target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
26 November 2002
|
10. On 9 March 2004, having allowed the applicant's appeal in cassation, the Supreme Court found that, contrary to the requirement of the law, the courts in both instances had examined the case in the applicant's absence and that they had discontinued the proceedings against him without his consent. Accordingly, it quashed the ruling of
|
1 January 2002 to 1 October 2002
|
8. On 27 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. It made an adjustment of the monthly payments increasing them retrospectively to RUR 3,849. It awarded the applicant arrears of RUR 88,916.16 in respect of the period from
|
23 February 2016
|
11. Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77,
|
21 February 2007
|
10. On 16 January 2007 the District Court extended the applicants’ detention until 28 February 2007, relying on the gravity of the charges and unspecified circumstances that indicated a risk of perverting the course of justice. On
|
several days
|
15. The applicant waited for Mr M. M. at the agreed place from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., but he did not turn up. For the next three days the applicant waited there for him, to no avail. The applicant searched for Mr M.M. through Mr Rizvan. The latter introduced her to the sister of Mr M.M., Ms Z.M., who informed the applicant that she had heard about the abduction of Aslan Sadulayev and that she had been unable to find Mr M.M. for
|
3 September 2003
|
36. The applicant appealed against the decision of 1 September 2003. He claimed that, under Article 338 of the CCP, an appeal was to be lodged within ten days of the adoption of a final version of the judgment in issue. In his case, the final version of the judgment had been created on
|
6 January 2006
|
26. The son of the fourth applicant, Albert Askarbiyevich Zhekamukhov, was found to have taken part in the attack of 13 October 2005 and subsequently to have escaped from Nalchik and gone into hiding. He was located in the village of Anzorey in the Leskenskiy District of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya on
|
21 December 2010
|
19. On 21 December 2010 the Chişinău Court of Appeal re-examined the appeal against the judgment of 10 March 2009 and acquitted the accused police officers. The Court has not been provided with a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed against that judgment and on an unspecified date the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of
|
16 March 2016
|
30. The applicant’s condition deteriorated rapidly. She complained of constant pain and asked to consult a psychiatrist. She was afraid that she would have no chance to say farewell to her mother, who was dying of cervical cancer in a hospital. On
|
20 May 2018
|
5. The first applicant was born in 1988, the second applicant was born in 1994 and the remaining applicants were born in 2010-2016. According to the last letter sent by their representative to the Court on
|
1 January 1994
|
30. By a judgment of 6 December 2000, the Naples Tribunal (Labour Section) found in favour of the applicants. It ordered the Banco di Napoli to pay the outstanding amounts with inflation increases and legal interest to run from
|
between 13 September 2002 and 3 November 2003
|
17. The first hearing after the case file was returned to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court was scheduled for 13 September 2002. It did not take place because the presiding judge was involved in the examination of another case. Of twenty-three subsequent hearings scheduled
|
28 October 2005
|
42. On 16 January 2006 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal at final instance, on the same grounds as the lower court. As disclosed by the decision, during the appellate hearing the regional prosecutor, in reply to the applicant's complaint that no forensic handwriting examination had been carried out on the letter dated
|
31 October 2001
|
13. On 23 November 2001 the Königstetten Municipality requested the applicant to comment on an expert opinion it had obtained from the Planning Office at the Lower Austria Regional Government (Gebiets-bauamt) on
|
27 August 1998
|
7. On 26 June 1998 the District Court granted the applicant's husband's claims and ordered the town administration “not to place any obstacles in the way of his building a garage”. The applicant's husband and the district prosecutor lodged appeals against this judgment. On
|
6 July 2003
|
7. On 24 June 2004 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) indicted the applicant in the Zagreb County Court, alleging that on 5 July 2003 he had put at risk the life and limb of others and that on
|
12 to 16 October
|
6. In October 2006 the applicant was detained at the Anykščiai Police Detention Facility (hereinafter – “the Anykščiai Facility”) in cell No. 3. From 9 to 11 October he shared the cell with another person, and from
|
4 June 2010
|
17. On 9 July 2010 the Marijampolė District Court decided the temporary protective measures application in the presence of the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and a child care specialist. Upon the recommendation of the latter, and given that the court hearing on the merits of the action was scheduled for 19 July, when deciding on the temporary protective measure the court also deemed it appropriate not to hear the children, to avoid causing them even more stress.
