target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
30 September 2005
|
27. By a judgment of 17 January 2006, the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal in part, acknowledged that the seizure of the applicant’s car had been unlawful and ordered the authorities to return it to him. It upheld the remainder of the judgment of
|
8 June 1993
|
28. On 4 June 1993 the European Communities (Prohibition of Trade with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Regulations 1993 (Statutory Instrument no. 144 of 1993) were adopted. By a letter dated
|
26 April 2000
|
31. On unspecified dates in 1999 and 2000 the commission issued six separate decisions pursuant to the respective applications of the applicant. The applicant was notified of the decisions by a letter dated
|
24 September 2012
|
31. In the course of 2012 seven hearings were scheduled, two of which were adjourned because one defendant, a defence lawyer, some of the witnesses, including the seventh applicant, and/or the interpreter did not attend court. Five hearings were held, two of which by
|
24 November 2011
|
21. As regards the issue of legality, the Supreme Court noted that the author of the articles had been identified and that the applicant had confirmed that he had agreed to the publication of the articles. The Supreme Court also confirmed that Section 15 of the Printing Act did not apply to material solely published on the internet. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that Section 15, subsection 3, of the Printing Act could not be applied by analogy to the case. However, the applicant had a supervisory obligation which entailed that he should conduct his editorial duties in such a way that the published material would not harm anyone by being defamatory. The Supreme Court referred in this respect to a Supreme Court judgment of
|
between April and October 2000
|
36. On 6 October 2000 the applicants were brought by their relatives to the Achkhoy-Martan hospital. They were examined by a general practitioner, a neuropathologist and a surgeon. The first applicant was diagnosed with repeated craniocerebral traumas, resulting in intracranial hypertension and post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic bronchitis, chronic two-sided pyelonephritis, asthenoneurotic syndrome, hypochromic anaemia, numerous blunt injuries to the head, body and extremities, and chronic pneumonia in the left lung. The second applicant was diagnosed with repeated craniocerebral traumas, resulting in intracranial hypertension and posttraumatic stress disorder, numerous blunt injuries to the head, body and extremities and a trauma of the left knee-cap, chronic pneumonia in the left lung and chronic left-sided pyelonephritis. The doctors noted down that the traumas and other medical conditions had apparently been sustained in the Chernokozovo SIZO
|
22 February 2005
|
15. On 7 February 2005 the investigating judge declined to open the investigation on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed. This was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court on
|
17 November 2010
|
30. On 6 May 2009 the Association together with the author of the book Oenology lodged another criminal complaint against O.A.A. They also accused N.C.I. of being an accomplice to O.A.A.’s plagiarism in his capacity as scientific coordinator of the book. On
|
12 April 2006
|
21. I.R. appealed against that judgment, reiterating her allegations that the applicant had endangered Th.N.’s state of health, thereby rendering it objectively impossible to continue with the enforcement of the disputed judgment allowing him contact.
On
|
twenty five days
|
14. Upon the request of the public prosecutor, the İstanbul Forensic Medical Institution prepared a final report concerning the applicant's injuries. In its report dated 23 March 1998, the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that, although the applicant's injuries did not constitute a danger to his life, he was unfit to work for
|
13 September 2007
|
12. On 3 September 2007 the District Court ordered the applicant's continued detention without a fixed time-limit and until the GPO had decided on her extradition to Belarus. The Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this decision on
|
25 December 2012
|
19. On 28 January 2016 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgment of 18 November 2015 on appeal, finding it lawful, well reasoned and justified. It held:
“The [district] court rejected the complaint on the merits because the contested refusal to approve the chosen location of the picket had been made by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The municipal authority had given the complainant an objective possibility to enjoy his constitutional and Convention rights.
The [district] court correctly applied [the Public Events Act] providing for the conditions for enjoying the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution ...
Having assessed the evidence in the case file, the [district] court made a correct finding that [the town administration’s] proposal to change the location of the public event chosen by the organisers had been substantiated, well reasoned and justified by the necessity to respect the balance of interests of the parties and to ensure public safety.
