target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
November 2007
|
29. Several proposals for a peaceful solution of the conflict have failed. Negotiations have been carried out under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and its so-called Minsk Group. In Madrid in
|
26 October and 2 November 1999
|
33. The applicant filed several criminal complaints against Š and L accusing them of having broken into her house and having taken and damaged her property and of having behaved abusively towards her. On
|
August 2008
|
32. According to an extract from the register of insulin supply of prison IK-31 for the period from 21 May 2007 to 8 May 2008, the forms of insulin prescribed to the applicant had the following expiry dates: May 2008,
|
18 April 1999
|
28. On 17 February 1999 the applicants requested that an additional counsel be assigned to plead on the EU-law issues of the case. This was refused by the Supreme Court on 24 February 1999. The following day, the applicants requested that a named attorney substitute their counsel as to the EU‑law issues. This request was granted on
|
12 April 2000
|
10. On 7 April 2000 the District Court remanded the applicant in detention. Testimonies of R. and a witness and other evidence provided a basis for a strong suspicion against the applicant. Even assuming that he had not taken part in the robbery as such, his involvement had in any event amounted to the offence of aiding and abetting under Article 10 § (c) of the CC. As the motive of his actions was his need to obtain money to pay off his debt, it could be presumed that, if released, the applicant would carry on his criminal activities to achieve that objective. This rendered his detention justified under Article 67 § 1 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). On
|
15 June 2004
|
12. On unspecified dates, the Treasury brought further actions against the applicants, for injunctions to prevent any intervention (müdahelenin men-i ve kal davası) by the applicants on the disputed land and the destruction of the adjoining houses. On
|
31 December 2001
|
28. The OSCU found that as of 15 March 2002 the applicant credit union had disclosed a negative capital value of CZK 243,705,000 (EUR 6,499,403), whereas under section 10(1) of Ministry of Finance Decree no. 386/2001 on the capital adequacy requirements for credit unions, cooperative savings associations were obliged to have achieved by
|
2 June 2000
|
8. His wife died on 17 November 1997. He tried to claim for benefits in late November 1997 but was told he was not entitled. His actual claim for widows’ benefits was then made on 26 May 2000 and was rejected on
|
7 July 2000
|
24. On 8 December 2000 the Chechnya Prosecutor replied to an enquiry by the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic concerning a number of complaints about disappearances. The letter stated that on
|
15 December 2005
|
32. The Supreme Court rejected the extraordinary appeals in a judgment of 26 March 2009, holding that the prerequisite for it to deal with the case, namely a question of law which was of fundamental importance for the unity of the law, was not met. With regard to the defendant’s appeal it noted that it had already given detailed reasons in its decision of
|
eighteen years'
|
21. On 5 December 2001 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court, in one hearing, found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder, causing bodily harm and intentional destruction of another's property and sentenced him – taking account of his previous criminal record – to
|
29 November 1996
|
6. On 14 December 1999, following the applicant’s request of 17 June 1997 for increased compensation, the Sandıklı Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him 685,037,145 Turkish liras (TRL) of additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, as of
|
27 April 1998
|
25. On 10 April 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Khmelnytsk Region lodged a protest with the Presidium of the Khmelnytsk Regional Court, seeking initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant's case. On
|
17 June 1999
|
9. On the same date, the applicant asked the District Court to issue an additional judgment under Article 205 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 27 below). He considered that the District Court had omitted to list in the amended certificate the amounts awarded to him under the above-mentioned judgments of
|
10 February 1999
|
34. On 17 December 1998 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible. By virtue of Article 242 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure it examined ex officio whether the proceedings were not vitiated by the procedural flaws set out in Article 237 of that Code. It found no such flaws and observed that the appeal was neither admissible on any of the admissibility grounds pursuant to Article 238 of the Code. The Supreme Court thus did not examine the merits of the case. The decision was served on the defendant on 9 February and on the applicant’s lawyer on
|
14 January 2011
|
27. On 14 December 2010 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. At that hearing the court decided to remit the case to the prosecution authorities for a new investigation, finding that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated during the investigation. The court also decided that the applicant’s remand in custody should be extended for a period of one month, until
|
29 May 2006
|
32. The case file shows that the applicant was kept in the psychiatric ward of the prison hospital until 22 April 2006. Between 22 April and 27 May 2006, he remained in the same institution, but on a different ward. On the latter date he was sent to Tbilisi no. 5 Prison, and was once again admitted to the psychiatric ward of the prison hospital on
|
Between 22 February and 28 May 2008
|
56. On 6 June 2008 the Governor replied. He stated that the applicant had not been subjected to ill-treatment and that the administration of the Remand Centre had made the necessary efforts to ensure his safety.
