target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
13 April 2007
|
11. On 1 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 12,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Split County Court to give a decision in the applicant's case in the shortest time possible but no longer than ten months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on
|
2 April 2011
|
15. On 6 April 2011 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert. It appears from forensic report no. 01/MES dated 9 April 2011 that the expert noticed a bruise (qançır) measuring 4.5 by 2.5 cm on the outer side of the applicant’s right calf (baldır). He concluded that the injury had been caused by a hard blunt object and that the time at which it had been inflicted corresponded to
|
October 2004
|
33. Both the applicant and C.T. appealed against the detention order and argued, inter alia, that there had been no reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and that the criminal proceedings against them had been a form of pressure to persuade Oferta Plus to abandon its application before the Court. The applicant argued that he had been arrested because he had refused to make the declarations he had been asked to make by the investigating officer and in order to induce him to make such declarations. He also argued that the criminal proceedings had been pending since
|
7 March 2006
|
10. During the retrial, the applicant sought the revocation of the preventive measure prohibiting him from leaving the country on several occasions, complaining that the unreasonably long travel ban had prevented him from conducting his business activities and earning a living for his family. He also argued that there were no reasons to suspect that he posed a flight risk. On
|
6 October 1995
|
17. On 6 September 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court allowed the request submitted by the prosecution service and extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 November 1995. The court considered that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against the applicant. It also relied on a significant danger to society caused by the criminal offences in question and the necessity to ensure the proper course of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the court pointed out that the investigation of the case would have to be continued in order to clarify the applicant’s role in the commission of the criminal offences and to identify individuals who would be charged with receiving stolen goods from the applicant. Finally, the court considered that the applicant’s case did not disclose any of the grounds for release from detention listed in Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e. danger to the detainee’s life or health and extreme hardship caused to either the detainee or his family. On
|
Christmas 2007
|
54. When Mr Yordanov was transferred to Pleven Prison, the cells there were not equipped with in-cell toilets or running water. According to the Government, such toilets were installed on 1 September 2008. Thus, after the locking of his cell at about 8 p.m. each evening, he was forced to relieve himself in a bucket. According to a declaration by another inmate, the cells remained locked between 8.30 p.m. and 5.30 a.m. or 5.45 a.m. during weekdays and 6.30 a.m. on weekends. The cells were left unlocked until late at night, allowing access to the common toilets, only at times of epidemics of intestinal disorders in the prison. Initially, Mr Yordanov had been placed in a cell measuring 9.5 by 5.2 metres that he had shared with fifteen to twenty-two other inmates. After
|
5 July 2001
|
14. On 22 December 1998 the applicant brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover lost wages and obtain compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. He also claimed damages for his alleged infection with tuberculosis while in detention. He relied on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and claimed 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB). In the course of the proceedings, on
|
the same day
|
16. On 13 February 2001 investigators A. and Sh. had access to the applicant from 10.25 a.m. to 12.25 p.m. and from 3.05 to 7.35 p.m. In his written statement the applicant confessed to a sexual assault against F. and the double murder of A. and Ok. in July 2000. The applicant was questioned from 5.30 to 7.25 p.m. in the presence of counsel D. During that interview, the content of Article 51 of the Constitution was explained to the applicant, and he confirmed that he understood it. He also confirmed he was willing to give testimony and endorsed his earlier confessions on
|
5 March 2003
|
48. On 18 February 2003 the applicant's lawyer made another request for a medical examination. This request was repeated on 27 February 2003. By a letter of 6 March 2003, the Head of the Medical Department of CDECJ, Mr K. Dadashov, responded that the applicant had been examined on
|
30 August-1 September 2004
|
26. Between 15 June 2003 and 27 October 2004 the following investigative steps were taken:
