target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
22 February
|
38. The Kanavinskiy district investigative committee issued six refusals to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment (on 28 February, 8 April, 19 August, and 5 September 2011,
|
13 September 1998
|
24. Following several such adjournments, on 23 October 1996 the Regional Court ordered an inquiry into the reasons for the defective summoning. As the problem persisted, on 6 March 1998 the Regional Court ordered the mayor of Bankya, where the applicant's daughter resided, to explain why the summons had not been served. On
|
21 April 1922
|
27. In determining whether the proceedings before the Administrative Court complied with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court found that the National Administrative Justice Act (Gesetz über die allgemeine Landesverwaltungspflege) of
|
4 December 2000
|
23. On 27 December 2000 the Grozny town prosecutor's office (the town prosecutor's office) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mayrudin Khantiyev under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 12368. The decision stated that, having examined the materials of the inquiry opened following the third applicant's complaint, the town prosecutor's office had established that on
|
1 January 2005
|
12. In the light of Article 9 of the Ordinance and Act I of 2006, on 6 October 2010, by a President’s declaration of 3 September 2010, the sum offered for the taking of 7 May 1965 was EUR 13,000 in accordance with an architect’s valuation dated
|
13 January 1993
|
5. On 23 October 2002 the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the Dzerzhinsky Court”), upon the applicant’s claim, ordered the Department of the State Pension Fund in Dzerzhinsky District of Kharkiv (Дзержинське районне відділення Пенсійного Фонду України у м. Харків, hereinafter “the Pension Department”) to recalculate in Ukrainian hryvnas the applicant’s salary, which he received in 1985-1989 in Soviet roubles, in order to establish the correct amount of his pension according to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of
|
26 September-26 November 2007
|
15. On 30 July 2008 the Tbilisi City Court examined the first applicant’s request of 4 July 2008 at an oral hearing. Amongst others, the court heard one of the medical experts who had issued the conclusions of
|
27 July 2015
|
8. On 24 July 2015 the applicant travelled by air from China to Turkey. The journey consisted of two legs: Shanghai to Moscow and Moscow to Ankara. The Turkish authorities denied him entry for reasons that the applicant did not specify in his application. The applicant was sent to Moscow on
|
23 November 1993
|
7. On 23 September 1993 the Mayor of Zator issued a decision banning T.P. from using certain buildings of his company for a wholesale food business on the ground that he had failed to obtain the relevant permits. The second applicant was a party to those proceedings. On
|
31 March 1998
|
12. Whilst the applicant was in the process of collecting the vehicles, Kemtours obtained in fresh proceedings before the District Court of Nicosia, and on an ex parte basis, an interim decision which ordered the applicant to deliver the said vehicles to Kemtours. This order was issued on
|
27 October 2008
|
11. The Government claimed that the Municipal Court scheduled four hearings, on 4 June, 28 June and 9 July 2007 and on 8 October 2008, for which the applicants failed to appear. However, they did not submit the minutes from those hearings. At the subsequent hearing, held on
|
26 April 2010
|
27. On 14 December 2009, following what the Court of Appeal described as a “lengthy delay” the Secretary of State refused to treat the applicant’s representations as a fresh claim for asylum. Further similar representations led to a further decision on
|
12 January 2007
|
44. On 29 October 2006 the first applicant initiated proceedings under the Consumers Protection Act, seeking damages from the inappropriate behaviour of a shop assistant in a shoe shop. She also requested to be exempted from the court fees but on
|
21 July 1999
|
24. On 15 July 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment of 30 November 1998. The Supreme Court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation and held that it was for the first instance court to determine the amount. The case file was returned to the Regional Court on
|
28 December 2001
|
7. On 24 December 2001, at 4 a.m., the applicant made his defence statement before the Salonika investigating judge, facing charges of releasing a prisoner, assaulting a police officer and causing grievous bodily harm. He mentioned his ill-treatment, while also denying the charges against him. Subsequently, he was taken back to his detention cell until 10 a.m., when he was taken to another police station for fingerprints; he was subsequently referred by the prosecutor to an investigating judge. All this time the applicant allegedly remained handcuffed and, at one point during his transfers from office to office, he fainted. Around noon, he was taken to the investigating judge, who granted him a postponement until
|
24 September 2006
|
50. On 21 September 2006 the investigator again collected the jackets of the murdered men from the fifth applicant. On 22 September 2006 these items were inspected and attached as pieces of evidence to the criminal investigation file. On
|
24 December 1998
|