The court acknowledged that when the applicant had allowed her husband to see their daughters for three hours on
|
18 May 1999
|
25. On 26 August 1999 the GPO lodged an appeal for review in the light of newly discovered circumstances with the Review Panel of the HAC. The GPO submitted the same arguments as it had in its appeal of
|
17 June 2005
|
10. On 19 May 2004 TAROM lodged an objection to execution, alleging that the applicant's right to request enforcement of that judgment had become time-barred. The Bucharest County Court upheld that request by a final decision of
|
the autumn of 2016
|
30. As submitted by the Government, that meeting took place on 5 April 2016 and the first and second applicants, as well as V.M., were present but the third applicant was not. Since the four of them were entitled to receive one plot of land in joint ownership, the first and second applicants (and V.M.) were not allowed to choose a plot in the absence of the third applicant. The Government further submitted that there was still land available in the area around Vilnius and that the applicants would be invited to another meeting, planned to take place in
|
30 August 2005
|
36. On 7 April 2005 the applicants lodged an application (no. 12849/05) with the Court complaining about the lack of compensation in respect of the quarry. The application was rejected by a committee on
|
14 June 2010
|
24. On 8 June 2010 the Kriva Palanka public prosecutor’s office, referring to the Ministry’s “special report” and the discharge notice from Bardovci hospital, rejected the applicant’s complaint against the accused (the decision noted that the nurse V.S. had died in the meantime), finding that the alleged offences were not subject to State prosecution. On
|
10 July 2000
|
18. On the same day the investigator in charge of the case interviewed Mr Simeonov. He said that he had felt very insulted and humiliated by the campaign for his resignation and by the description of him as a “top idiot”. He had learned about the events from his son and had immediately telephoned the deputy mayor, the vice‑chairman of the UDF in Pleven and the head of the district police department, insisting that they “ensure public order”. The investigator also interviewed two police officers who had eye‑witnessed the events of
|
the night of 29 December 1993
|
44. Referring to the statements of the villagers, gendarme officers, the relevant military reports and documents, the investigator concluded that the applicant's allegation that her house had been destroyed by the security forces did not reflect the true circumstances of the case. He found that the village was in fact raided by the PKK on
|
between 10 January 2007 and 18 April 2008
|
9. Subsequently the applicants notified the District Court of the termination of the case concerning the land register issue, and the one concerning the constitution of a contract was resumed. Several hearings took place
|
20 January 2001
|
96. On 24 April 2004 an officer of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD, Mr A.A., prepared an internal report on the criminal case which reads, in its main part, as follows:
“... it was established that in 1999 Islam Tazurkayev was the leader of a group involved in military action against the federal forces. ...
On
|
18 July 1991
|
6. On 17 October 2003 the applicant appeared before the Liège Assize Court, together with seven co-defendants, on charges of murdering a government minister, A.C., and attempting to murder the minister's partner, M-H.J., on
|
3 September 2004
|
32. The Administrative Court invited the applicant to substantiate his action further on 18 March 2004. The applicant complied with this request, and submitted a supplemented administrative action on
|
July and August 2000
|
11. The Government submitted a detailed schedule showing the times and dates when the applicant had consulted the file and the volumes and pages of the file which he had studied. As appears from the schedule, in
|
18 March 2004
|
27. The applicant appealed, claiming that the Nasimi District Court failed to give proper legal assessment to the evidence showing that he had been tortured in police custody. On 17 March 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's decision. The full decision of the Court of Appeal was posted to the applicant's lawyer on
|
the beginning of September 2013
|
87. The applicant’s representatives’ submissions of 20 December 2013 addressed to the Court were accompanied by an undated letter by Mr Gladkikh (the applicant’s second representative). The relevant parts of the letter stated:
“... in
|
22 June 2001
|
61. According to section 6:83 of Book 1 of the Netherlands Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), as in force when the applicant married Mr W. on 25 June 1999, cohabitation of spouses was in principle obligatory. This provision was removed from the Civil Code by the Act of 31 May 2001 amending the rights and obligations of spouses and registered partners. This Act entered into force on
|
7 November 2011
|
11. On 19 September 2012 the Town Court granted the application for the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The hearing was attended by the applicant, his counsel Mr M., the representative of the hospital, and the prosecutor. Upon an application by the prosecutor, the court ordered that the hearing be held in camera in order to protect the applicant’s privacy in respect of his medical condition; the applicant himself and his representative objected to that decision. The relevant parts of the judicial order read as follows:
“[The reasoning of the order begins with a detailed account of the applicant’s personal and medical history with a special accent on the events related to the assembly and use of explosive devices and his subsequent involuntary treatment in psychiatric facilities.]