|
7 December 2005
|
23. On 26 September 2005 the District Court decided that the application fell to be examined under the rules of civil procedure, and gave the applicant’s mother a time-limit for complying with those rules, in particular in relation to paying a court fee. The applicant’s mother requested that her application be examined under the rules of criminal procedure, notably Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). On
|
the same day
|
18. On 14 March 2000 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia acting as an appeal instance quashed the judgment of 29 December 1999 and substituted its own decision. It found that the applicant party had failed to declare expressly its “participation in the political life of society” as a statutory objective. It rejected the finding made by the first-instance court that the activities listed in Article 2.1.1 of the applicant party’s Articles of Association could qualify as “participation in the political life of society” for the purposes of the Federal Law on Associations. The court found the refusal to renew the registration of the applicant party lawful and, in accordance with Article 52 of the Federal Law on Associations, ordered its dissolution. This decision became final on
|
26 April 2005
|
10. On 26 August 2004 the Split County Court allowed the defendants’ appeal, quashed the enforcement order of 10 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Split Municipal Court. The latter, on 18 March 2005, invited the applicant to amend her request. The applicant submitted an amended request on
|
7 June 1996 to 1 August 1997
|
23. In a decision of 4 November 1999 the Supreme Cassation Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's appeal. In its reasoning, it stated:
“Correctly ... the prosecutor from the Plovdiv district public prosecutor's office took into account the period of the remand in custody of the [applicant] in case no. 50/97 ... [as being] only from
|
September 2003
|
9. In March 1999 the applicant lodged a private motion (magánindítvány) with the Pest Central District Court against S.K., the managing director of company G., alleging that the latter had committed defamation by saying at a company meeting that the applicant “had taken under his wing criminals who had worked in the company”. In
|
2‑4 December 2014
|
45. Following the Government’s submission of the Action Plan (see paragraphs 40 to 44 above) the Committee of Ministers examined the case at the first of its quarterly Human Rights meetings to be held after the judgment had become final (its 1214th Human Rights meeting (
|
24 February 2005
|
17. On 25 January 2000 the applicant again went to Grozny in search of her brother. She travelled together with relatives of other missing persons from the district, Magomed Khashiyev and his sister Movlatkhan Bokova. At the Khashiyevs' house at 107 Neftyanaya Street they found the bodies of Magomed Khashiyev's sister, Lidiya Taymeskhanova, and her son, Anzor Taymeskhanov, as well as the body of their neighbour, Anzor Akayev. All had gunshot wounds and some had broken bones. Magomed Khashiyev and Roza Akayeva applied to the Court in relation to the killing of their relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00,
|
8 December 2000
|
6. In February 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr against the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr (відділ державної виконавчої служби Богунського районного управління юстиції м. Житомира), alleging the latter’s inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of
|
5 April 2001
|
14. On 4 April 2002 Mr F.D. requested annulment of a deed of gift of 18 July 2001 (“the 2001 gift”) under which the applicant had transferred into the possession of their two daughters her notional half of the property. Referring to the annulment of the 1994 contract, Mr F.D. claimed that the applicant had not been entitled to dispose of the property. On