As correctly established by the [district] court, it is prohibited to hold public events at the location chosen by the complainant – at the crossroad of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets.
Decree no. 598 of
|
2 November 1999
|
10. At the hearing on 1 July 1999 the applicant did not appear. Following an exchange of observations concerning the opinion of the expert and the submission of the applicant’s amended claims, another hearing took place on
|
24 May 2008
|
56. In a judgment of 4 March 2010 the Court of Justice, while noting the measures taken by Italy in 2008 to tackle the “waste crisis”, referred to the existence of a “structural deficit in terms of the installations necessary for the disposal of the urban waste produced in Campania, as evidenced by the considerable quantities of waste which [had] accumulated along the public roads in the region”.
It held that Italy had “failed to meet its obligation to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations enabling it ... to [ensure the] disposal of its own waste and, in consequence, [had] failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2006/12”. According to the Court of Justice, that failure could not be justified by such circumstances as the opposition of the local population to waste disposal sites, the presence of criminal activity in the region or the non-performance of contractual obligations by the undertakings entrusted with the construction of certain waste disposal infrastructures. It explained that this last factor could not be considered force majeure, because “the notion of force majeure require[d] the non-performance of the act in question to be attributable to circumstances, beyond the control of the party claiming force majeure, which [were] abnormal and unforeseeable and the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due diligence”, and that a diligent authority should have taken the necessary precautions either to guard against the contractual non-performance in question or to ensure that, despite those shortcomings, actual construction of the infrastructures necessary for waste disposal would be completed on time. The Court of Justice also noted that “the Italian Republic [did] not dispute that the waste littering the public roads totalled 55,000 tonnes, adding to the 110,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes of waste awaiting treatment at municipal storage sites”. Concerning the environmental hazard, the Court of Justice reiterated that the accumulation of waste, regard being had in particular to the limited capacity of each region or locality for waste reception, constituted a danger to the environment. It concluded that the accumulation of such large quantities of waste along public roads and in temporary storage areas had given rise to a “risk to water, air or soil, and to plants or animals” within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2006/12, had caused “a nuisance through noise or odours” within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b), and was likely to affect “adversely ... the countryside or places of special interest” within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that Directive. As to the danger to human health, the Court of Justice noted that “that the worrying situation of accumulation of waste along the public roads [had] exposed the health of the local inhabitants to certain danger, in breach of Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/12”.
... 68. Section 4 of Legislative Decree no. 90 of
|
between 7 and 9 October 1999
|
48. Between March and November 2003 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor took statements from fourteen persons who had been in custody in the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on different dates between 10 and 18 October 1999, and from one person who had been in custody
|
20 March 1991
|
14. The defendant appealed on 6 March 1995, and on 13 July 1995 the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had allowed the applicant’s claim for his proposal to be given priority. The decision stated that the first instance court had failed to follow the instructions set out in the Regional Court’s above decision of
|
twenty years
|
37. For the applicants in the case of Radomilja and Others, the issue was whether the period for acquiring ownership by adverse possession had in their case expired before 6 April 1941 or not. The above-mentioned interpretation requiring