24. On 4 December 1995 the Sevastopol Arbitration Court (State court dealing with disputes between companies and other economic entities before June 2001) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the SMZ. The applicant and Mr K. joined the proceedings as the SMZ's creditors. By a decision of
|
13 December 2001
|
9. On 26 November 2001 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court granted the applicant's claims concerning the amount of compensation of his travel expenses awarding him arrears in the amount of RUR 93,731.70, plus RUR 15 for legal costs. That judgment was not appealed against and became final on
|
before 2 January 1992
|
11. On 2 January 1992 the Russian Government decided to put an end to the regulation of retail prices. Shops began to fill up with merchandise but prices increased at a staggering speed (the inflation rate in 1992 was 2,600%). In March 1992, the Government established that goods available under the bonds would be sold at the prices fixed
|
the summer and autumn of 1995
|
23. In a final judgment of 18 December 2006 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. While referring expressly to the statement of facts as established in the judgment, it devoted some thirty pages to analysing the charges against the applicant, giving reasons. First of all, the Court of Appeal gave further details concerning the evolution and operation of the GIA. It also specified that the case before it concerned “the series of attacks carried out in France in
|
February 2013
|
23. It appears from the available material in the case file that the medication for the applicant’s antiretroviral therapy was eventually provided by an NGO in an amount enabling the treatment to last until
|
24 August 2007
|
78. In the resumed proceedings, on 18 November 2013 the Zadar Municipal Court discontinued the non-contentious proceedings and decided that the proceedings would be continued under the rules of (regular) civil procedure. The court explained that the second applicant’s application for reversal of the custody and contact arrangements set forth in its judgment of
|
dn. 15 maja 1989
|
12. On 11 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z
|
sixteen years’
|
20. On 1 October 2008 the Supreme Court held the appeal hearing. The applicant participated in the hearing by means of a video link. Counsel K. attended the hearing and made submissions to the court. According to the applicant, he was provided with an opportunity to communicate with counsel K. prior to the hearing (he did not provide further detail as regards the time and means of such communication). The court acquitted the applicant on the charges of disturbance of the peace and illegal possession of firearms, upheld the remainder of the verdict and reduced the applicant’s sentence to
|
February 1995
|
5. On 19 July 1994 the applicant, who worked in the system of public education at the material time, became permanently disabled following injury to his back and legs. The injury was recorded as a work accident and since
|
5 November 2001
|
35. In a letter dated 15 October 2001 the applicants requested the District Court that the time‑limit for eliminating shortcomings in their submissions be extended to 30 October 2001. On the same day, they requested the Slovak Bar Association that a lawyer be appointed to represent them ex officio and free of charge. On
|
24 November 2003
|
61. On 28 October 2003 the Commercial Court issued an instruction to the Croatian National Bank to transfer, pursuant to FINA’s calculation, the amount of HRK 165,167,676.75 from the applicant bank’s account to Retag’s account. The instruction was served on the applicant bank on
|
1 June 2011
|
29. The applicant requested a suspension of the execution of the judgment in so far as it concerned the eviction. On 22 July 2010 the court granted her request and adjourned the eviction until 1 February 2011. This term was later extended until
|
23 March 2010
|
36. On 29 March 2010 the same investigator again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings. That decision was identical in its wording to the investigator’s previous decision of 9 February 2010, except for the part concerning the preservation of the written note found at the scene of the crime and two newly added paragraphs. In those paragraphs, the investigator noted that the two soldiers questioned during the investigation had not remembered whether Z.B. had called his parents “ana” (mum) and “ata” (dad) or “mama” and “papa”. Moreover, relying on the questioning of the expert on
|
22 February 2012
|
40. On 22 August 2012 (case no. I. US 281/2012), the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s Article 5 rights in the context of the dismissal of his request for release from detention pending trial on the charge of conceiving, setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group. The grounds were essentially the same as those established by the Supreme Court in its decision of
|
23 January 2013
|
13. On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a further joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It stated that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of
|
between 10 November and 10 December 2005
|
7. On 10 November 2005 the public prosecutor ordered, under sections 42 § 2(2) and 142-b of the Criminal Proceedings Act (“the Act”, see paragraphs 65 and 68 below), secret surveillance, audio-visual recording and the use of undercover agents, as special investigative measures. The order was valid