|
November 2001
|
59. In its judgment of 29 October 2003, SIAC noted that the allegations against the ninth applicant were that he was an active supporter of GSPC and had raised considerable sums of money for it through fraud. There was evidence that the applicant had in the past been found, by customs officers, attempting to enter the United Kingdom by ferry with large amounts of cash and that he had close links with others who had been convicted of credit card fraud. SIAC held that evidence of involvement in fraud did not establish involvement in terrorism. However, it noted that the applicant had been present at a camp in Dorset in the company of the fifth applicant and a number of others suspected of being GSPC supporters and that a telephone bill had been found at his house at the time of his arrest in the name of Yarkas, who had been arrested in Spain in
|
eight to fifteen years’
|
31. On 3 March 2004 the head of the Ashkhabad criminal police requested the Kuybyshevskiy district court to authorise the applicant’s detention on charges of embezzlement on a large scale, an offence punishable under the Turkmen Criminal Code by
|
27 July 2000
|
26. On 1 October 2012 the complaints panel of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint under section 97a of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. Citing Gast and Popp v. Germany (no. 29357/95, ECHR 2000‑II), as well as Klein v. Germany (no. 33379/96,
|
about a month
|
21. M.M. stated that in 1991 he had joined a group of volunteers from Rijeka. Some time about the end of July 1991 they had gone to Novo Selo in a white van displaying Rijeka licence plates. The van had been driven by N.S. There had been seven of them in the van, including N.S., Z.H., B.V., D.P. and two more persons the names of whom M.M. could not remember. M.M. could not tell whether someone was formally in command, but D.P. had been in charge of the Rijeka unit. After
|
17 December 2012
|
27. The investigators asked a number of banks whether they had accounts opened in Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s name and if so, details of the transactions on those accounts between the dates of their opening and
|
from 6 April 1941 to 8 October 1991
|
35. In their observations of 6 October 2014 (in the case of Radomilja and Others) and 20 October 2015 (in the Jakeljić case) the Government argued, inter alia, that the cases had to be distinguished from the Trgo case. In particular, they submitted that, unlike the situation in Trgo, in the instant cases the applicants had instituted civil proceedings after the Constitutional Court had invalidated the 1996 version of section 388(4) of the 1996 Property Act (see paragraphs 15-16 and 23 above and paragraph 56 below). Accordingly, the applicants could not have had legitimate expectations that the said provision would be applied in their case and that their claim to be declared the owners of the property in question would be granted (see Radomilja and Others, cited above, § 43, and Jakeljić, cited above, § 37). The relevant part of their observations in both cases reads:
“... at the time of bringing the civil action, and pursuant to domestic law, the applicants could not have had a legitimate expectation that they would see their claim upheld on the basis of the repealed section 388(4) of the Property Act. That is to say, at the time when the applicants brought their civil action in the Split Municipal Court, neither the provisions of the then valid Property Act, nor the case law of the highest courts of justice in the Republic of Croatia, had provided for the possibility of including the period in question in the time-limit for adverse possession.
...