|
four months’
|
22. After holding a trial, in a judgment of 23 April 2001 the Pleven District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated hooliganism, contrary to Article 325 § 2 of the 1968 Criminal Code (see paragraph 27 below) and sentenced him to
|
between 25 July and 3 September 2002
|
10. On 22 October 2002 the Turkmen authorities charged the applicant with aggravated embezzlement of public funds amounting to 40,000,000 United States dollars (USD). The crime had allegedly been committed
|
23 August 2002
|
21. However, on 26 June 2002 the chief architect of the municipality approved a plan for the conversion of the flat into commercial premises. On 1 July 2002 Mr Hristo Evtimov, acting in his capacity as chairman of the condominium, contested that decision before the Sofia Regional Building Control Directorate. On
|
the period from 26 to 28 April 2009
|
37. In its judgment of 29 November 2011 the District Court noted that the investigative measures conducted by the investigative committee after the opening of a criminal case had allowed it to establish the fact of the applicant’s unlawful arrest, handcuffing and detention during
|
22 June 2009
|
45. The parties agreed that the number of detainees did not exceed the number of sleeping places. In support of their submissions, the Government produced certificates issued by the prison governor on
|
from 1995 to 1996
|
47. On 10 October 2002 the investigators questioned a former colleague of Lema Khakiyev, Mr D.U., who stated that he had been in Moscow at the time of the abduction. He did not know whether Lema Khakiyev had been a sniper for illegal armed groups
|
28 August 2008
|
41. The court summarised the various exchanges between the Swiss and British authorities prior to the applicant’s extradition and agreed with counsel for the Prosecutor’s Office that the British diplomatic note of
|
7 December 2011
|
7. On 17 September 2004 the applicant was convicted of robbery by the Ljubljana District Court and sentenced to four years in prison. He began serving his sentence on 7 December 2007 and completed it on
|
several years
|
9. The applicant, then aged sixteen years, was convicted of the murder of his grandmother on 12 October 1981. At his trial, he had unsuccessfully raised the defence of diminished responsibility, based on the fact that he had been addicted to glue sniffing for
|
11 June 2003
|
22. On 25 February 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the Ministry. It considered that, although there was a causal link between the laying of the landmines by the soldiers and the damage caused to the applicant, the authorities had not been at fault. As such, the awarding of damages by the Administrative Court on the basis of the “social risk principle” had been the right course of action. The Supreme Administrative Court's decision was served on the Ministry on
|
between 13 and 17 December 2002
|
56. On 29 June 2003 the inter-district prosecutor’s office requested information concerning the Khadzhialiyev brothers from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD. In reply they were informed that the criminal police had no information capable of compromising Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev. On the same date the inter-district prosecutor’s office requested the prosecutor’s office of the Zavodskoy District of Grozny to establish which law enforcement agencies had carried out special operations in the Achkhoy-Martan District
|
August 2013
|
29. In particular, the Government produced a certificate prepared on 13 August 2013 by the director of the tuberculosis hospital where the applicant had remained until his release in November 2013. The certificate showed that the applicant was treated with the second-line antibacterial drugs. His diagnosis indicated in the certificate read as follows: “infiltrative pulmonary tuberculosis, [MBT smear-positive], multi-drug resistance, first-degree sub-compressive diabetes in the moderately grave course, polineuropathy of the lower extremities, chronic viral hepatitis C in the replication phase and moderately acute condition”. The applicant’s condition was considered “satisfactory”. In another certificate issued in
|
23 June 1999
|
105. The report repeated the information in the preceding paragraph and added that Ramazan Ayçiçek's village had been evacuated due to terrorist incidents and that his current whereabouts were unknown. It was not possible therefore to take his statement.