on 30 August 2004 the applicant’s mother-in-law testified that she had seen L. kicking the applicant whilst he was lying on the ground;
on
|
23 September 1999
|
20. On 19 May 2000 the Agency filed an application to re-consider the judgment of 23 September 1999 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It stated that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour had passed an instruction clarifying the application of the Pensions Law which had gone against the interpretation of that law by the courts in the applicants’ case. The Agency maintained that it had been unaware of these circumstances when the judgment of
|
21 March 2001
|
7. On 11 March 2003 the Valjevo Commercial Court issued an enforcement order, by virtue of which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant 2,669,582.39[1] Serbian dinars (RSD), plus statutory interest as of
|
12 February
|
20. The applicant appealed against each of the above extension orders to the Supreme Court arguing that the extension orders were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration his individual situation. On
|
27 March 2006
|
36. On 21 April 2006 the Town Court refused to process the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 March 2006 as being lodged out of time. The court considered that the copy of the decision had been received by the detention centre on
|
6 January 2006
|
26. On 29 March 2006 the Leninskyy Court rejected the applicant’s complaint regarding the alleged unlawfulness of his detention from 6 to 12 January 2006. The court noted in its ruling as follows:
“The court has established that the pre-trial investigation authority was clearly aware of the fact that the applicant had been arrested immediately after having committed a criminal offence on
|
6 June 2003
|
20. On 9 June 2003 the applicant was informed by a note from the chief prosecutor attached to the Iaşi District Court that her complaint against the confinement order had been dismissed by a decision of
|
17 February 2002
|
9. On an unspecified date in 2001 armed men broke into the first applicant’s house. They came in several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and were looking for Khamzat Tushayev and his brother. After the incident the brothers went into hiding. On several occasions armed men broke into the first applicant’s house, searching for them. During yet another similar incident on
|
twenty years’
|
8. On 17 May 2002 the applicant was further interrogated before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, still in the absence of a lawyer. During the questionings, the applicant denied his involvement in the PKK. He explained that in the past he had been involved in an armed robbery and had been sentenced to
|
one and a half years
|
27. At the same hearing the court heard the non-commissioned officer Ali Kılıç. Mr Kılıç had been on duty at the Gendarmerie Command in Kutlubey on the day of the incident. He stated as follows:
“I have been serving at the Kutlubey Gendarmerie Command for
|
22 November 2002
|
52. The investigators requested information from law-enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic and were told in reply that Marvan Idalov had not been arrested, prosecuted or held in any detention facilities and that no special operations had been carried out in Akhkinchu-Borzoy on
|
31 December 2010
|
13. On 11 December 2010 the applicant lodged an action for fair redress (tužba za pravično zadovoljenje) with the Supreme Court, complaining about the overall length of criminal proceedings. It was rejected on
|
23 March 2000
|
10. The Koptevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 19 January 2000. That hearing was adjourned because the applicant did not attend. At the following hearing of 22 February 2000 the applicant challenged the composition of the bench and petitioned the District Court for medical and technical expert opinions. The District Court adjourned the examination of the case until
|
28 June 2008
|
49. On 31 May 2010 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office once again terminated the investigation initiated on 2 July 2008 for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers concerned. The prosecutor noted that, even though the first applicant had sustained some injuries while in detention, the exact time and circumstances of their infliction remained unknown. Furthermore, the location of some of the injuries allowed to presume that they could have been self-inflicted. The prosecutor also noted that the first applicant had not “personalised” his injuries: in other words, that he had not specified who exactly of the police officers had inflicted each specific injury on him. The investigator had also questioned the forensic expert who had conducted the examination of the first applicant on
|
May and June 2000
|
15. On 7 April 2011 an investigator from the main department of the Belarusian Ministry of the Interior resumed the investigation in a criminal case that had been pending since 19 February 2001 against unidentified individuals suspected of aggravated robbery. Four other cases of aggravated kidnapping, including that of a minor, and extortion committed in