|
21 February 2003
|
7. On 22 February 2003 two police officers went to the applicant’s flat and took him to the Central District Police Department of Yerevan where an administrative case was initiated against him on account of his participation in the demonstration of
|
13 June 2012
|
80. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in December 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on
|
27 February 2007
|
35. On 12 March 2008 the Bălţi Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. It found that the applicant’s ill-treatment had not been established, as was clear from the decisions not to initiate a criminal investigation taken by the prosecutor on
|
1 May 2005 to 31 December 2005
|
46. On 15 March 2006 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her:
i. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 May 2005 to 31 December 2005 (total of RSD 54,464; EUR 625), together with statutory interest;
ii.RSD 11,700 (EUR 150) for her legal costs; and
iii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due from
|
24 January 2001
|
62. On 22 December 2000 the Ministry of Health adopted a decision authorising continued use of the cyanidation process at the mine for an experimental one-year period. The company was notified of this authorisation by the İzmir provincial governor’s office on
|
earlier that year
|
19. Mr Ateş was the chairman of the youth commission of HADEP. On 24 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court found him guilty on two counts of spreading separatist propaganda, in breach of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in two speeches he had given
|
about eleven months
|
13. In the course of the proceedings fourteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge dealing with the case, the defendant’s failure to appear, the latter’s requests to adjourn the hearings, the absence of an expert and the need to collect further evidence. A forensic examination was ordered in the proceedings and lasted for
|
7 February 1997
|
73. On 30 January 1997 the applicant requested the Wrocław District Court to grant his wife a permit to visit him in prison as they had had no personal contact since 10 August 1996. The application was dismissed on
|
4 February 2013
|
9. The summons sent to the applicant’s address, which he had used throughout the proceedings and which had been indicated in his complaint, could not be served on him personally as he was not present on
|
21 January 1993
|
14. By a decision of 18 October 1990, the Lucca Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992. That decision was made enforceable on
|
Between 2007 and 2010
|
28. The above information makes it possible to calculate the personal space available to each detainee and is consistent with the information submitted by the Government and the National Prison Administration (“NPA”) on the surface of cells and the occupancy rate.
|
18 February 2000
|
86. On 25 February 2000 the applicant Vlad Cubreacov asked the committee to inform him of the reasons for its refusal. He pointed out that the gift (of second-hand clothes), sent by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, had been given a transit visa by the Ukrainian authorities, who accepted that it was a humanitarian gift. However, the goods had been held up by the Moldovan customs since
|
24 March 1992
|
7. The applicants joined together to form the “True Orthodox Church in Moldova” (“the Church”) and applied for registration by the Government on the basis of the Religious Denominations Act (Law no. 979-XII of
|
6 December 2011
|
21. In the meantime, on 15 November 2011 the applicant’s lawyer again requested the Viru County Court to review the reasons for the applicant’s detention and to release him. A public hearing took place on
|
13 October 1992
|
10. The Secretary of State’s evidence was not complete at the time he commenced proceedings, and he applied for an extension of time for the serving of evidence (see below). The defendants refused to consent to an extension being granted and instead, on
|
22 December 1999
|
15. The Government, supporting their assertion with extracts of interrogation records bearing the applicant’s handwritten notes, submitted that during the remaining three interrogations on 17 November, 6 and
|
25 March 1994
|
112. The applicant stated that her husband had been abducted from his café on 26 March 1994 around 7 p.m. by three people claiming to be plain- clothed policemen, in a honey-coloured Doğan SL car, registration number 34 PTL 30. Her enquiries of the local authorities revealed nothing. She later learnt of and saw his tortured body at the morgue of the Gaziantep State Hospital. The applicant recounted her husband’s fears on
|
16 October 2007
|
13. B., having been informed of his right to remain silent, confirmed to the police after his arrest and subsequently before the investigating judge that he had participated in the drug transaction on
|
six months’
|
12. The District Court convicted the applicants on 10 September 1997 of unauthorised use of a motor vehicle, among other offences, and sentenced the first applicant to sixty days’ and the second applicant to
|
8 October 2000
|
22. On 25 September 2000 the defendant filed additional submissions.
On 27 September 2000 the court sent the defendant's submissions to the applicant and invited him to file his reply within eight days.