... in the Trgo case, the applicant brought a civil action in 1997 to determine the right of ownership due to the expiry of the time-limit for adverse possession. Then (at the time the civil action was brought), the provision of the Property Act that dictated the inclusion of the period
|
8 July 2005
|
8. While the criminal proceedings were pending, the first applicant requested the determination of evidence from the Batman Magistrates’ Court into the incident which led to A.O.’s death. Two expert reports were issued following the scene investigation, conducted by the Batman Magistrates’ Court on
|
24 and 30 August 2005
|
20. The applicant stated that he had been subjected to the following special measures, by way of example:
he was handcuffed and forcibly undressed (6 and 20 May, 26 July 2005);
electric shocks and blows with truncheons were used when he had refused to obey the instructions of the prison guards to undress for a full search, had used offensive language, had refused to hold his hands out for handcuffing and had physically resisted when handcuffs were being put on him (
|
10 December 1975
|
5. The applicant's relatives owned a house in the same town which stood on a plot of land belonging to the municipality. The applicant's relatives had a right to use this plot of land. The entrance to the plot was situated on the Kirova Street and the house was registered at the address of 14 Kirova Street. By the decision of the Gola Prystan Town Council (“the Council”) of
|
2 March 2010
|
11. On 6 April 2012 the High Court (Viši sud) upheld the first-instance judgment. It found that the land at issue was indisputably forest in the coastal zone, that it was State property pursuant to section 13 of the State Property Act and that the claimants therefore could not claim ownership. The court further held that even assuming that the claimants had had ownership of these plots of land, they had lost it “in accordance with the State Property Act and the Coastal Zone Act. In support of this was also section 30 of the Coastal Zone Act, relied upon by the claimants, which provided that the owners of land in the coastal zone, who had obtained it in a lawful manner before that Act entered into force and which was duly registered in the Real Estate Register as private property, were entitled to compensation in case of an expropriation”. The High Court made no reference to the decision of
|
two to three months
|
7. According to the official version of events, on 25 September 2006 a person (C.) came to the applicant’s office at around 9.10 a.m. and expressed his wish to have his dog vaccinated and to obtain a document required for travelling abroad with that dog. The applicant then told him that the process could last
|
February 2011
|
17. After another change of judge in 2008, several further hearings in the maintenance proceedings were held, including on 30 April 2009, 4 June 2009 and 11 March 2010. Between 9 July 2010 and 10 February 2011 the case file was missing. In
|
7 April 2008
|
12. On 12 March 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant company and served its decision on the company’s representative on
|
31 January 2005
|
36. In a letter of 3 January 2005 the district prosecutor instructed the investigator to send him the file as soon as possible. In a note of 12 January 2005 the district prosecutor stated that he had reached an agreement with the investigator that the file would be sent by
|
21 May 2007
|
10. On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court, sitting as a three-judge panel, granted the Tax Authority’s petition for review, without holding an oral hearing.
The Supreme Court observed that in the circumstances – that is, because the plaintiff was required to refute the Tax Authority’s tax estimate – the burden of proof lay, statutorily, with the applicant to prove, providing credible evidence (hitelt érdemlő bizonyíték), the origin of the amount (as per leading case no. 2006/104). It found the testimony given by the applicant’s father implausible, given that it was not accompanied by any bookkeeping evidence demonstrating any transfer of funds, any bank statement, any contract or the like. It held, in particular, that although the applicant had made a statement about her father’s assets at the time of the alleged transaction, she had never produced any evidence about the availability of a sufficiently large amount of money on his side. It further noted that “it seems to be very implausible ... for a father to lend a large amount of money to his daughter so that she can provide financial services to a cooperative owned (mostly) by her parents. He could have done this ... directly, without his daughter’s involvement”. The Supreme Court noted that the applicant could not give any reasonable explanation for this complicated scheme and held that although the applicant attempted to refute the Tax Authority’s findings, the evidence proposed, consisting of a mere statement made by her father, was insufficient.
In sum, the Supreme Court concluded that the applicant’s assertions fell short of being supported by “credible evidence” within the meaning of section 109(3) of Act no. XCII of 2003 on the Rules of Taxation. Consequently, it reversed the Regional Court’s decision and found for the Tax Authority, relying on section 275(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