[According to his medical records] on
|
the same day
|
9. At an unspecified time the same day the applicant’s father and grandfather, who lived in the same house as the applicant, made statements to the police about the presence of the grinder in their house. The father stated that the applicant had apparently brought the grinder home around the time of the murder and had originally told him that a stranger had been offering the grinder for sale. On learning that the police were searching for a grinder, the applicant had told him the story he had told the police (see paragraphs 8 above and 13 below). However, in the applicant’s story as retold by the father, the grinder was found in a different street. On hearing this, the father had hidden the grinder. The grandfather’s account of events was similar to the father’s. On
|
twelve years and six months'
|
9. On 15 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court, relying on the applicant's statement to the police, the witness testimonies of other suspects as well as other evidence, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to
|
Between January and July 2005
|
12. The applicant’s internment was initially authorised by the senior officer in the detention facility. Reviews were conducted seven days and twenty-eight days later by the Divisional Internment Review Committee (DIRC). This comprised the senior officer in the detention facility and army legal and military personnel. Owing to the sensitivity of the intelligence material upon which the applicant’s arrest and detention had been based, only two members of the DIRC were permitted to examine it. Their recommendations were passed to the Commander of the Coalition’s Multinational Division (South-East) (“the Commander”), who himself examined the intelligence file on the applicant and took the decision to continue the internment.
|
29 February 2004 at
|
15. Thereafter at about 11 a.m. the applicant was provided with first aid. The doctor who came from the first-aid station to examine the applicant issued the following medical certificate:
“[The present document], given to [the applicant], certifies that on
|
a period of two weeks
|
19. On 12 September 2006 the Wieliczka District Court found the applicant guilty of defamation committed through the mass media. It held that in her letter she had imputed to the mayor J.B. behaviour which could denigrate him in the eyes of the public and undermine the public confidence necessary for the discharge of his duties. The court imposed a fine of 7,500 Polish zlotys (PLN; approx. EUR 1,900) on the applicant. It ordered her to publish the judgment on the Internet site of the Polish Press Agency for
|
7 September 2000
|
28. In parallel to those proceedings, Mr Morice, the lawyer acting for Mrs Borrel, was prosecuted for aiding and abetting public defamation against the investigating judge responsible for the “Borrel case” at the material time, following the publication by the national daily newspaper Le Monde, which was prosecuted as the principal offender, of an article dated
|
three years
|
12. On 18 August 2000 the Vyatsko-Polyanskiy District Court of the Kirov Region, in a separate decision, found that this was the applicant’s first conviction and that his prison sentence did not exceed
|
16 July 1996
|
18. On 5 July 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s lawyer’s appeal against the decision of 7 June 1996 given by the Wrocław Regional Court. The court recalled that the applicant’s appeal against this decision had already been examined. The court referred to the reasoning of its decision of 25 June, observing that no new circumstances in the case had come to light. On
|
12 December 1994
|
49. This was a report drawn up and signed by a number of doctors. The report referred to the conclusions set out in the above mentioned autopsy and toxicology reports. In this report there was also a reference to a histology report, which had apparently been drawn up on
|
19 January 2009
|
17. On 3 December 2008 the St Petersburg City Court granted a further extension of the applicant's detention until 4 February 2009, noting that the preventive measure was lawful and justified, taking into account the gravity of the charges and “information on [the applicant's] character”. On
|
10 November 2009
|
22. On 3 September 2009 an appeal hearing was held before the Supreme Court, which set aside the trial court’s judgment of 24 April 2003. The appeal court stated, inter alia, that there had been no lists of lay judges in the Regional Court at the material time; that the lay judges had sat in other cases in 2002-03; and that there had been a “violation of [the applicant’s] defence rights and his right to a jury trial”. The appeal court ordered a retrial before the Chelyabinsk Regional Court and ordered the applicant to remain in custody until
|
14th of July
|
19. In its judgment, the Assize Court held as follows:
“...