|
3 June 2009
|
22. On 28 May 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Aachen Regional Court and the decision of the Federal Court of Justice without giving reasons (file no. 2 BvR 1029/09). The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on
|
2 September 1829
|
100. In the 1080s Ajaria, part of the Bagratid Kingdom known as the “Kingdom of the Georgians”, was laid to waste by Seljuk invaders from the South. In the 1570s it was invaded by the Ottoman Empire. The sanjaks (districts) of Upper Ajaria and Lower Ajaria were formed there and the region was annexed to the vilayet (province) of Childir (Akhaltsikhe). Subsequently, at various times, the Ottomans and the adjoining Georgian principalities fought over the region. Under the terms of Article IV of the Treaty of Adrianople signed on
|
24 October 1997
|
24. At the end of his police custody on 31 October 1997 the applicant was transferred to the prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court. A report, prepared by the police and setting out the information obtained in the course of the police investigation, was also forwarded to the prosecutor. It appears from this report that the applicant’s wife and a female with the name of N.P. had also been taken into custody on
|
29 October 2003
|
31. The first applicant and his representatives were served with the Secretary of State’s “open” material, including a police report which showed that large sums of money had moved through the four bank accounts in his name. SIAC and the special advocate instructed on behalf of the first applicant were in addition presented with “closed” evidence. Assisted by an interpreter, the first applicant gave oral evidence to SIAC and called one witness to testify to his good character. He also filed four medical reports concerning his mental health. SIAC observed in its judgment of
|
15 October 2012
|
31. In conclusion the Commission called, in particular, for “ disciplinary proceedings to be brought against the police officers who used force disproportionately and with precipitation to extract Mr [Ziri] from the police vehicle on his arrival at the police station, and against those who left two men, aged 60 and 69, handcuffed behind their backs, lying on the floor, with their faces in their vomit, for about one hour, without reacting”. 1. The judge’s decision of
|
10 March 2010
|
23. The court held that it was necessary to obtain information concerning the administrative proceedings instituted by one of the applicant’s lawyers against the GPU (see paragraph 69 below) and extended the applicant’s detention until
|
29 September 2008
|
14. On 24 July 2008 the municipal council authorised the mayor to open a privatisation procedure in favour of the applicant in respect of part of the shopping centre’s first floor. On 20 August 2008 the applicant brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the tacit refusal of the municipality to offer to her the whole first floor of the shopping centre and not just a part of it. While those proceedings were pending, on
|
12 September 1996
|
5. In March 1996 Mr. D. instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking compensation for expenses of the funeral of his brother, the applicant's husband. On 24 July 1996 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd (hereinafter “the Leninsky Court”) allowed this claim in part. On
|
7 and 8 August 2000
|
62. The defence commissioned an expert analysis of the recording of the telephone conversations at Ms Margvelashvili’s flat. The phonological analysis of the audiotapes submitted by the defence concluded that the recording of the telephone conversations on
|
fifteen years and ten months’
|
57. In a final judgment dated 26 March 2008, the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted H.O. of murder and illegal possession of a firearm. It sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, taking into account the fact that the accused had committed the offence as a result of provocation by the deceased and his good conduct during the trial, the court mitigated the original sentence, changing it to
|
three-month
|
15. The applicants applied for compensation by bonds only in July 2006, when their claim for damage was rejected. On 16 August 2007 the regional governor declared their request inadmissible for having been submitted outside the
|
16 November 2004
|
87. The Government further stated that after the criminal investigation by the military prosecutor's office had been closed, a new criminal case file, no. 36125, had been opened by the Shali District Prosecutor's Office under Article 105 (murder) on
|
The same day
|
6. On 18 November 2003 the police division responsible for the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking (“the police”) sought authorisation from the prosecutor’s office to use an undercover agent and to obtain two grammes of heroin in order to gather evidence of the applicants’ alleged involvement in drug trafficking. It relied on Law no. 143/2000 on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use (“Law no. 143”).