No further remedy lay against this decision. This decision was served on the applicant on
|
seven years
|
22. Due to the above circumstances, the parties – the State, represented by the acting Director General of the Agency, and BRS – agreed on section 9.1.1 (s) in the privatisation agreement, containing a warranty given by the State to BRS. The State undertook to reimburse BRS for any direct damage that it might bear should ER actually acquire the five locomotives before BRS obtained control over the company. Several additional conditions were agreed upon, including an obligation on BRS to minimise the possible damage. For the fulfilment of potential obligations arising from the warranty, the Agency was obliged to maintain in the State’s bank account the sum of EEK 50,000,000 (EUR 3,195,000) until the grounds for claims regarding the warranty had ceased to exist, but in any case not for longer than
|
16 October 2003
|
9. In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, claiming compensation for the failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On
|
September 2005
|
11. The undercover agent presented his evidence in Greek. He gave evidence in the presence of the public prosecutor. A translation into Macedonian was also provided. The witness confirmed that he had met the applicant, Mr B.V. and Mr D.V. in Thessaloniki, Greece, in
|
26 September 2003
|
17. On 21 October 2003 the court wrote to the State Treasury requesting it to ensure that the applicant underwent an additional examination. On 13 January 2004 the applicant requested the court to correct its decision of
|
the previous five years
|
18. On 22 January 2002 the Socialist Party submitted his application to the Central Electoral Commission (Центральна Виборча Комісія) for his formal registration as a candidate. In the registration request the applicant gave his propiska address as his place of residence in Ukraine for
|
fifteen days
|
50. On the same date the Avan and Nor Nork District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant detained, finding that he could abscond, obstruct the proceedings and avoid serving his penalty. The applicant was present at this hearing. This decision was subject to appeal to the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal within
|
26 March 1997
|
8. On 31 December 1992, the property was requisitioned by the Director of Social Housing by virtue of requisition order no. RO53704 (hereinafter referred to as “the requisition order”). No reason for the requisition was set out in the order. The property was allocated to Mr and Ms A. At the request of the Housing Authority, on
|
3 July 2008
|
16. On different dates, the defendants IDP families lodged separate court actions asking for postponement of the judgments ordering their eviction from the applicants' flats. The proceedings can be summarised as follows:
(a) As for application no. 50766/07, on
|
21 January 2005
|
82. The declaration of incompatibility made by the House of Lords on 16 December 2004, in common with all such declarations, was not binding on the parties to the litigation (see paragraph 94 below). The applicants remained in detention, except for the second and fourth applicants who had elected to leave the United Kingdom and the fifth applicant who had been released on bail on conditions amounting to house arrest. Moreover, none of the applicants was entitled, under domestic law, to compensation in respect of their detention. The applicants, therefore, lodged their application to the Court on
|
between three months and four years
|
7. Between 1952 and 1972 the applicant was convicted of numerous offences, which, apart from one conviction for assault, were directed against the property of others. These included fraud, theft and aggravated theft, handling of stolen goods and extortion. The applicant was sentenced nine times to terms of imprisonment of
|
14 years and six months’
|
38. On 30 November 2007 the trial court delivered a judgment in which it found the applicants guilty of drug trafficking, an offence punishable under Article 215(2) in conjunction with sub-paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 53 below) and sentenced them to
|
8 July 1999
|
8. In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 29 September 1998 the Regional Court granted damages plus accrued interest to the applicant. This decision was partially quashed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on
|
11 September 2007
|
18. On 26 September 2007 an individual brought proceedings against the above-mentioned defendant as well as the above-mentioned newly appointed management agency, seeking a ruling declaring void a decision to wind up the defendant taken at a meeting of flat owners in the block held on
|
the same day
|
38. On 7 October 2004 the Moscow City Court, composed of a single judge, began to examine the case. The applicant first challenged the judge on the grounds that he was a member of the Moscow Judicial Council and was thus directly associated with the other party to the proceedings. She further claimed that the Moscow City Court, in any composition, would lack independence and impartiality because the impugned statements were specifically concerned with that court and its President. This request was examined on
|
22 November 1999
|