(r) Statement of the applicant dated
|
22 June 2017
|
18. On 5 June 2017 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an application with the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg in order to obtain the applicant’s release, referring to the above-mentioned constitutional ruling. On
|
31 December 1996
|
9. By a decision of 2 June 1994, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1994, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit on 29 September 1996 and ordered that the premises be vacated by
|
16 June 2011
|
8. The CBI and the prosecutor obtained evidence relating to the applicant’s phone calls and his connections to the mobile-phone network. On that basis, the police identified a number of possible suspects, including the applicant, among the friends of J.R.’s family and employees of the family company. On
|
25 March 2003
|
42. On 24 March 2003 the hearing of the applicant's case was resumed. The parties were asked whether in the absence of most witnesses the hearing could take place. The parties left the decision to the court. Two witnesses were heard before the adjournment of the hearing with a view to ensuring the attendance of other witnesses. The Rīga Regional Court ordered the police to ensure the appearance of the remaining witnesses on
|
4 December 2007
|
41. On 21 August 2007 and in October 2007 the first applicant lodged complaints about the actions of the Migration Department and the FMS with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court, which, however, rejected them on
|
1 December 2011
|
32. Mr Litavrin challenged the refusal in court. His complaint was rejected at two levels of jurisdiction, by the Odintsovo Town Court of the Moscow Region on 7 September 2011 and the Moscow Regional Court on
|
20 December 2007
|
22. On 4 December 2007 the District Court informed the parties about its intention to appoint a curator ad litem to represent the child’s interests. On 6 and 13 December 2007 the parties objected. On
|
13 March 2007
|
36. In these proceedings, on 21 December 2006 the Sofia City Court refused the first applicant’s request for a stay of enforcement of the detention order. It found, inter alia, that there was no evidence that its immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm. The refusal was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on
|
1 August 1984
|
11. The applicant and her husband have always lived in the Netherlands. By a decision of 7 August 1984, the applicant's husband was granted a married man's old-age pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet) commencing on
|
8 August 2008
|
14. On 7 July 2008 the Żary District Court gave a decision and ordered that the applicant be placed in the Lubiąż Psychiatric Hospital. It was also established that the applicant could be admitted to this facility on
|
9 November 2009
|
19. Psychiatrists from Branice Hospital, in opinions of 14 June and 9 December 2008, 19 May and 9 November 2009 and 20 April 2010, also confirmed that the applicant should continue treatment in a psychiatric hospital. In particular, in the opinion of
|
12 February 2009
|
25. On 24 February 2009 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation against the detention order of 12 February 2009. She submitted that the extension of her detention had been unlawful and poorly reasoned and requested to release her under a written undertaking. The investigation of the case was complete; therefore she could no longer interfere with the proceedings if released. The court had not advanced any arguments to show that there was a danger of her absconding. The applicant considered that the detention order of
|
17 July 2000
|
35. On 18 June 2001 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without undue delay in the proceedings concerning his action of
|
6 January 2004
|
45. On 5 June 2006 the Greek Ministry asked the Kraków Regional Court for a certificate proving that P.M. had been informed of the request which had commenced the proceedings terminated by the judgment of
|
the end of March
|
19. On 13 December 2007 the Maribor District Court rejected the applicant’s application to reinstate the proceedings, on the basis that the application had been lodged outside the three-month time-limit. It held that the applicant should have found the delivery slips left in her mailbox by
|
26 May 2005
|
57. On 21 February 2005 the applicant appealed to the House of Lords seeking a ruling that it should not be liable to pay the success fees as, in the circumstances, such a liability was so disproportionate as to infringe their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant did not seek thereby a declaration of incompatibility but argued that domestic law regulating the recoverability of success fees should be read so as to safeguard its rights under Article 10. On
|
18 February 1999
|
35. On 2 December 1998 the applicant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which had replaced the Court of Cassation after the Albanian Constitution’s entry into force on 28 November 1998. He stated that, since his company had been placed in compulsory administration, the need for his detention had diminished. He also referred to his state of health. On
|
September 2003
|