|
10 March 2004
|
13. The Parole Board subsequently reconsidered the applicant's case and on 25 February 2004 once again recommended the applicant's release. On this occasion the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation, and on
|
16 August 2005
|
23. At a hearing held on 8 November 2005 the trial court decided to consider both indictments in one set of proceedings. According to depositions taken on that date, the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, stated, inter alia, that:
“The accusations described in the indictment, which I contest, are wrong. At about 10.45 p.m. on 12 August 2005, 300 metres in front of my house ... members of special (police) forces jumped on my back and put me in a car ... they took me to a forest, I do not know exactly where ... When they abducted me, there were fourteen or fifteen of them ... In the forest there was a change of driver, and they hooded me and drove me far away in a different direction. We arrived in a house, where they unhooded me; it was a luxurious house. I was told to sit on a chair; uniformed people wearing masks and others in plain clothes arrived. They asked me if I knew why I had been brought there, to which I replied that I had not done anything wrong. They started insulting me ... four people started beating me with plastic bottles and a rubber tube. I stayed in the house for three days. During that time, while my hands and legs were handcuffed, I was held under water in a swimming pool. A big man was trying to force me to confess about the police station, to which I replied ‘to confess what about the police station?’. When they took me out of the pool, other people continued beating me. They ordered me to admit that I had placed the bomb in the B.P. police station. I told them that I had not done that ... they also brought a dog into the house. The dog did nothing to me. They held me under water in the pool three or four more times ... I believe that we were in Veles ... The same uniformed men, who wore masks, brought me [near the department store in Skopje, see paragraph 11 above] and told me to go home. There were other people around. I was wet and could not walk. Men in plain clothes without uniforms or masks handcuffed me and took me to K. police station. They slapped me twice and started interrogating me about the bomb in B.P. police station. I told them that I knew nothing ... They asked me if I knew R.S. and F.R., and I said that I did not know them. I stayed in K. police station from 15 August to the night of 16 August, when they brought me before the investigating judge. I note that while I was in the house in Veles I was given a blank paper which I had to sign because they had beaten me. In Veles I think I signed three blank papers and I’m sure that I saw those papers in the police station changing hands between police officers. The investigating judge also showed them to me. When the judge had them they were no longer blank, but I don’t remember what was written on them. In Veles I was told to say ‘admit that you placed the bomb and we will let you go, we will take you home’.
On
|
25 November 1993
|
37. The first applicant maintained that his son was taken into custody on 22 November 1993 together with twelve members of his family. He further stated that he had seen him both at the Çarşı Police Station and at the Rapid Intervention Headquarters. Although the first applicant was informed by the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor that his son had died in a clash on
|
25 June 2002
|
10. Given that it was not clear which entity was responsible for execution of the judgment, the bailiffs asked the District Court for a clarification. Further to their request, on 13 February 2003 the District Court clarified the judgment of
|
14 March 2008
|
39. On 30 March 2009 the following additional documents were read out at the trial: the criminal file no. 119/08 concerning the severed case of R.K.; judicial records according to which the first applicant had three prior convictions, the second applicant had no prior convictions, the third applicant had two prior convictions, and, lastly, R.K. had nine prior convictions; and a police report of
|
23 October 1993
|
63. The following are excerpts from the summary of the oral evidence as set out in the Commission's report (§§ 317-327), given to the Commission's Delegates by İbrahim Şahin, Governor of Diyarbakır province at the relevant time:
“He had gone to Lice a little after midday on
|
18 December 2002
|
57. Between 10 October and 12 December 2002 the proceedings in the case were suspended for an unknown reason. On the latter date the case was transferred to another investigator, who re-interviewed a witness. He further questioned the victim and the applicant on 13 and
|
5 and 6 February 2008
|
11. On 6 August 2007, the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision for lack of reasoning and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1648/2007). The hearing before the Dodecanese Court of Appeal took place on
|
7 October 1999
|
10. In order to establish how long A. had lacked legal capacity and to what extent this had affected the previous proceedings, the District Court, on 12 May 1999, appointed Dr H., a psychiatrist, as an expert. On