101. The applicants submitted five additional testimonies from witnesses and victims, related to the circumstances of the attack. Witness A. testified that she was in the same car as Ramzan Mezhidov and Shamil Gigayev, TV reporters, both of whom were killed. After the first blast Mezhidov got out of the car and filmed the destruction around him; he was killed by a second blast. Afterwards, they attempted to retrieve his camera and the tape, but they were beyond repair. Gigayev's widow testified about her husband's death. Witness B. testified that their car was near Shaami-Yurt and returning to Grozny when the attack occurred. The witness and his brother were wounded and taken to the Urus-Martan hospital for treatment. On
|
nine months
|
6. The applicants, a publisher and a publishing company, wrote and published, together with the former girlfriend of the Prime Minister at the time, an autobiographical book about her relationship with the Prime Minister. The book described a period of
|
24 March 2004
|
5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Athens. He is a businessman, who married M.A. on 20 September 2003. At the time of their marriage M.A. was already a member of the Greek parliament (MP). On
|
4 April 2000
|
12. On 14 April 2000 the Novyy Bug District Council issued land certificates to K.R.P. and S.M.A. (private persons) in respect of the plot of 22 hectares, which had been allocated to the applicant under the judgment of
|
the period between mid-1998 and June 2001
|
18. On 4 December 2001 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) indicted the applicant and twelve other defendants in the Zagreb County Court. The applicant was charged with conspiracy to supply heroin in
|
26 June 2004
|
16. Both the initial detention order of 29 June 2004 and the appeal decision of 1 July 2004 endorsed the fact that firearms and ammunition had been discovered on the applicant’s body and at his home on
|
the month of Ramadan
|
24. The Court of Appeal also noted that R.S. and O.S., both employees of the BD public radio, had visited one of the applicants in order to discuss M.S.’s behaviour in the workplace. On that occasion R.S. had told O.H. that during
|
12 November 2005
|
10. On 14 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Court of Appeal, arguing that the findings in the CEC decision were wrong. He argued that, while the CEC decision stated that “impermissible alterations” had been made to the results records of nineteen PECs, in reality such alterations had been made to the records of only three PECs (in Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25). As for the PEC records for other polling stations, the photocopies of the same PEC records which were in his possession did not contain any such alterations or changes. According to those PEC records (and excluding the PEC records for Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25), he had obtained the highest number of votes in the constituency. The applicant requested the court to quash the CEC decision of
|
16 October 1997
|
24. In a letter of 7 July 1997 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the proceedings would most probably come to end at the hearing scheduled for 16 October 1997, as the taking of the evidence had almost been completed. Subsequently, a hearing was held on
|
7 October 2014
|
90. By a first-instance judgment no. 3907 of 12 February 2015 filed in the relevant registry on 9 March 2015, the Administrative Tribunal of Rome, Lazio, reiterating that there existed no right to have registered same‑sex marriages contracted abroad (and therefore confirming the legitimacy of the content of the circular of
|
3 June 1992
|
14. In his written observations of 26 September 1995 to the District Court in respect of the estate’s claims the applicant stated, inter alia, as follows:
“The estate of FOFE has called Mr S.L. and Mr A.P., both of whom were members of its Board of Directors and the latter also its Executive Director, to give evidence. We will also hear them in respect of exactly the same issues on which we will examine Mr J.S.
With the support of the above-mentioned witnesses we will prove that [the applicant] has not had any close connections with FOFE since he resigned from its Board of Directors on
|
16 July 2002
|
113. Finally, they submitted that on 15 July 2002 criminal case no. 59140 [this should probably be no. 59154] had been opened into the abduction of Masud Tovmerzayev. The seventh and eighth applicants were questioned and granted victim status on
|
15 November 2002
|
44. On 15 September 2003 the applicant lodged another request with the Maribor Social Work Centre, seeking a change to the contact schedule. He sought more frequent contact with S. and the modification of the decision of
|
September 2000
|
12. On 31 May 2000 the applicant gave an undertaking to the court promising not to assault or cause a nuisance to the Davies', and neither to trespass upon their land, nor to permit her children and/or visitors to her home to do so. As a result of the applicant complying with that undertaking, the possession proceedings were adjourned generally in or after
|
Some 9 or 10 days later
|
186. Four days later the Public Prosecutor filed an ex parte objection to the applicant's release, as a result of which he was arrested on 20 December 1993 and detained for a night at police headquarters. Then he was transferred to the Diyarbakır E-type prison.