THE INCIDENT, EVIDENCE AND ASSESSMENT
In a declaration made on 11 July 2008 on the website of the Fırat News Agency, which is controlled by the terrorist organisation, the PKK, the Democratic People’s Initiative of Turkey and Kurdistan gave the following instructions:
‘This year’s July 14 celebrations should be made on the basis of the approach of “live and make the leadership live”... in each town and city, a march should be held on
|
30 June 1998
|
9. The application was initially introduced by Mehmet Kurnaz who was born in 1956 and was living in Antalya. Following his death on 22 December 1997, his parents, brothers and sister (hereinafter: “the applicants”) expressed their intention to pursue the application on
|
15 November 2008
|
31. On 13 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators take procedural steps to join the investigations of the disappearance of her son Vakhit Gambulatov and that of Mr Ramzan S., as both men had been taken away simultaneously and by the same persons. On
|
the same day
|
53. On 9 March 2004 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of using a forged document and sentenced him to a fine of 5,000 roubles (RUR). The court acquitted the applicant of the charges of embezzlement, while the prosecutor withdrew the charges of money-laundering. The applicant was released from detention on
|
a period of sixty days
|
22. In a judgment of 3 November 2004, the Court of Cassation overturned the judgment of 15 September 2004 on the ground that the Ankara Employment Tribunal had not correctly applied section 6(8) of Law no. 4688. It took the view that this section did not allow for any latitude of interpretation and that the dissolution of the union was mandatory where it had not complied with the provisions of the Law within
|
following years
|
7. In 1959 the first applicant and his wife bought from the State, through the Ministry of Defence, an apartment of 115 square metres in the centre of Varna. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the
|
the last three years
|
40. The relevant part of the 2004 report of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on the rule of law in Moldova stated:
“... The mission to Moldova carried out by the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ/CIJL) has concluded that, despite efforts by the post-independence Moldovan government to reform its system of justice, the rule of law suffers serious shortcomings that must be addressed. The ICJ/CIJL found that the breakdown in the separation of powers has again resulted in a judiciary that is largely submissive to the dictates of the government. The practice of ‘telephone justice’ has returned. The executive is able to substantially influence judicial appointments through the Supreme Council of Magistracy that lacks independence. Beyond allegations of corruption, the Moldovan judiciary has substantially regressed in
|
the end of 2003
|
44. On 12 June 2002 the Ecological Safety Commission noted that its decision of 7 April 2000 remained unenforced and ordered the Sokalskyy District Administration, the Silets Village Council and the factory to work together to ensure the resettlement of families from the factory spoil heap buffer zone by
|
23 November 2003
|
39. On 24 November 2004 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. It stated that the refusal to provide the applicant with access to the case file had not been unlawful since under domestic law the victim of a crime had no right of access to the case file prior to the completion of the criminal investigation, and the investigation into the murder of Alaudin Gandaloyev was still in progress. As to the reopening of the investigation, the court stated that taking into consideration that on
|
24 February 2005
|
12. The hearings scheduled for 18 February and 8 April 2004 were not held as neither of the parties appeared before the District Court. For this reason, on the latter date the District left the applicant's claim without consideration. On
|
24 and 25 November 2005
|
39. According to the Government, the investigators had on numerous occasions sent queries to various State bodies. In particular, on 19 November 2002 the investigator in charge had requested information concerning Vakhid Musikhanov's whereabouts from the Urus-Martan Division of the Federal Security Service, the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District and the head of the temporary department of the State bodies and the units of the Russian Ministry of the Interior in Chechnya. The replies from the said agencies were received on
|
13 January 2011
|
23. On 15 December 2010 and 13 January 2011 all four applicants, acting through their lawyer, wrote again to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor enquiring about the progress of their case. In their letter of
|
21 January 1999
|
15. On a number of occasions Mr Lorsé made use of legal remedies to protest against his placement, and the prolongation of that placement, in the EBI. On 1 February 1999, for example, Mr Lorsé, through his counsel, lodged an appeal to the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice (Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing) against the decision of
|
18 June 2004
|
12. On 26 September 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Examining the applicant's claims from the perspective of the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure and Articles 5 § 5 and 13 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the final decision had been pronounced on