|
fifteen days
|
13. The Government submitted the applicant’s medical file in order to prove that the applicant had already suffered from cardiac conditions when his incarceration had started. The applicant’s medical needs had been fully fulfilled during the time he had spent in Diavata Prison either by visits to the prison doctor or by his transfer to nearby hospitals. Lastly, the applicant had been granted
|
30 June 2000
|
10. On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention pending investigation – which had meanwhile exceeded the one-year time-limit set for detention pending the investigation under Article 263 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – until
|
between December 2002 and December 2003
|
27. In June 2006 the applicant Larisa Barshova submitted to the investigators a handwritten note, allegedly given to her by a man who had been released from prison and who had identified her son, Anzor Barshov, from a photograph. The investigation had not located the man. The note said that Anzor Barshov had been charged with the illegal handling of explosives and had been transferred to different prisons in the Southern Federal Circuit
|
twelve to eighteen months
|
19. On 5 May 2011 a different panel of the Skuodas District Court, after re-examining the case, convicted E.G., R.B. and S.G. of the charges against them and gave them suspended prison sentences ranging from
|
29 September 2005
|
36. In a judgment of 17 May 2006 the Constitutional Court held that the Supreme Court had breached the applicant's right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that it had failed to hear her prior to its decision of
|
the same day
|
61. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr Z., who had held at the time of the incident the post of military commander of the Staropromyslovskiy district. He submitted that on 4 December 2000 he had learnt from the residents of house no. 269 at Ugolnaya Street that unidentified persons had taken Mayrudin Khantiyev to an unknown destination. At the relevant time the area had been under curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and a watch post of servicemen of the military commander's office had been stationed on the roof of house no. 269. On
|
11 April 1995
|
22. By a decision of 14 March 2005 the Deputy Governor of Kaunas County restored the former owners’ title to the plot of land on the LAA settlement of which the applicant had acquired ownership under the annulled land-purchase agreement of
|
more than a year
|
20. The applicant’s lawyers lodged a counter-claim, asking for the applicant’s release. They claimed that it was no longer necessary to hold the applicant in custody, as the criminal investigation had ended, the evidence had been collected and the necessity to study the case file did not require the applicant’s further detention. The lawyers also invoked the applicant’s personal circumstances calling for his release: his age, very poor state of health, his permanent place of residence in Moscow and his law-abiding behaviour for
|
twenty-four hours
|
26. Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
“1. If, when questioned, the witness refuses without any lawful reason to answer the questions put to him or to make the required statement or take the required oath or affirmation, the investigating judge shall, if this is urgently required in the interest of the investigation, either proprio motu or if so requested by the public prosecutor or by the defence, order that the witness shall be detained for failure to comply with a judicial order until the Regional Court has given a decision in the matter. 2. The investigating judge shall notify the Regional Court within
|
28 December 2004
|
76. By way of a special warning dated 18 February 2005 the Prosecutor of the Pervomayskiy District cautioned the bailiff that her request of 14 February 2005 came close to breaking the law. In particular, the prosecutor referred to the fact that the Kirov Regional Court had restricted the parents’ parental rights in its decision of
|
2 September 2015
|
20. On 23 July 2015 the applicant asked the Lukiškės Remand Prison authorities to grant him a visit with his future spouse on the day of their wedding in August 2015, without supervision and with physical contact. On
|
31 August 2009
|
14. The applicant and his lawyer sought a supervisory review of the conviction. Following a round of unsuccessful complaints, their request was accepted. On 14 August 2009 the Registry of the Orenburg Regional Court sent letters to the applicant and his lawyer informing them that a hearing had been scheduled before the Presidium of the Regional Court on
|
25 September 2001
|
8. The criminal proceedings against Mr Rosenstingl received extensive media coverage. Mr Rosenstingl and a number of co-accused were eventually convicted of large scale fraud and embezzlement by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court. Its judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court on
|
10 to 12 October 2006
|
24. On 8 February 2007 the District Court convicted him of theft, murder and possession of a firearm, and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The period of his arrest and remand in custody from