On
|
13 May 2009
|
22. In March 2009 the applicant was transferred to Nowogród Prison. On 2 May 2009 he applied to be served meat-free meals in view of his religious dietary requirements. The applicant's request was refused on
|
18 February 2010
|
7. Starting from 10 March 2004, the date of his arrest, the applicant was detained in various custodial facilities in connection with the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, on 15 January 2010 the applicant was transported from a prison hospital to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until
|
26 September 2003
|
11. According to the applicant, until 29 September 2003 he did not know anything about the criminal proceedings against him. As soon as he knew about them, he went to the investigation department of the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office, where he was arrested pursuant to the court order of
|
22 October 2004
|
8. On 1 October 2004 the General Assembly of the Consultative Council discussed and adopted a report on minority and cultural rights (“the report”), presented by the above-mentioned working group. On
|
June and July 2004
|
63. On 12 December 2004 lawyer S. applied to the General Prosecutor with a request to have criminal proceedings instituted. The lawyer alleged that all three applicants had been ill-treated and coerced to confess at the Vardenis Police Department in
|
8 December 2003
|
111. By a decision of 2 September 2003 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow declined to consider the applicant's claim and invited the applicant to indicate the defendants' addresses by 27 November 2003. In a letter of
|
That same day
|
18. While the above procedures were pending, on 16 August 2011, a riot broke out at Safi Barracks, resulting in a number of detained migrants, police officers and soldiers of the Armed Forces of Malta being injured.
|
26 January 2001
|
18. On 5 July 2000 the Poznań District Court gave judgment. On 21 October 2000 the applicant appealed. He also applied for an exemption from court fees. On 4 January 2001 the District Court rejected his application. On
|
three years
|
51. By a letter of 11 February 2008 the applicant’s Azerbaijani lawyer asked the MNS to provide the applicant with information about the progress of the investigation. In particular, the lawyer pointed out that although
|
28 October 2003
|
20. The first and second applicants then lodged an application with the Alūksne District Court of First Instance, requesting it to direct the Department to enter them in the register of residents as permanent residents. In a judgment delivered on
|
sixteen years
|
13. On 18 May 1998 the applicants lodged an application with the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction claiming that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, in that the property expropriated had not been used for a public purpose and the amount determined by the LAB did not constitute adequate compensation for the taking of the property. They further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the Government, which alone had the possibility of initiating proceedings before the LAB in order to determine the amount of compensation due, had waited
|
24 July 1993
|
81. It had been reported that the applicant and Mehmet Safi Arancak had applied to the European Commission of Human Rights, alleging that their houses, garden and fields had been burned down by village guards on
|
1 March 2010
|
31. While the applicant was in hospital she was examined by a nurse. She assessed the applicant’s risk of harming children as grade three on a scale of zero to three. She was also at a risk of suicide, deliberate self-harm and other offending behaviour at grade two. This gave the applicant a summary risk to herself of two and to others of three. Although the nurse noted that the applicant’s mood had improved since
|
21 October 2005
|
19. On 5 September 2005 the final bill of indictment was served on the applicant (uzrādīta galīgā apsūdzība) in the presence of a lawyer. The total amount of misappropriated funds was again slightly amended. On
|
the beginning of 1994
|
16. On 28 October 2002 R.C. was heard by the investigating judge as a witness under oath. R.C.’s statements were reproduced in the indictments subsequently drawn up by the Federal Prosecutor. He admitted his involvement in preparing the attack on the van at
|
3 July 2006
|
29. At the hearing on 3 August 2006 the applicants reiterated their request for the acting Rector to be examined in court. They furthermore requested that the court hear the deputy Rector of the University and four other eyewitnesses to the events of
|
12 November 1997
|
14. On 23 September 1997 the Sofia City Court, finding that the BNB had yet to revoke the applicant bank’s licence, which was a precondition to making a winding-up order under the new Banks Act of 1997, discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation on
|
27 September 2010
|
