target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
26 September 1997
|
9. The applicant is an Italian national who was born in 1958. He was in Spoleto Prison when he lodged his application.
Among other measures, he was held in pre-trial detention for his involvement in the murder of Judge Falcone and his escort on
|
5 October 1957
|
10. It transpires from the documents that ownership of the property was transferred to the State on 16 July 1957. On 4 September 1957, pursuant to Law no. 419 of 16 April 1947, the Ministry of Finance ordered the Mortgage Office to discharge the mortgage debt in relation to the applicants’ father’s property. On
|
6 March 2002
|
77. On 11 April 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s letter addressed to the head of Chechnya Parliament. The letter stated that the investigation had established that on
|
14 March 2000
|
40. On 8 May 2000 the first applicant's wife and the second applicant complained to the district military commander's office about the disappearance of Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev. They stated that according to information obtained from two sources, Mr Kh. and Mr A., on
|
between 1990 and 1998
|
7. An initial application lodged by the applicant led to the finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the severity of the regime and conditions of detention imposed on him in Sofia prison
|
between 2 June 1995 and 7 March 1996
|
29. The Court of Appeal also rejected the applicant's argument that the recording by Mr R. of his (telephone) conversations with the applicant with technical equipment made available by the National Police Internal Investigation Department had infringed his right to privacy under Article 8 of the Convention. It found it established that, in the course of nine hearing sessions
|
18 March 1991
|
84. In this statement Captain Göçmen is introduced as a gendarme captain, commander of Mardin provincial central gendarmerie. He was asked whether it was correct that Yakup Aktaş had been taken with two co‑accused for mutual identification under his, Göçmen's, supervision. He stated that the interrogation of suspects was carried out by interrogation personnel serving under the command of the intelligence unit of the provincial gendarmerie. Related correspondence bore his signature because he was the officer in charge of judicial matters. Prior to the confrontation for identification purposes of Yakup Aktaş with his two co‑accused he had been asked to go to the interrogation centre. The information included in the mutual identification record had been furnished by the persons identified. The signature at the bottom of that record was his and its content was true.
ix. Statement of Senior Major Haşim Üstünel dated
|
15 May 1997
|
15. In a final judgment of 29 January 1998 the Cluj Court of Appeal, after reassessing the evidence in the case, allowed the applicant parish’s appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of
|
March this year
|
12. On 18 April 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese informed the applicant that his civil marriage to another woman while still bound, in the eyes of the Church, by the religious marriage to his previous wife was contrary to Christian doctrine and disqualified him from teaching religious education. The relevant part of the letter read:
“It has been established that in
|
three‑four days
|
30. A forensic report drafted immediately after the incident of 18 August 2003, at the prosecutor’s order, on the basis of all the medical documents stated that the applicant had suffered “cranial trauma without concussion, contusion of the nasal pyramid with secondary epistaxis, and thorax contusion without bone injuries”, and he had needed
|
25 June-5 July 2007
|
25. On 25 June 2007 the applicant arrived at the ITT. He was questioned about his state of health by the officer on duty but the applicant did not complain about his health problems. During his stay in the ITT (
|
between 4 October 2008 and 8 June 2009
|
19. The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the pension she had been unemployed until August 2007 without the right to obtain any social benefits. Afterwards she obtained definite duration employment contracts and
|
2 March 2004
|
6. On 20 February 2004 the Obninsk Town Court held for the applicant, awarded arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic benefits with subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on
|
19 and 25 August 2004
|
15. On 17 December 2004, in reply to an inquiry made by APADOR‑CH into those incidents, the prison administration explained that there was no evidence of a breach of prison rules and that Mr Garcea’s immobilisation had been made necessary by his violent behaviour and had been approved by the prison governor. The official prison records from Jilava prison hospital mention three occasions on which Mr Garcea had been tied to his bed: on
|
four years'
|
12. On 17 May 2006 the applicant was again detained on remand by the decision of the Gdańsk District Court; however, following the judgment of the Gdańsk District Court given in another set of criminal proceedings the applicant started to serve a sentence of
|
19 March 1997
|
27. The photo-fit drawings of the three abductors made on the basis of the statements of the witnesses were compared with the photographs of Ercan Ersoy, Oğuz Yorulmaz and Ayhan Çarkın at the Criminal Police Laboratory. In the laboratory report, dated
|
the period between 24 February and 9 September 2003
|
31. On 2 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that there was no violation of the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution). In line with its admissibility decision, the Constitutional Court examined exclusively the part of the proceedings before the Regional Court. It found no particular factual or legal complexity in the case and no delays attributable to the applicants. It further found that the Regional Court could not bear any responsibility for the proceedings in
|
18 December 2007
|
76. The applicant complained to the domestic courts, under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of procrastination of the investigation (the complaint was allowed on 31 July 2007). She also applied for access to the investigation file (the request was rejected on
|
the same day
|
10. On 17 September 1998, while serving their sentence at HMP Peterhead, the applicants were detained by the police under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and removed to Queen Street Police Office in Aberdeen. On
|
Between July and October 2006
|
9. On 31 May 2006 the District Court informed the parties that it would attempt to find a suitable institution on its own motion. On 6 June 2006 the District Court ordered that contact visits should be supervised by a centre for psychological counselling.