|
25 June 2008
|
12. On 11 June 2008 Copenhagen University Hospital produced a memorandum about pleural mesothelioma cancer and its treatment, which was sent to DR. It stressed that international studies, including of Vinorelbine and Alimta, had not shown that any two-combination regime was superior to other two‑combination regimes. That information was confirmed by the professor from Switzerland in an email of
|
the day before
|
13. On the same day the applicant was brought before the Bornova Magistrate’s Court. Assisted by his lawyer, the applicant denied the allegation that he had assaulted Ramazan Oral and alleged that he had been beaten up and insulted by the police officers who had come to his house
|
October 1991
|
14. In the resumed proceedings, on 11 September 2003 the Vojnić Municipal Court again dismissed the plaintiffs' action. The court first determined, as a preliminary issue, whether the plaintiffs had retained their specially protected tenancy of the flat in Vojnić, the existence of that tenancy being a statutory precondition for buying the flat under the Sale to Occupier Act. In this respect the court found that: (a) the plaintiffs had left the flat in
|
almost two and a half years'
|
31. On 1 September 2006 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal modified that judgment. It found that the final medical expert assessment should take precedence and that there was no direct causal link between A.Y.'s actions and Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death in hospital after several operations two weeks after the incident. The court reclassified A.Y.'s actions as inflicting moderate bodily harm and sentenced him to
|
13 November to 27 December 2001
|
5. The article quoted extensively from the Report on the Composite Audit of the Novovoronezh Town Administration, carried out by the Audit Department of the Ministry of Finance for the Voronezh Region from
|
30 August 1993
|
38. Relying on expert opinions submitted by him, the applicant maintained that the condition of reciprocity required by section 3(1) of the ELAA was not fulfilled, as United States constitutional law did not permit the enforcement of decisions given by foreign criminal courts. He further submitted that the five-year limitation period for enforcement had started running on
|
three months
|
82. On 14 September 2007 the Regional Court examined the need for the applicant’s continued detention on remand. The applicant argued, inter alia, that he had a permanent place of residence, a family and a child born in May 2006 dependent on him, that he was an invalid and had a number of chronic diseases. The Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s detention pending trial should be extended for
|
27 July 2001
|
9. The first applicant, who was on his 235th day of hunger strike in protest against the attacks on the detainees during the operations of 19 December 2000, was transferred from Gebze Prison to Kandıra F-type Prison on
|
the same date
|
15. On 1 June 1989 the Regional Court acquitted the applicant of that charge, convicted him on another charge and sentenced him to a partly suspended term of ten weeks’ imprisonment, less the time spent in pre-trial detention. By a judgment of
|
19 June 2002
|
39. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg about the refusal of the investigative authorities to carry out face-to-face confrontation with Mr Grigolashvili and Mrs Margvelashvili. On
|
19 January 2006
|
46. On 25 July 2007 the Supreme Administrative Council set aside the decision of 25 August 2006 (see paragraph 44 above) on the grounds that, in the absence of new evidence capable of justifying revision, its previous judgment of
|
7 September 2001
|
37. Investigator M., who had conducted the preliminary investigation into the applicant’s case, told the court that, initially, the applicant had stated that La. had helped him to prepare the attack. On
|
28-29 October 1999
|
79. The air controller identified as “Sidorov” submitted that on the evening on 28 October 1999 he was informed, in accordance with procedure, about an aviation mission for the following day. The mission was to prevent the movement along the road towards Grozny of heavy vehicles, possibly carrying weapons, fighters and other supply equipment for the “illegal armed groups” defending the city. On the same evening he informed two pilots of the mission. Neither on
|
28 May 1988
|
19. On 30 March 2000 the first applicant was informed that due to the dissolution of the district offices it was not possible to establish the reasons as to why the Gdańsk District Office had not taken any decision on his request. He was further informed that the local development plan of
|
27 February 1997
|
13. The first photo shows her canoeing with her daughter Charlotte, the second shows her son Andrea with a bunch of flowers in his arms.
The third photo shows her doing her shopping with a bag slung over her shoulder, the fourth with Vincent Lindon in a restaurant and the fifth alone on a bicycle.
The sixth photo shows her with Vincent Lindon and her son Pierre.
The seventh photo shows her doing her shopping at the market, accompanied by her bodyguard.