|
August 2004
|
57. In response to the investigators' request, in July 2004 the Shali district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) submitted that they had not conducted special operations on 1 June 2004 in Belgatoy and had no information which discredited Sarali Seriyev. A similar response was received in
|
16 August 2012
|
244. The US applicants initiated the adoption procedure in 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
|
22 October 2015
|
12. On 8 August 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr I. Aliyev, these being the subject of a separate application brought by him before the Court (application no. 68762/14). On 8 and 9 August 2014 the investigation authorities seized a large number of documents from Mr I. Aliyev’s office, including all the case files relating to the proceedings pending before the Court which were in Mr Aliyev’s possession, comprising over 100 applications in total. The files relating to the present applications were also seized in their entirety. The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 21-28,
|
February 2007
|
7. The applicant applied for asylum in Sweden on 5 November 2007. In support of his application, he submitted in essence the following. He is Christian and had been an active member of the Syrian-Orthodox Church. In Baghdad, he had lived with his wife and two children. In
|
23 June 1993
|
9. On an unspecified date the two cases were joined by the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court. In the course of the proceedings the court sought expert opinions five times, which caused substantial delays. For example, on
|
13 February 2003
|
46. On 17 February 2003 a police investigator of the Balakhny town police department drew up a record stating that the applicant had been arrested at 6.30 p.m. on the same day on suspicion of having stolen the television set on
|
several years
|
11. As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government contended that this regime had been in place for
|
15 October 2001
|
48. On the same date the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded case file no. 12331, comprising 222 pages, to the Grozny prosecutor's office for further investigation. The latter reopened the proceedings instituted in the above-mentioned criminal case on
|
8 July 2010
|
52. On 3 September 2010, by an additional statement of appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2010, the defence challenged the Regional Court’s findings in so far as they concerned the extension of the detention. He complained, in particular, about the overlap of the extension with the ruling of the Kanavinskiy District Court of
|
4 December 2014
|
9. Replying to an inquiry from the Federal Migration Service, on 12 November 2014 the Embassy of Tajikistan confirmed that the applicant was not a national of that State. Subsequently, a bailiff asked the District Court in St Petersburg to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because the applicant could not be issued with travel documents or removed from Russia. On
|
the same day
|
10. According to the Government, after being interviewed the applicant was released and later taken again to the police station. A record drawn up by operative officer M. states that at 9 p.m. on 17 June 2006 the applicant was taken in for committing petty hooliganism in the vicinity of the police station by swearing at passers-by. It is stated in the record that he had no injuries. According to a decision delivered by the acting head of the Severnyy police department in administrative proceedings conducted
|
21 June 2013
|
21. On 30 March 2013 the applicant appealed against that decision. When ordered, he rectified the formal requirements of his interlocutory appeal by submitting a copy of it and stating the amount of his claim. On
|
9 January 1995
|
14. At the hearing held on 11 October 1994 the defendants denied any responsibility for the death of Ivan Kudra. At the same hearing the applicants asked the trial court to commission a medical report concerning the circumstances of Ivan’s treatment. On
|
1 July 2003
|
26. In a letter of 5 June 2003 the applicant company's acting manager asked the Constitutional Court judge to remedy the situation and ensure the applicant company had access to those criminal files. The latter replied, on
|
15 February 2003
|
8. At the material time the applicants and Valid Dzhabrailov lived at 104 Sovetskaya Street in the settlement of Pervomayskiy, in the Grozny district, Chechnya. At about 7 a.m. on 16 February 2003 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as
|
2 July 1996
|
86. The applicant stated that he had already made a statement to the Silvan public prosecutor. At his request, that statement of 30 September 1994 was read out to him. He stated that he maintained it. He was under no pressure and denied the allegations that had been made to that effect. His house and property had not been burned. In July 1993, there were clashes between Ormandışı and Boyunlu village, after which the terrorists fled. After the incident, the village was searched by village guards. In the course of the incident, two people were killed. His house was not burned at that time. He had not applied to any authority.