22. On 7 July 2004 the applicants’ representatives requested the Sunzhenskiy District Court of Ingushetia, the Nadterechniy District Court in Chechnya and the Chechnya Supreme Court to inform them of the outcome of the examination of the complaints they had lodged in
|
5 November 2001
|
12. On 5 December 2001, the Procurator‑General, at the Association's request, lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have both the judgment of 7 June 2001 and the final decision of
|
from 18 October 1999 to January 2001
|
24. On 18 October 1999 and 28 August 2000 the Moscow Regional Court acquitted the applicant. Both judgments were quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on 15 March and 20 December 2000, respectively. The Government submitted that
|
28 October 2004
|
11. Subsequently, the applicant notified the police of another demonstration planned for 1 November 2004 for the same reasons and at the same spot. The planned number of demonstrators was twenty. The head of the Budapest Police Department, relying on section 8 of Act no. III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly (“the Assembly Act”), prohibited the event on
|
three months
|
19. On 24 June 2006 the applicant was charged with illegal possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances with intent to sell under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code. On the same day a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered his detention for a period of
|
up to five years’
|
18. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides that smuggling, that is movement of large amounts of goods or other objects across the customs border of the Russian Federation, committed by concealing such goods from the customs or combined with non-declaration or inaccurate declaration of such goods, carries a penal sanction of
|
the next day
|
11. According to the applicant, on the same day he was invited to the police station on the pretext that he had failed to appear at a court hearing to which he had been summoned. Upon his arrival at the Galytskyy District Police Station at about 5 p.m., the police accused the applicant of having committed the administrative offences of malicious disobedience to a lawful order by the police and of breaching the procedure for organising and holding a demonstration on 12 October. Between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. the police drew up reports on those administrative offences. The applicant telephoned his lawyer, but the latter was not allowed onto the premises of the police station. At 11 p.m. the applicant was placed in a cell, where he remained without food until 3 p.m. on
|
between November 1998 and June 1999
|
14. On 7 September 1999 the Vienna Juvenile Court (Jugendgerichtshof) convicted the applicant on twenty-two counts of aggravated gang burglary and attempted aggravated gang burglary (gewerbsmäßiger Bandendiebstahl), forming a gang (Bandenbildung), extortion (Erpressung), assault (Körperverletzung), and unauthorised use of a vehicle (unbefugter Gebrauch eines Fahrzeugs), offences committed
|
4 February 1999
|
9. After that the case file was transferred several times on undisclosed grounds as follows: on 22 December 1998 to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, on 4 January 1999 to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, on
|
up to 28 days
|
81. In response to the applicants’ allegation that their detention after 10 April was unlawful because it was on the basis of information solely derived from closed hearings, the judge emphasised that only part of the hearing on 10 April was closed and that the hearing on 15 April was entirely open. He considered that the applicants were being provided with sufficient information during this period to justify their continuing detention. He therefore viewed this part of the claim for judicial review as “fundamentally flawed”. He noted that counsel for the applicants repeatedly asserted that the basis for the applicants’ detention had never been explained to them, without ever attempting to engage with or address the contents of the various documents which had been provided to them. The judge continued:
“98. ... [I]t is plain from all that material that the allegations being made, and the questions being asked, were becoming more and more specific as the days passed, and that by the end of the 13 day period of detention, the claimants were each aware that they were being detained on suspicion of being involved, with other named co‑conspirators, to cause imminent bomb explosions at certain specified public locations in the North West of England. 99. [Counsel for the applicants] submitted that the claimants should have been given detailed information at the outset of their detention, with a level of specificity that was akin to the information in an indictment ... I consider that that submission is wrong in principle. The whole purpose of those parts of the ... [2000 Act] is to allow suspects to be detained after arrest without being charged because, at the time of their arrest, and perhaps for many days thereafter, it may not be possible to formulate charges against them as specifically as would appear on an indictment. That is precisely why Parliament has said that suspects can be detained without charge for