|
three more months
|
11. On 2 June 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant to undergo a six‑week psychiatric examination in order to determine whether he could be held criminally responsible in respect of the above‑mentioned offence. The court also extended the applicant’s detention for
|
eighteen months
|
39. On 30 January 2004 the court heard the closing statement by the applicant. The parties made no requests. On the same day, the court delivered the operative part of the judgment, by which the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment;
|
29 April 2004
|
28. The chief instrument currently governing the free movement within the European Union of individuals who are nationals of a member State is Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
|
17 August 2000
|
6. On 7 August 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the second and the third applicants' claims. It awarded them arrears of 2,110.58 roubles (RUR) and RUR 1,521.09 respectively. Both judgments entered into force on
|
8 January 2010
|
39. On 23 March, 15 June and 24 September 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s and nine other co-defendants’ detention each time for three months, until 8 July and 8 October 2009 and
|
20 January 2000
|
11. On 19 January 2000 the applicant went to Grozny to find out about her relatives. She was not allowed to pass through the military checkpoint at the entrance to the city and spent the night in a neighbouring settlement. On the following morning, on
|
4 December 2008
|
17. The Court of Appeal sitting in a different formation held a hearing on 14 October 2009. The applicants were not present, but requested that the extraordinary appeal be decided in their absence. The Court of Appeal ruled that the subject matter of the dispute had been wrongly determined as being an entitlement to a confidentiality bonus. In its view, the matter could not be considered as a simple material error:
“It cannot be considered that this is a simple material [or] typographical error, which arose because of the striking similarity between the words ‘confidentiality’ and ‘loyalty’, as it had been adjudged in the interlocutory judgment of
|
22 May 2003
|
17. On 16 December 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Region Court of Appeal endorsed the rejection of the claim of the second applicant, reconfirming that it was only the Compensation Act that had to be applied and that under that provision the second applicant could not claim any damages, since the search had been carried out only in connection with the first applicant, who had been a suspect in the criminal proceedings. The court further quashed the judgment of
|
6 July 2000
|
18. According to the record of the hearing before the Moskovskiy District Court on 19 November 2001, submitted by the Government, the applicant and his lawyer did not object to the court's examination of the case being started in the absence of witness E. The record also shows that at that hearing the court read out, in accordance with Article 286 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the statements which E. had given on
|
30 January 2000
|
23. In July and August 2002 the applicant and a number of witnesses were questioned. Two witnesses confirmed the applicant’s account of the events of January 2000. The investigation also questioned a number of local residents, servicemen from the Leninskiy ROVD and former members of the armed forces who had participated in combat in Grozny. However, none of these witnesses had any information about the episode complained of by the applicant. Furthermore, the investigation questioned medical personnel in the hospital in Argun where the applicant had been taken on
|
12 to 17 February 1999
|
8. The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist in Vrapče Psychiatric Hospital (Psihijatrijska bolnica Vrapče) from 23 to 29 June 2004. The report, drawn up on 6 July 2004, shows that the applicant was treated in the Psychiatric Ward of the Zagreb Prison Hospital during the following periods:
-
|
three to fifteen years’
|
32. On 16 February 1998 the District Court heard the applicant and the prosecutor. The applicant’s lawyer was not present. The applicant stated that he had admitted the offence, he had a seven-month old child and wanted to preserve his family. He explained that at the time of the theft he had been suffering from depression due to financial problems.
The District Court refused to release the applicant. It noted that the charges against him concerned a serious wilful offence punishable by a period of
|
20 March 2010
|
25. The court turned next to the question of “good morals” and, after finding that this term had no precise legal definition, proceeded to conclude that it consisted of three “basic ethical principles”: “the principle of integrity and righteousness”, “the principle of responsibility” and “the principle of loyalty”. It found that the applicant had acted in breach of these principles and that there was:
“[11.2] ...no reason to conclude that the applicant had only intended to inform [the Rector] about [his plan] to exercise his democratic rights, [that is], to submit complaints to the courts and to publish information in the media, while respecting the interests of society. The content of the letter [of
|
24 July 2007
|
19. The Frankfurt am Main Regional Court found that, in accordance with Article 66b § 3 of the Criminal Code, the Marburg Regional Court had terminated the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric hospital on
|
7 November 2000
|
56. The court cited the relevant parts of the declarations made by the co-accused, including the applicants, and emphasised that in each case the statements were made in the presence of lawyers and were often recorded on film, which depicted no signs of ill-treatment or undue influence. The court noted that the first applicant had made statements at the interview of
|
18 October 2005
|
18. The press release of 20 October 2005 stated, inter alia:
“It was established that former Minister of Finance Fikret Yusifov was the contact responsible for obtaining large amounts of funding for the forcible capture of State power... He was arrested as a suspect on 16 October. ... 100,000 euros and 60,000 US dollars were seized from Fikret Yusifov's flat during a search conducted in the context of the investigation...