|
22 May 2001
|
34. In its reply of 25 March 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver stated:
“The complaint concerning the lawfulness of [Mr] Fursenko’s arrest was received by the court on 28 April 2001. On 3 May 2001 the court requested [the investigating authorities] to provide [relevant] documents. Since the documents were not received, a second request was made on
|
2 December 1998
|
31. By a judgment of 14 August 1998 the applicant's claim was partly dismissed and partly allowed. The judgment was served on the applicant three months later. The applicant appealed. By an order of
|
20 January 2003
|
16. The County Court did not consider it necessary to hear the evidence adduced in the first set of proceedings again. The applicant maintained his initial position and contested the lawfulness of the interception authorised by the prosecutor on
|
30 August 2006
|
88. In October 2006 the Court received several copies of the completed application form from the applicant, in which he elaborated, in particular, on the complaints, which he had outlined in his initial letter to the Court, including about the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol, Dnipropetrovsk and Kyiv SIZOs. According to him (and confirmed by his three cell-mates), he had attempted to send his application form on
|
27 September 2010
|
46. On 17 September 2010 the applicant requested that judges X.Z, S.B and F.A withdraw from the appeal on the grounds that they had rejected a previous constitutional appeal lodged by him on 20 September 2009 in relation to another unrelated set of proceedings. On
|
28 April 2007
|
55. On the same date, 5 July 2007, the investigators wrote to the head of the UBOP and the head of the Department of the Fight Against Extremism and Criminal Terrorism (the UBE) stating that the investigation into the abduction of Ramazan Umarov had established that he had been arrested on
|
14 April 2009 to 11 June 2009
|
6. The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 30 March 2009 and 23 December 2009. From 30 March 2009 to 14 April 2009 he was held in cell 5 (third floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From
|
24 April 1992
|
8. On 31 October 1991 the second-instance court upheld a judgment by the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) that partly rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation against SZ. On
|
23 August 2006
|
10. On 21 February 2006 the building authority issued a prohibition of use order (Nutzungsuntersagung). The applicant objected and applied for interim measures. On 21 April 2006 this application was dismissed by the Administrative Court, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal of
|
16 June 2009
|
17. The applicant’s appeals against the Migration Board’s decisions of 16 December 2008 and 5 February 2009 were rejected by the Migration Court. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the Board’s decision of
|
24 June 2003
|
30. On 25 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic once again extended the defendants’ detention for an additional three months, until 24 December 2003, invoking the same grounds as in the previous two detention orders of 24 March and
|
6 July 2001
|
24. On 31 March 2004 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance decision on appeal. The court rejected as unfounded the applicant’s complaint that only the officers against whom he had made his allegations had been questioned during the inquiry. In this connection the court noted that the materials of the inquiry included the injured patient’s card of
|
30 July 2009
|
28. According to the first applicant, on 23 November 2009 a lawyer acting on her behalf contacted the Centre to find out the whereabouts of her daughter and it was allegedly on that occasion that she was given the Centre’s order of
|
6 November 1996
|
19. The court held hearings on 13 March and 15 May 1996. A hearing scheduled for 8 July 1996 was adjourned until 14 October 1996. A further hearing, listed for 14 October 1996, was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was ill. The subsequent hearing was held on
|
seven years’
|
20. Subsequent hearings were held on 29 January and 16 February 1999. On the latter date the Wrocław Regional Court closed the trial and rendered its judgment. It found the applicant and his co-accused guilty of robbery committed by an organised criminal gang. The applicant was sentenced to
|
5 March 1999
|
23. Meanwhile, on 24 March 1999 the Supreme Court held its hearing in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer. The court fully endorsed the reasons adduced by the Warsaw Regional Court in its application of
|
16 November 1998
|
15. Following a fire in his cell, on 15 November 1998 he was charged with intentionally endangering the health or personal safety of others by his conduct, or of being reckless as to whether such health or safety was endangered, contrary to rule 49 of the Prison Rules 1964. He appeared at an adjudication hearing before the governor on
|
4 February 2003
|
22. On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a claim with the Vedeno District Court of Chechnya seeking to have her husband Ramzan Babushev declared a missing person. On 27 February 2004 the district court granted her claim and declared him a missing person as of