|
eight years’
|
6. By judgment of 16 January 2006 the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, composed of three judges and adjudicating as a court of first instance, convicted the applicant of fraud and forgery to the detriment of a bank and sentenced him to
|
dn. 15 maja 1989
|
11. On 28 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions for 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 award 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
|
8 June 2000
|
24. In the meantime, on 7 April 2000 the respondent filed an interim application which she withdrew on 12 May 2000. On the latter date the applicant requested additional time in order to file an application for the amendment of his statement of claim and that the main application be fixed for scheduling on
|
13 October 2004
|
20. Upon examining the relevant case file at the registry of the first-instance court, the applicant discovered that he had been charged and convicted in absentia for issuing an uncovered cheque on 27 April 1999 and sentenced to a fine of TRY 500[2], an amount corresponding to the amount of the cheque. Moreover, the judgment, which had been delivered on
|
3 December 1993
|
6. In 1993 the applicant, aged eighteen at the time, was called up to undertake compulsory military service. For the purposes of his conscription he had a combined psychological evaluation and physical examination on
|
January 2005
|
46. With regard to the explosions of October 2000, Mr T. submitted that he had been permanently resident in Gudermes at that time. However, he had heard about the events from the villagers. After being appointed head of the Kurchaloy District administration in 2003, he had met with the commanders of the military unit located within two kilometres of the village. The commanders had told him that they had information concerning the minefields set up by rebel fighters in that district and had asked him to tell the villages not to walk there. The sites in question had been marked with notices containing warnings about the mines. Furthermore, the commanders had warned him that there could be mines laid by rebel fighters near the village; however, they had not known their precise location, since the rebel fighters had planted them up chaotically. In
|
15 September 1999
|
11. On 12 June 2001 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the appeal, finding that the contested claim had been accepted in the bankruptcy administrator’s decision of
|
The same day
|
13. On 3 June 1994 at about 9 p.m., Mr İsmail Taşcan contacted the Yığılca gendarmerie station within the district of Bolu, some 270 kilometres from where the three men had been abducted. He informed the gendarmes that he had seen three bodies in an area near the river where he had gone to fish.
|
the age of 18
|
12. The first two applicants, Mr Renee Ghasuta Ramsahai and Mrs Mildred Viola Ramsahai, are the grandfather and grandmother of Mr Moravia Siddharta Ghasuta Ramsahai (“Moravia Ramsahai”), deceased. They were both born in 1938. They were their grandson’s guardians until he reached his majority at
|
26 March 2009
|
15. As regards amendments to the Constitution, its Article X provides as follows:
“1. Amendment procedure. This Constitution may be amended by a decision of the Parliamentary Assembly, including a two-thirds majority of those present and voting in the House of Representatives. 2. Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. No amendment to this Constitution may eliminate or diminish any of the rights and freedoms referred to in Article II of this Constitution or alter the present paragraph.”
On
|
3 April 2000
|
19. On 9 March 2000 the applicant urged the District Court to proceed with the case. On 27 March 2000 the applicant informed the court that he would not attend the hearing scheduled for 5 April 2000 and asked the District Court to proceed with the case in his absence. On
|
29 December 1999
|
28. On 23 August 1999 the chief inspectors submitted their investigation report to the competent disciplinary board. They opined that A.O., M.Y. and E.Er. had been responsible for Mr Süleyman Yeter’s death. They also concluded that these police officers should be punished by dismissal from the force, in accordance with section 8 of the Police Force Disciplinary Regulations, on the grounds of allegedly committing the offence of torture. The report was forwarded to the competent disciplinary board. On
|
more than five years
|
17. On 31 January 2006 the Poznań Mayor refused to quash the building permit of 4 February 2000. The applicant appealed. By a decision of 8 March 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor set aside the decision of the Poznań Mayor, but refused to quash the permit, having observed that
|
26 April 2003
|
17. Having looked around, the applicants discovered that the servicemen had taken away some of their belongings, such as mechanical tools, an electric battery charger and some other domestic hardware. According to the written statements by Ms M. and Ms D., villagers of Goyty, in the morning of
|
1 April 2013
|
8. On 16 January 2013, finding that the conditions for the applicant’s return to her family environment were not satisfied, the municipal director of social assistance ordered the extension of her placement in the centre. On