On
|
29 November 2007
|
55. The transcripts of the questioning were submitted by the Government together with their observations following the communication of the application by the Court. In their observations the Government requested to strike the application out of its list of cases on the ground that it was a “counterfeit”. In their observations in reply the applicants confirmed their counsel’s power of authority to represent them in the proceedings before the Court as well as their wish to pursue the proceedings. In the decision as to admissibility of
|
17 July 2008
|
8. In March 2008 V.T. went with the child to visit her family in Lithuania. After a month, the father went to Lithuania to fetch them. They all returned to the United Kingdom. In June the mother and their son went back to Lithuania for the summer. In July the mother wrote to the applicant stating that their relationship was over. She went to the United Kingdom shortly afterwards to collect their son’s belongings and returned to Lithuania, where she remained with the boy. On
|
September 2012
|
57. From 18 May to 5 October 2012 the applicant underwent treatment for HIV and tuberculosis in hospital. His CD4 cell count of 13 August 2012 was 303. According to the applicant, he started antiretroviral treatment in
|
fifty years of age
|
18. On 3 July 2006 the Ministry of Defence issued a decision to terminate the applicant’s professional military service contract and to transfer him to the army reserve. The order was based on Articles 38 § 1 (7) and 45 § 4 (2) of LMS, whereby a serviceman of the applicant’s statutory rank had to be transferred to the reserve when he reached
|
25 October 2016
|
46. On 18 April 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the first applicant’s cassation appeal against the contact order of 27 April 2016, as upheld on appeal on
|
12 April 2005
|
56. The Ojas Meditation Centre then started court proceedings. Its action was eventually granted by the Supreme Administrative Court on 4 February 2005. The court found no evidence that the Ojas Meditation Centre propagated any controversial practices amongst its members. It was registered as a religious community (religinė bendruomenė) on
|
31 May 2007
|
23. On 17 June 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 9 April 2008. It reiterated that it had been correctly established by the first-instance court that the Pushkinska building had been under the threat of collapse and that in this situation, pursuant to Article 112 of the Housing Code, the applicant must be evicted and provided by the Executive Committee with another dwelling. It noted that the Executive Committee had complied with its obligation and by its Decision of
|
7 April 2000
|
67. On the same date the circuit military prosecutor’s office quashed the decision taken by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 on 7 April 2000. The circuit military prosecutor’s office stated, in particular, that the decision of
|
16 February 2005
|
17. In a letter of 25 April 2005 the applicant informed the Court that its letters of 1 February, 8 and 9 March 2005 had been forwarded to him with considerable delay. In particular, the letter of 1 February had been received by the prison on
|
five years and nine days’
|
30. On 19 February 2009 the Zaporizhzhya Court delivered a judgment by which it acquitted the applicant of kidnapping and murder for lack of evidence of his guilt. The applicant was, however, found guilty of abuse of office in respect of his having sold evidence. He was sentenced to
|
3 March 2003
|
21. In March 2007 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Zlagoda company, seeking compensation for the difference between the award paid and the in market prices of the products due to him under the judgment of
|
between February 2002 and June 2004
|
29. On 30 January 2002, on his admission to detention facility no. IZ-18/1, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor and given a chest fluorography examination, which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. According to the Government,
|
over 160 days
|
60. On the hearing days the detainees were provided with dry meals; in the court building they were given hot water to prepare tea, coffee, or instant food. As follows from the documents submitted by the Government, in 2004-2005 the second applicant took part in
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.