Statement by Ebedin Sezgir dated
|
9 July 1995
|
13. On 11 July 1995 at 2 p.m., the applicant was taken into custody at the Istanbul Security Directorate. On the same day the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court authorised the Istanbul Security Directorate to extend the applicant's detention for ten days, starting from
|
the summer of 2005
|
29. However, the Federal Court rejected the allegations concerning the right to be heard, indicating in detail the reasons why it considered unfounded the arguments put forward by the applicant to prove that he had not consented to his child's retention in Switzerland. By contrast, the Federal Court regarded it as established that the parties had decided, in
|
7 February 2005
|
15. On 19 January 2005 the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he was charged with serious and particularly serious offences and could abscond or interfere with the investigation, without citing specific reasons for these findings. On
|
12 May 2008
|
10. On 7 May 2008 the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court refused the leave request because of the poor prospects of the applicant’s rehabilitation. The order was delivered to the applicant on
|
9 October 1992
|
9. Seeking judicial review and compensation for damages on account of administrative decisions taken in a protracted dispute over their licence to sell folk-art items on public premises, the applicants brought an action on
|
22 November 1999
|
40. The Diyarbakır public prosecutor informed the security directorate of the alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar and requested that an investigation be conducted into his disappearance.
(c) Letters dated
|
5 April 2005
|
10. On 15 December 2003 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.
On 2 March 2005 the court upheld the applicant’s appeal regarding the costs of the proceedings and in this part remitted the case to the first instance court. The court rejected the remainder of the appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on
|
26 October 2007
|
34. The applicant then brought an application to the CCA under section 29 of the 1924 Act, pursuant to which he requested the court to certify that its previous decision involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court. The question proposed by the applicant for the Supreme Court’s consideration was whether the receipt and examination of material concerning the applicant to which neither he nor his advisors had access was consistent with the State’s obligation to provide a fair trial pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 38 of the Constitution. On
|
5 November 1997
|
24. On 18 January 2005 the Court adopted a judgment in the case of Popov v. Moldova, (no. 74153/01, 18 January 2005), in which violations of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were found because of the non-enforcement of the final judgment of
|
25 June 2012
|
268. The US applicant initiated the adoption procedure in 2008. As the adoption agency’s licence was later revoked, she had to restart the procedure in 2011. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, the US applicant was registered in the Russian State databank as a prospective adoptive parent on
|
the day before
|
41. The investigators identified and questioned witnesses, including the applicant’s neighbours in Perm and the doctors involved in his medical examination on 19 March 2006 at the Perm Regional Hospital. The police officers insisted that they had not beaten the applicant. They suggested that he could have hurt himself when he tried to get hold of a razor blade during the arrest. Two doctors of the Perm Regional Hospital submitted that during the applicant’s examination he explained that his injuries had been the result of a fall
|
17 January 2011
|
27. In September 2010 the applicant applied for temporary asylum on similar grounds. His application was rejected by the migration authority on 4 October 2010. This refusal was confirmed by the Federal Migration Authority on
|
between 16 May 1993 and 26 October 1995
|
27. As regards the proceedings concerning compensation for loss of salary, the Constitutional Court noted that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant had not in any substantial manner contributed to their length. The court further found that undue delays had occurred
|
1 June 1999
|
27. A visual examination of a photocopy of the document containing the police request for a judicial warrant and the judge’s decision shows that the request was dated 1 June and that, apparently, it was not submitted to the judge before 3 June. It can also be seen that the initial proposal by the police was for a period starting on