|
earlier that year
|
6. On 24 August 2001, in his statements taken by the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor, the applicant maintained that he had been already told by the authorities that the way he was selling water was in breach of the relevant regulation and that he had consequently closed his business
|
24 February 2004
|
48. The above data was contained in a certificate of 18 November 2008 no. 51/49-5414 issued by the administration of prison IZ-50/10 and did not refer to original prison documentation. In addition, the Government produced original prison logs in respect of the following five dates,
|
18 October and 14 December 2007
|
10. The District Court, referring to the need to complete the investigation “in the absence of grounds for varying or cancelling the measure of restraint”, issued further detention orders extending the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on
|
5 February 1992
|
14. On 29 January 1992 the District Court asked the applicant to confirm whether he still wished to pursue his action against the T company and whether he insisted that Mr Z.S., who was a director of that company, should be considered as a second defendant in the case. On
|
January 1945
|
13. In June 1942 the applicant was deported from Grójec, which was then part of the Polish territories annexed by the Third Reich, to Wadów, located on the territory of the General Government (Generalna Gubernia, an administrative entity established by the German authorities in occupied Poland). He worked as a forced labourer on a German farm in Wadów until the liberation in
|
1 September 2003
|
7. On 11 July 2003 the court in charge of the commercial register approved the registration of the transfer. No hearing was held before that decision, which was not served on the applicants as they did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. Based on this decision the company YTONG, a.s. was deleted from the commercial register on
|
between 5 and 22 August 2001
|
13. On the same day the applicants were questioned by officers from the Anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. They were asked, in particular, whether they had submitted the petitions in accordance with the PKK’s new “civil disobedience” strategy adopted at its Sixth National Conference held
|
the period from 6 to 10 March 2002
|
90. On 26 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 suspended the investigation on account of the failure to establish the identity of the culprits. The decision read, in particular:
“During
|
27 May 1998
|
42. On 16 June 2003 the prosecutor appointed another group of experts – a physician from the Military Medical Academy and five lecturers from the Air Transport Department of the Technical University in Sofia – with the task of assessing the reasons for the two paratroopers' deaths on
|
13 January 2009
|
13. In the following years the applicant initiated several sets of court proceedings against various State bodies and officials, seeking damages for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 October 2003, complaining of the failure of the Government and of the legislature to implement the Base Value Act, and so forth. It appears that all her claims were rejected, either for want of substantive jurisdiction over the dispute, or because the courts had found her claims unsubstantiated. In particular, the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for its failure to redeem the promissory notes, claiming 110,000,000 Russian roubles under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On
|
11 November 2004
|
14. The Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced her to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The judgment was later upheld by the Court of Cassation on
|
about six months
|
19. Lord Rodger dissented on this point. He found that the legal basis on which the members of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) were operating in Kosovo could not be distinguished from that on which British forces in the Multinational Force were operating during the period of the applicant’s internment. He explained his views as follows:
“59. There is an obvious difference between the factual position in Kosovo that lay behind the Behrami [and Saramati] case and the factual position in Iraq that lies behind the present case. The forces making up KFOR went into Kosovo, for the first time, as members of KFOR and in terms of Security Council Resolution 1244. By contrast, the Coalition Forces were in Iraq and, indeed, in occupation of Iraq, for
|
26 April 2005
|
7. Following A.’s birth, M. occasionally worked in Italy for short periods of time, in order to ensure an income for the family. In 2005, after M. had obtained a regular job, the applicant agreed for A. to travel to Italy with his mother. A formal notarial deed of
|
thirty (30) days
|
7. The employment contract between the locally employed staff and the Embassy provided, inter alia, as follows:
“3. Services to be Performed. The employee agrees to perform all the duties set forth in the Position Description in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.