|
between 14 June and 26 October 2013
|
14. In reply to the Court’s first request for a copy of the contents of the investigation file, the Government provided ninety-eight copied pages of documents from it reflecting steps taken by the authorities
|
9 July 1999
|
15. The court rejected the action as unsubstantiated, finding that the penalty of 20 July 1999 had been lawful. It held inter alia:
“Pursuant to Article 50 § 1 of the Prison Code, convicted persons are guaranteed the right to submit applications, proposals and complaints to the State authorities, public organisations and officials. When needed, the prison administration can attach their observations [thereto]. However, convicted persons are prevented from applying to these institutions through channels other than the prison administration (Article 50 § 6 of the Prison Code). The applicant admitted that the application [of
|
15 September 1988
|
37. On 11 January 2005 the court set aside its decisions of 15 April and 22 May 1991 and discontinued the enforcement in its part ordering the debtor to advance the costs. Thus, from then on it was for the applicant, pursuant to the writ of
|
summer 2003
|
11. With regard to his reasons to apply for asylum, the applicant claimed that he had supported the Chechen fighters during the first war from 1994 until 1996. Because he did not feel that his support had been sufficiently acknowledged, he did not take part in the second war in Chechnya. In
|
one month's
|
15. The lease agreement was intended to run from 7 February to 31 December 1999. It also contained a provision that it would be automatically renewed on the same terms and conditions and for the same period unless either side gave
|
13 June 2006
|
26. The police officer who carried out the test purchase testified at the trial that on 13 June 2006 Y had voluntarily gone to the police station and reported that she was a heroin addict and that she wished to inform them that the applicant was her drug dealer. He also stated that she had collaborated with him for six months prior to the test purchase, and that she had taken part in unrelated test purchases of drugs from other persons. He further stated that prior to
|
between 1994 and 2002
|
46. The witnesses are residents of Elgazi village. Their statements were taken in order to determine the situation of the applicants who had lodged an application with the Court. The witness stated that
|
8 September to 14 September 2008
|
32. On the third question whether the defendants could receive a fair trial, having regard to the publicity, the judge noted that the publicity was worldwide, often repeated and reported by every branch of the media, including the Internet and associated blogs. It had run in the main from
|
12 January 2007
|
28. On 25 July 2011 the investigating judge of the Bălți District Court upheld the decisions of 30 June and 17 December 2010. The judge found that the investigator had undertaken all possible measures to investigate the case, and that the witnesses had not confirmed the applicant’s version of the events and had even contradicted it by stating that on
|
17 July 2012
|
11. In a judgment of 13 June 2012, the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the second application lodged by the applicant under Article 453 § 1 c) of the CCP on the grounds that the statutory conditions were not satisfied. In particular, the court found that enforcement of the sentence did not endanger the applicant’s personal or family situation. In a judgment of
|
January 2004
|
6. On 19 November 2003 the Military Supreme Administrative Court, without giving any reason, decided that the applicants did not qualify for legal aid. The applicants were notified that they had to pay TRL 8,758,870,000 (approximately EUR 5,000) in court fees within one month for the proceedings to be continued, and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings. In
|
5 November 2004
|
12. The public prosecutor challenged this decision by means of a request for a review of its legality (барање за заштита на законитоста). On 12 December 2005 the plenary session (општата седница) of the Supreme Court dismissed the public prosecutor’s request and upheld the judgment of
|
18 December 2006
|
63. On 17 December 2006 and 9 January 2007 Mr L. issued certificates confirming that he had conversed with the applicant and that the latter had refused to disclose the contents of his sealed letters. On
|
14 May 2004
|
13. In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 13 January 2004 the first applicant was granted the allowance sought. His quantitative appeal was dismissed by the second-instance administrative authority on
|
A few days later
|
33. On 18 February 2003 the investigators from the district prosecutor's office questioned the applicant, who stated that at about 3 p.m. on 9 December 2002 her son Aslan Sadulayev had been detained by unknown men at a federal forces mobile checkpoint located at the junction near Komsomolskoye village. According to the applicant, her son had been riding with Mr. M.M. and another man in a purple VAZ-2109 car when their car was stopped at the checkpoint. After that Aslan Sadulayev and Mr M.M. had been taken away, but the latter had been released at some point later.