The article is entitled “Pure happiness” (“Vom einfachen Glück”). 2. The second series of photos
(a) The ten photos of the applicant published in Bunte magazine (issue no. 10 of
|
15 June 2005
|
69. On 9 June 2005 a journalist contacted MHPA asking what risk assessments it had undertaken in relation to plans to import LNG to the South Hook and Waterson sites, with specific regard to the marine-based risk. In an email response dated
|
28 July 2005
|
23. The applicant appealed. By decisions of 18 and 25 May 2004 the Local Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision to stay the proceedings, holding that the lack of the local land development plan was not a valid reason for the proceedings to be stayed. The Mayor appealed. On
|
sixteen-year and six-month
|
40. The President’s decision was widely criticised in the press, as one of the persons who benefitted from the pardon was M.C. who had been convicted of crimes against national security and was serving a
|
15 September 2008
|
9. On 14 September 2008 the applicant attempted to escape to Greece from Turkey by boat together with a friend, but they were stranded in the water for approximately eighteen hours when their inflatable boat capsized. On
|
April of 2006
|
12. It appears that because of Marko’s father’s failure to financially support the applicants their only income was money which the first applicant’s mother was sending from Latvia. However, in December of 2005 the first applicant’s mother informed her that she was no longer able to provide financial support. According to the applicants it was for that reason that they had no other choice but to return to Latvia in
|
2 October 2000
|
69. By a decision of 30 October 2000 the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 suspended the proceedings in case no. 14/33/0429-2000. The decision restated the facts of the incident and listed the investigative actions that had been conducted, in the same manner as this had been stated in the decision of
|
31 March 2005
|
22. On 31 March 2005 the Town Court found the decision of 21 September 2004 unlawful. The court stated that the investigator had failed to question the medical practitioners who had treated Mr Timin on the day preceding his death. In compliance with the court’s decision of
|
4 February 2013
|
10. On 16 October 2013 the prosecutor questioned the police officer who had been in charge of questioning the applicant on 4 February 2013. The police officer firmly denied any kind of ill-treatment and said that, after his release, the applicant had met someone who he had alleged had participated in the crime. The police officer suggested that the applicant’s injuries might well have resulted from that encounter. He further contended that when he had been taken home on
|
from 19 to 24 December 2007
|
17. As regards the timeframe of the applicant’s detention, the Government provided the following information:
Period of detention
Type of detention facility
From 28 September 2007 to 29 February 2008
Remand prison no. IK-1 (former remand prison no. IZ-47/1) (
|
26 April 1979
|
10. On 9 July 2015 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found no breach of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, fully accepting the reasoning of the State Court. At the same time, it found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention because of the automatic way in which fines were converted into imprisonment and ordered that Article 47 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina be amended. However, it decided not to quash the decision converting the fine into imprisonment in this case, relying on the principle of legal certainty.
The relevant part of the majority decision reads as follows:
“40. The Constitutional Court notes that the present case concerns a specific situation where the universally accepted standard of conduct in a judicial institution intertwines with the right of the appellant to manifest in a courtroom, contrary to that standard, affiliation with his religious community. The appellant claims that the State Court did not have a basis in law for imposing a fine for his failure to comply with a court order, as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain a provision prescribing any such measure, for which reason his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion was violated. 41. Starting from the main objection raised by the appellant, that the limitation in the case at hand was not prescribed by law, the Constitutional Court notes that the European Court (The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1),
|
11 December 2001
|
5. On 13 November 2001 the Vukovar State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru) indicted the applicant in the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) of the criminal offence of abuse of position and authority (zlouporaba položaja i ovlasti). On
|
more than two years
|