|
29 March 1996
|
7. According to an agreement signed in February 1995 by Y. and his employer, a construction company M., Y. was to be provided with a two‑room apartment upon payment of 5,000 United States dollars (USD). On an unidentified date the applicants and Y. moved to this apartment and were all registered there as of
|
5 July 1989
|
17. On 18 February 1998 the court maintained that the Ministry breached the rules of notification as provided in Article 13 of the Law on Expropriation. It noted that the authorities merely notified the expropriation by publishing it in a newspaper, without making an extensive enquiry, as required in Article 7 of the Law on Expropriation. It also noted that the authorities could have also issued a notification through the notary. The Çorlu Civil Court of First Instance therefore dismissed the Ministry's preliminary objection and upheld the plaintiffs' request by increasing the expropriation fee together with an interest rate which would run from
|
the following day
|
26. In her observations of 4 November 2009 the applicant submitted that already before leaving Afghanistan, she had told her mother about her problems with her husband. In October 2005 the applicant had called home and told her mother that she and her husband had separated. The mother had become very upset and said that it was totally wrong and that the applicant should go back to her husband. She had then talked to her father who became furious and shouted that she brought dishonour to the family. The conversation had ended because the applicant ran out of money on her telephone card. The father had called her back
|
19 November 2002
|
19. On 8 July 2004 the Centru District Court rejected the applicant’s and the municipality’s requests. It stated, inter alia, that the applicant had unobstructed access to her house, without giving any details. It also repeated the reasons it had given in its judgment of
|
25 September 2006
|
19. On 26 February 2007 the Odessa Court of Appeal allowed the investigative authority’s request and extended the applicant’s detention until 28 April 2007, giving the same reasons as in its decision of
|
1 November 2005
|
8. On 17 October 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine allowed the applicant a time-limit until 1 November 2005 to rectify the procedural shortcomings of his appeal on points of law. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The [present] appeal on points of law does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 213 of the Code of Administrative Justice, as the applicant failed to pay the court fee and to provide a number of copies of the appeal on points of law corresponding to the number of persons involved in the proceedings ...
[The court decides to] set for Gavrilov V.V. a deadline of
|
fifteen years'
|
9. On 18 July 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus charged the applicant with participation in organised crime, abuse of authority, aiding and abetting bribery and other offences (maximum penalty of
|
1 January 1998 until 5 August 1999
|
10. By a decision of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 28 May 2001, the Kristal banka (the legal successor of the Jugobanka Sarajevo Ekspozitura Brčko) was ordered to pay Ms Pejić DEM 227,445.47[7], USD 3,964.17[8], 1,765.11 Dutch guilders[9] and 13,735.84 French francs[10], default interest on the above amounts at the rate applicable to overnight deposits from
|
20 November 1999
|
8. After the neighbour’s denunciation, the applicant was arrested by the local police. While in custody, he was deprived of food and water and severely beaten, his spine was injured and he had to seek medical treatment after his release. Although he was able to pay a sum of money to avoid criminal prosecution, on
|
13 May 1997
|
13. In a judgment of 27 May 2004, the İzmir Administrative Court set aside the provisional permit issued by the Ministry of Health on 22 December 2000 in a case brought by fourteen people, including the first applicant, Ms Feride Genç. In particular, it considered that the risks highlighted in the judgment of
|
14 April 2016
|
24. Ten days later the applicant was transferred to prison medical unit no. 61 in Rostov-on-Don (“the prison medical unit”) for surgery. In that facility he was examined by a civilian oncologist, who confirmed that facial surgery was required. According to a letter from the head of the medical unit dated
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.