|
December 2006
|
44. On 27 February 2007 the court scheduled a hearing for 5 March 2007, which was adjourned sine die at M.E.’s request. M.E. stated that she would not be available during that period as she had given birth in
|
17 July 2003
|
15. The Government provided examples of relevant case-law adopted by the Supreme Court, in particular six separate judgments, of which one had been issued on 3 July 2008 and the remaining five between 25 December 2008 and 1 October 2009. In each case, deciding upon appeals on points of law, the Supreme Court had ruled against the plaintiffs, albeit with somewhat different reasoning compared with that employed by the District Court. In particular, the Supreme Court had held, inter alia, that the Government’s decision of
|
12 October 2009
|
7. The applicants brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the expropriation decision before the Supreme Administrative Court. In a final judgment of 3 April 2009 that court declared the decision null and void as it had failed to specify the actual owners of the plot to whom compensation was due, and referred the case back to the administrative authorities. The Road Infrastructure Agency requested re-opening of the judicial review proceedings on the ground that it had not been able to take part in them as an interested third party even though its participation was mandatory under the State Property Act 1996 as investor in the construction of the motorway. In a judgment of
|
21 February 2006
|
26. The Government submitted that the applicant had been transported from the remand centre to the Moscow City Court between 2001 and 2003. In 2004 he had not been transported because the proceedings had been held in the remand centre.
(a) “Assembly” premises at the remand centre
The applicant had been taken out of his cell at around 6 a.m. and had been provided with a hot meal. He had then been brought to the assembly section of the remand centre where all detainees awaiting departure for court hearings had been gathered. The assembly section had eight cells measuring between 12.7 and 17.9 square metres each. Each cell had a bench, toilet facilities, windows and artificial lights. According to a report of
|
12 September 2002
|
16. On an unspecified date, the members of M.'s family instituted proceedings against the applicants and A. seeking to annul the sales contract of 23 August 2002 and the certificate of joint ownership of
|
25 February 1995
|
8. The applicants left their country of origin, Burundi, following the civil war in 1993, during which their parents were purportedly killed. On a trip to Burundi, Mrs M. organised a family council. According to a record of the meeting dated
|
several days to two months
|
18. In the period from 20 October 2003 until 25 May 2007 the court and the court of appeal listed some fifteen hearings. One hearing was adjourned because of the judge’s illness, one due to Mr S’s failure to appear, one at the applicant’s request. Most hearings were scheduled at intervals from
|
a five-year period
|
26. On 22 December 2000 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance decided that the proceedings against the accused police officers should be suspended and subsequently discontinued if no offence of the same or a more serious kind was committed by the offenders within
|
29 September 2004
|
36. On 11 October 2004 the investigators also questioned the head of the Khasanya village administration, Mr A.Z., who gave a statement similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. In addition, he stated that when he had asked the head of the UBOP, officer K., whether Rasul Tsakoyev had been detained on their premises, the latter had replied in the negative but told him that he was suspected of aiding an illegal armed group run by a certain Mr M. Atabayev by supplying it with money and telephones. The witness further stated that on
|
23 March 2005
|
27. Furthermore, S.J.’s bank records were requested, as were details of all red vehicles matching the description of the one seen at the scene of the crime. S.J.’s family members were also questioned repeatedly about whether or not she had kept a personal diary. On
|
26 January 2001
|
137. He did not know Serdar Tanış or Ebubekir Deniz and was not personally responsible for the investigation. However, the other two public prosecutors worked with him. 1. The petitions lodged with the Silopi public prosecutor's office by İdris Tanış on
|
15 March 2012
|
49. As mentioned above, in response to the applicant’s complaint of 13 April 2012, on 26 April 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office published a status report on the investigation (see paragraph 36 above). The status report noted that the applicant and her lawyer had been spreading false information in the media about the alleged inadequacy of the investigation and, as such, had attempted to “create a negative opinion” among the public concerning the investigation. It further noted that the investigating authorities had taken a number of investigative steps, in particular:
“At the request of [the applicant], on
|
14 April 2004
|