7. On 25 November 2006 he was charged with large-scale drug trafficking committed in conspiracy with other drug dealers. On the same date Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) examined the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:
“Mr Pyatkov Yu.A. is charged with a serious offence, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of
|
the next two days
|
51. On an unspecified date the district prosecutor’s office questioned Mr D., who submitted the following. At about 5 a.m. on 3 May 2001 ten armed and masked men had broken into his home in Tsa-Vedeno, taken him outside and put him into a Ural vehicle. There had been six other villagers and one man unknown to Mr D. in the Ural vehicle. They had been driven in the direction of the town of Shali. Near the turn to the village of Elistanzhi the vehicle had stopped. Mr D. and other men had been taken out of the vehicle; the armed men had tied their arms, blindfolded them with adhesive tape and again put them into the Ural vehicle. Mr D. had been kept for
|
February 2002 to 10 January 2003
|
56. On 13 November 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA questioned Colonel D. [“Boomerang”], who stated that in June 2002 he had served as commander of “SSG-2”, deployed at the northern boundary of the village of Stariye Atagi in the Grozny District. He had served as a commander from
|
the following day
|
29. According to this information, the investigation was opened on 27 July 2000 (not on 7 July, as stated before) by the Shali District Prosecutor's Office. It established that on 17 May 2000 the applicant's son had been detained at his house by unknown armed men wearing camouflaged uniforms of the Russian armed forces and masks, using two APCs, UAZ vehicles and helicopters. Five other men were also detained and taken, supposedly, to either the Argun grain elevator or a meat-packing factory. On
|
26 March 2006
|
12. On 28 January 2004 the Commercial Court accepted the applicant’s requests under (i) and (ii) above. The Court accepted the applicant’s compensation claim in the amount of RSD 379,500 as recognised in the District Court’s judgment of
|
13 January 2005
|
24. In June 2001 criminal proceedings were opened against Mr Kolev's father on charges of illegal possession of fifty cartridges for a hunting rifle. Mr Kolev's father was later indicted. On 2 October 2002 he was acquitted. By a judgment of
|
the year 2000
|
350. On 26 May 2004 the Commercial Court of Moscow ordered Yukos Oil Company Plc to pay taxes totalling RUB 47,989,073,311, fines in the amount of RUB 32,190,430,314 and a penalty in the amount of RUB 19,195,605,923. This award related, in particular, to taxes due by Yukos for
|
1 June 2000
|
14. The first, the second and the fourth applicant received their judgments debts in several instalments, the final payments being made in August 2005. The third applicant received the debt due to her by the judgment of
|
29 June 2011
|
31. On 19 January 2012 the City Court rejected the applicant’s application. It found that the decision of 6 December 2010 was an interim decision pending a final decision in divorce proceedings. It could be modified by the judge who had made it at any time, as indeed it had been modified on
|
31 October 2009
|
31. Between February and May 2010 the investigators also questioned construction workers Mr A.Yu.Zh., Mr A.A.D., Mr A.V.L., Mr B.I.B and Mr A.Yu.A., all of whom confirmed that since the end of 2009 they had been doing repair work on the applicant’s house where Ms Zarema Gaysanova, and occasionally her brother Ibragim, had lived. All of the workers stated that the last time they had seen Ms Gaysanova was on
|
12 December 2000
|
11. Hearings were held on the following dates: 9 November 1999, 10 December 1999, 24 February 2000, 9 March 2000, 23 May 2000, 20 June 2000, 21 July 2000, 14 September 2000, 17 October 2000, 16 November 2000,
|
1 February 2005
|
108. On 7 January 2005, following the entry into force of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (see paragraphs 171-177 below), the applicants’ solicitor wrote again to MHPA. On 31 January 2005, he wrote a third time explicitly under the Environmental Information Regulations. On
|
6 January 2000
|
18. At the request of the public prosecutor, on 8 April 2009 the applicant was once again taken to the Bursa Uludağ University Hospital for a medical examination. As the gendarme officer refused to leave the consultation room, the doctor did not perform the examination. The gendarme officer issued a report stating that the doctor had not complied with the Protocol for Prisons signed by the Ministries of Justice, Health and Interior, dated
|
14 May 2001
|
17. On 3 May 2001 the Korsakovskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and annulled the decision of 20 February 1996 concerning the allocation of the plot of land to Mr L., the registration of the latter’s title to the disputed plot of land, the sale contract between Mr L. and Mr Ch. and the registration of the latter’s title to the plot of land at issue. On
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.