[...] 12. Disputes. All disputes between the employee and the Government arising out of this agreement shall be decided by the Management Officer or, in the absence thereof, the designee of the Management Officer, provided that the employee shall have the right to appeal in writing within
|
15 April 2002
|
31. At a remand hearing on 15 November 2004 the applicant argued that the prosecution had not adduced any documents in support of their request for extending detention pending retrial. The District Court rejected this argument in the following terms:
“The relevant documents were submitted to the district prosecutor on
|
1 September 2004
|
78. On 14 July 2005 the investigator examined the evidence in criminal case no. 20/849. He noted that Aslan Maskhadov had been sought on charges relating to his alleged involvement in the terrorist attack on the school in the town of Beslan on
|
14 December 1994
|
37. Also on 21 December 1994, at 3.30 p.m., a statement was taken from the applicant by the police chief at the Mardinkapı police station. The applicant stated that his brother had not returned to his house in the evening of
|
5 February 2004
|
28. On the same day, the CLR lodged two further criminal complaints, one with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Craiova District Court and the other with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Craiova County Court. The CLR repeated its request for a criminal investigation to be opened in relation to the circumstances leading up to and surrounding Mr Câmpeanu’s death, alleging that the following offences had been committed:
(i) negligence, by employees of the Child Protection Department and of the Placement Centre (Article 249 § 1 of the Criminal Code);
(ii) malfeasance and nonfeasance against a person’s interests and endangering a person unable to care for himself or herself, by employees of the CMSC (Articles 246 and 314 of the Criminal Code); and
(iii) homicide by negligence or endangering a person unable to care for himself or herself, by employees of the PMH (Article 178 § 2 and Article 314 of the Criminal Code).
The CLR further argued that the Medical Examination Panel had wrongly classified Mr Câmpeanu as being in the medium disability group, contrary to previous and subsequent diagnoses (see paragraph 9 above). In turn, the Child Protection Department had failed to institute proceedings for the appointment of a guardian when Mr Câmpeanu had reached the age of majority, in breach of existing legislation.
Moreover, the Placement Centre had failed to supply the required antiretroviral medication to CMSC staff when Mr Câmpeanu had been transferred there on
|
29 September 2002
|
107. The court thus attributed responsibility for the events of 7 August 2001 to all three defendants, stating that they should have foreseen the adverse consequences and prevented them, but failed to do so. It stated that the defendants’ fault in the damage caused by the flooding of residential buildings situated in the vicinity of the Pionerskoye reservoir was established by the expert reports of
|
21 December 1999
|
9. After the entry into force of the Compensation of Owners of Nationalised Real Property Act (hereinafter “the Compensation Act”, see paragraph 17 below), in January 1998 the first applicant and his brother applied to receive compensation for moveable properties such as industrial equipment and materials which had been nationalised together with the factory. In a decision of
|
29 April 2011
|
68. On 26 July 2011 the Irkutsk Regional Court allowed the appeal in full. It established that the applicant had had a temporary registration in Russia valid until 9 December 2010, and that on 29 October 2010 he had been arrested and had remained in custody until
|
Two years later
|
6. In 2004 the applicant had two operations: a retinal laser coagulation of the left eye and amputation of toes of the right foot. In the same year, unsuccessful surgery led to the entire loss of sight in the applicant’s right eye.
|
10 May 2010
|
13. On 28 October 2008 the applicant brought proceedings before the Amiens Industrial Tribunal (conseil des prud’hommes) seeking a ruling that he had been dismissed without genuine or serious cause. On
|
11 November 2003
|
12. On 24 December 2001 Ms Odintsova filed a separate lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense, claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 2 October 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Samara rejected her claims. On
|
14 June 2000
|
7. On 1 June 2000, in an interview discussing the widely publicised trial of five Bulgarian nurses facing the death penalty in Libya, Mr Simeonov expressed the opinion that Libya was not a “white” country. This statement was severely criticised by the press and sparked a protest from the Libyan ambassador to Bulgaria. On
|
22 December 2009
|
50. On 18 October 2009 the investigators requested that the mobile telephone service provider, Megafon, provide them with a list of phone calls made between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 5 August 2009 in Shali. In their reply dated
|
16 December 1992
|
155. As regards the plaintiffs’ complaint of violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Supreme Court took note of their argument based on the European Court’s case-law in relation to search and seizure of documents on professional premises, notably Niemietz v. Germany,
|
five years’
|
29. On 30 June 2006 the Novomoskovsk Court found the applicant, with some others, guilty of about ten counts of theft (eight of which had been committed between August and December 2004), and engagement of a minor in criminal activities, and sentenced him to
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.