19. On 28 December 2010 the Miskolc Investigating Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the investigation, holding in essence that the applicant’s version of events was not plausible. The prosecutor emphasised the fact that since the applicant had been apprehended just after he had committed the crime in question (and still in possession of the proceeds of that crime), coercive interrogation by police officers with the intention of extracting his confession to the offence in question seemed pointless and thus hardly plausible. Relying on the internal records of the police department recording the shifts of the officers, the prosecutor was satisfied that three of the alleged perpetrators, Gy.K., F.I. and H.A., had alibis for the time of the incident, in that early in the morning of that day, they had been assigned to patrol service. Therefore, they could not possibly have been present at the applicant’s questioning. Furthermore, the two security guards (P.G. and Z.A.) were not allowed to leave their station and thus could not have been present at the incident. The prosecutor also observed that a general practitioner had examined the applicant between his release from the police department and the first hospital inspection, but had recorded no injuries. The prosecutor also found it material that the applicant had been uncertain of the identities of the alleged perpetrators when shown photos of the Gyöngyös police officers; that he had contradicted himself on several occasions; and that he had complained about the alleged incident only on
|
17 November 2003
|
17. In January 2004 the family lodged a new application for asylum to the Aliens Appeals Board and requested a stay of execution of the deportation order. They referred to a judgment that had been delivered on
|
21 June and 17 July 2006
|
16. The Bucharest District Court dismissed his complaint as ill-founded on 6 August 2007. The District Court took note that the applicant had declared himself a Buddhist but found that the Order of the Minister of Justice no. 2713/C/2001 regarding the enforcement of food regulations in prisons did not include any specifications for vegetarian diets. The District Court held that the applicant was receiving the diet for detainees who were ill, and concluded that the prison authorities had provided him with an adequate diet in both medical and religious terms. Concerning the allegations of lack of proper medical treatment, the District Court noted that, according to medical expert reports of
|
older than one year
|
10. On 21 March 2007 the central office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the Maternity Leave Act had to be applied in the applicant’s case as a lex specialis. That Act did not provide for maternity leave to be granted to either a biological or an adoptive mother if the child was
|
30 June 2014
|
25. On 6 July 2014 the applicant submitted observations by the time‑limit set by the Judge of Criminal Appeals in connection with the above claims. In particular, he reiterated his complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention in so far as he had not had full disclosure of the documents and evidence collected despite the court’s order of
|
15 January 2010
|
48. The applicant asked that 15 January 2010 be recognised as the date of his actual arrest and that the prison term start running from that date. On 13 May 2013 the District Court rejected his claims as unfounded. It accepted that the police had indeed taken the applicant to the police station on
|
the year 2004
|
8. In an interlocutory judgment of 25 May 2005 the Romanian Court of Auditors (Curtea de Conturi a României) examined the report produced after inspection of the financial documents and the activity of the State Secretariat for
|
17 May 1998
|
13. On 19 June 1998 the Privolzhskiy District Prosecutor, Samara Region, quashed the decision of 27 May 1998 not to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor noted that the inquiry had been held only in respect of Z., that it was necessary to question the doctors who had examined the applicants on
|
29 July 2002
|
25. On 4 April 2003 the police again terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr and Mrs Sh. They noted that Mr and Mrs Sh. testified that they had borrowed USD 8,100 from the applicant and had subsequently repaid this sum. Mr and Mrs Sh. maintained that on
|
twenty-one years
|
8. By a judgment of 11 June 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, consisting of two lay assessors and a professional judge, convicted the applicant of murder, affray, abuse of office, a traffic offence and illegal use of firearms. The court sentenced the applicant to
|
twenty-seven days
|
14. The applicant submitted that upon his release from solitary confinement, he had spent most of his time in his cell. On an unspecified date he had asked to see a psychologist urgently, but was not able to speak to one for
|
August 2005
|
37. From the documents disclosed by the Government it can be seen that on 1 August 2005 the applicant complained about the abduction of her husband to the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation and that on an unspecified date in
