offence was incorporated in the CC only by the amendments introduced on
|
26 June 1998
|
24. On 18 May 1998 applicant requested that the hearing scheduled for 28 May 1998 be adjourned because of his medical examination planned for that day. On 28 May 1998 the court adjourned the hearing until
|
10 July 2002
|
23. On 23 December 2004 the Administrative Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the application for judicial review, for the following reasons:
“... A distinction must be made between administrative measures relating to the treatment of prisoners in prison (such as a decision to place them in a more secure part of the prison, and in particular imposing a strict confinement regime – see Administrative Court ruling no. 14568 of
|
one day in late October 1994
|
82. On 18 January 1996 a certain Mr Aziz Dalkılıç was questioned by a gendarme officer in relation to “the killing of a person by two people in a location near Sinan village in the autumn of 1994”. Mr Dalkılıç stated that at around 3 p.m.
|
eight years'
|
7. On 11 April 1991 the Kochubeyevskiy People's Court of the Stavropol Region convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery (Article 146 § 2 of the RSFSR Criminal Code) and the involvement of minors in criminal activities (Article 210 of the RSFSR Criminal Code). It sentenced him to
|
3 February 1998
|
67. In the District Court’s view, it had not been demonstrated that the care provided to the applicant’s husband during his stay in hospital from 25 January to 3 February 1998 had not been in accordance with good medical practice, or that he should have been kept in hospital for longer. The court therefore concluded that there was no causal link between the treatment administered by Dr J.V. to the applicant’s husband in the CHVNG and his death, which had been caused by a perforated viscus that was unconnected to the colonic disease treated by the accused. It held:
“...there was no evidence to show that the treatment administered by the accused for the Clostridium difficile infection was incomplete, that the patient was discharged prematurely on
|
25 October 2007
|
11. On 27 September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that on the basis of the evidence before them the authorities had arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had refused to undergo the breathalyser test. The applicant had failed to raise any substantial arguments against these findings and had not shown that the assessment of the evidence carried out by the authorities was contradictory or implausible. In accordance with Section 39 § 2 of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a hearing as it found that an oral hearing was not likely to contribute to the clarification of the case. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on
|
September 1999
|
8. On 21 October 1999 a negotiation meeting was held at the Gdańsk Municipal Office. The town offered PLN 479,912 as compensation for plots nos. 47/30, 47/32, 47/34, 47/36, 55/7, 60/1 and 61, at PLN 70.08 per square metre, calculated on the basis of the
|
31 July 2005
|
32. On 8 August 2006 the Minister of the Interior ordered him to be deported to Tunisia, applying the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 144 of 27 July 2005 (entitled “Urgent measures to combat international terrorism” and later converted to statute law in the form of Law no. 155 of
|
16 November 1999
|
12. On 16 August and 15 September 1999 the Central Bank of Russia declared a moratorium until 17 November 1999 on the execution of all creditors’ demands against the Bank. On 16 November 1999 the management of the Bank was taken over temporarily by the “Agency on Restructuring of Lending Agencies” (hereafter – “the ARKO”), set up by the State in accordance with the Law on Restructuring of Lending Agencies (hereafter - “the Law”). On
|
Between 18 March 1992 and 2 June 1992
|
11. In 1992 the applicant was the manager of a state-owned bank, located in Kramsk. On 18 March 1992 the Konin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) instituted an investigation concerning the applicant.
|
29 August 2011
|
16. Following the first applicant’s complaint to the Court V.B. continued behaving violently towards her. On 19 August 2010 he was fined administratively in the amount of MDL 400 (EUR 25.5 at the time) for insulting the first applicant. On the second occasion, after communication of the present application to the respondent Government, V.B. was fined MDL 200 (EUR 12.2) on
|
three months
|
14. At approximately 5.30 p.m. on 24 October 2005 a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor's request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant's detention for a period of
|
5 June 2002
|
121. On 16 January 2007 the district prosecutor's office decided not to open a criminal investigation into an allegation by the sixth applicant that money and jewellery had been stolen from her home. The decision stated that, in her application of
|
a period of two months
|
13. The section entitled “Information on the placement” stated:
“We have informed her of the following: ...
(3) Time-limits and conditions for return of the child:
– a child who is claimed back within
|
a particular day
|
29. By an interlocutory judgment of 11 February 2013 the post‑sentencing judge dismissed as inadmissible the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Bacau Prison authorities that the food received on
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.