|
7 November 2009
|
38. On 4 May 2010 the applicants were indicted to stand trial on the aggravated charge before the District Court.
The indictment was based on the statements the applicants had made on 7, 8 and 9 November 2009, the results of the search of
|
4 January 2007
|
13. The applicant was ordered to pay, in addition to the principal debt (EUR 1,880), statutory interest calculated from the date of submission of the claim. That decision was served on the applicant on
|
29 December 1993
|
21. On 20 October 1993 the applicant and fifteen other persons asked the Constitutional Court to examine the compatibility of the Z.P.S.O.S. and the relevant regulations issued by the Ministry of Defence with the Z.S.O.J.N.A. On
|
20 December 2006
|
33. This is a much narrower concept. A recent definition of “enforced disappearance” is set out in Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of
|
12 July 2005
|
7. On 13 October 2003 the first applicant was arrested by the police. On 25 March 2005 the Primorskyy District Court convicted him of robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his property. He lodged two appeals, which were dismissed by the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal on
|
17 October 2006
|
9. During the pre-trial stage, the magistrates’ court continued to examine, by virtue of Article 108 of Law no. 5271, the necessity of applicants’ continued detention every thirty days on the basis of the case file, without holding an oral hearing. The applicants also filed objections against their continued pre-trial detention, namely on 15 June, 12 July, 17 July, 1 August and
|
18 October 2000
|
15. The following of the applicant’s letters to the Court bear a stamp “Judge” (Sędzia) and an illegible signature:
a) letter dated 25 September 2000 received by the Court on 2 October 2000. It appears that the envelope in which that letter was sent had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape;
b) letter dated
|
15 and 16 October 2003
|
81. On 5 December 2003 the Prosecutor General sent a letter to the Head of the Baku City Executive Authority in connection with the alleged unlawfulness of the use of Juma Mosque by the applicant’s religious congregation, a matter which was not directly related to the criminal proceedings in the present case. However, among other things, the letter also contained the following statements:
“The Prosecutor General’s Office is conducting a criminal investigation under Articles 220.1, 233 and 315.2 in connection with the mass disorder in the city of Baku on
|
30 September and 29 October 2013
|
36. On 28 August 2013 the applicant was admitted to Iaşi Military Emergency Hospital and was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the hands, chronic tetany (a neurological syndrome consisting of painful muscular spasms and cramps) and lower back pain. He was released with the recommendation to avoid effort, exposure to cold and dampness, and was prescribed symptomatic medication. On
|
between 2 January and 11 March 2004
|
34. It appears that the refusal of 24 February 2004 was revoked in June 2004 because the applicant had lodged a new complaint. In the resumed inquiry several detainees and remand centre officers were interviewed. The prison medical officer stated that the records
|
12 November 1997
|
21. On 28 October 1997 the District Administrative Authority dismissed the applicant's application for a building permit. It found that the maximum building density defined in the building plan did not allow the construction of another building on the applicant's plot of land. On
|
29 November to 16 December 2000
|
8. Two days later a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report which, in the relevant part, read as follows:
“1. On the day of the examination, on 27 November 2000, [the applicant] has: two bruises on the face, [and] an injury to the soft tissues on the left side of the parietal tuber. As it follows from medical documents, from
|
March and April 2003
|
15. On 14 March 2003 the applicant’s father, a geographer, was admitted in the criminal proceedings as the applicant’s lay defender in accordance with the applicant’s request. Some questioning and other investigative actions took place in
|
from 15 July to 1 November 2003
|
61. According to the Government, L.T., interviewed as a witness on an unspecified date, stated that, as a senior officer of the Kostroma regional department of the FSB, he had been stationed in Ingushetiya
|
3 October 2006
|
28. Against that background, the Supreme Court considered that the beginning of the relevant time period should be determined as follows: 25 September 2005 for the second applicant (when he had discovered a surveillance device in his office);
|
17 July 2002
|
12. In the resumed proceedings, a respondent notified the Regional Court on 22 May 2002 that the plaintiff had been struck out of the register of companies. On 23 May 2002 the first applicant, representing the second one, declared that he could not make a statement on the legal succession of his client. He was ordered to do so within 15 days. On
|
eight years’
|
14. On 16 September 2011 the Audiencia Nacional delivered its judgment and sentenced the first and third applicants to ten years’ imprisonment for being a member and leader of a terrorist organisation. The second, fourth and fifth applicants were sentenced to
|
28 August 2009
|
53. On 17 August 2008 the Head of the Administration appointed a three-member commission to investigate the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death. The commission held interviews with the two prison guards who were on duty on the day of the suicide, the prison psychologist, certain prisoners, the nurse who was present at the scene of the suicide, the governor, and the Head of Unit 1, S.Ž,, and examined documents which remained available after the seizure. It issued a report on
|
5 September 2001
|
7. On 9 May 2001 the applicant was questioned by the prosecutor. On 8 June 2001 the prosecutor ordered that evidence be obtained from psychiatrists to establish whether the applicant had acted in a state of diminished responsibility. The relevant reports were submitted on 18 June and
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.