67. On 7 July 2004 the applicant company filed a cassation appeal against the judgments of 26 May and of 29 June 2004 with the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). The applicant company’s brief came to 77 pages and had 6 documents in annex. The arguments in the brief were largely similar to those raised by the applicant company on appeal, namely that the judgment was unlawful and unfounded, that the entities mentioned in the report ought to have taken part in the proceedings, that the trial court had had insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant company and other entities were interrelated, that the evidence used by the trial court was unlawful, that the trial proceedings had not been adversarial and that the principle of equality of arms had been breached. In addition, the company alleged that it had had insufficient time to study the evidence and had been unable to contest the evidence in the case, that the Ministry had unlawfully applied to a court before the applicant company had had an opportunity to comply voluntarily with the decision of
|
15 April 2004
|
28. Apparently, on 22 December 2003 the applicant submitted his statement of appeal against the judgment of 27 November 2003 to the correspondence unit of remand centre no. 67/1 for dispatch. It was recorded under no. Ф-108 in the outgoing correspondence log. By letter of
|
September 2010
|
14. In September 2010 a sentence plan review took place and identified a further course, the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme (“SOTP”), for completion by the applicant. He had failed to admit before
|
ten years and two months
|
16. When imposing the sentence, the court took into consideration R.J.’s young age and the fact that he had confessed to the crime. R.J. was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment, with confiscation of all his property. The court added that term of imprisonment to his prior conviction, and R.J. was ordered to spend in total
|
30 July 2003
|
12. On 12 March 2003 the applicant initiated proceedings for the enforcement of the decision of 28 February 2003. On 18 March 2003 the Social Work Centre forwarded the decision to the Department for General Administration (Odjeljenje za opštu upravu; another municipal body) for enforcement. Following a lengthy exchange of letters with the Social Work Centre and an initial refusal to enforce the decision, on
|
28 February 2004
|
31. A consultation meeting between the local authorities (conferenza di servizi) was held on 31 March 2004 prior to the granting of the licence. At the meeting the Regional Council and the provincial and district councils concerned expressed an opinion in favour of renewing the licence, referring at the same time to the report issued by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) on
|
the following
|
116. On 25 January 2006 the first applicant went to see the president of the town court. The latter said that the complaint about the investigators had not been examined because of a fire in the town court building, and requested that the first applicant provide him with a copy of the complaint. On
|
from 6 November to 20 November 1997
|
32. On 6 November 1997 the applicant was hospitalised for medical treatment. He was in prison hospital ward no. 153, which measured 29.4 sq. m. There were five patients in the ward. The ward had a window measuring 230 cm by 165 cm.
The applicant spent several periods in hospital ward no. 154:
|
fourteen years and six months’
|
17. On 20 December 2017 the Klaipėda Regional Court found the applicant guilty of organising or leading a criminal organisation, unlawful production, acquisition, storage, transportation forwarding, selling or otherwise distributing category I precursors of narcotic and psychotropic substances, and smuggling and unlawful possession of narcotic or psychotropic substances for the purpose of distribution, and sentenced him to
|
28 October 1998
|
32. In his written submissions to the Court, the applicant stated that on 23 October 1998 he had been warned for still being asleep at 6.40 a.m., this being ten minutes after the regulation wake-up call. During the meeting with the Court delegates he insisted that the officers had arrived and found him in his bed at 6.30 a.m. On
|
5 August 1994
|
37. Having indicated to the applicant company that the Minister for Transport was investigating a further impoundment based on Article 1.1(e) of Regulation (EEC) no. 990/93, the Department of Transport informed the applicant company by a letter of
|
9 June 2004
|
36. On 10 September 2009 the expert issued the requested advisory opinion, which was based on the applicant's medical documentation and contained the following findings: The fractures in issue could have been inflicted by a foot in a shoe or by another object with a short protrusion. Having regard to the statements given by the applicant's cellmates A. and O., the applicant's consistent complaints of pain in the left part of his chest and the nature of those complaints, as well as the poor quality of the applicant's X-ray film of
|
17 July 2001
|
34. The examination of the case continued on 25, 28-30 May, 4-9, 14-15, and 18-20 June 2001. On the latter date the court granted the prosecutor’s request to call witnesses and experts and adjourned the hearing until
|
24 February 2010
|
29. The applicant’s wife brought proceedings before the Yaoundé Court of First Instance, seeking to obtain a supplementary judgment concerning Michelle’s civil status. By a judgment of 27 October 2009, that court declared that it did not have jurisdiction. On
|
17 October 1991
|
7. On 30 September 1991 the Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicants that it had lodged a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) challenging the 1949 judgment. On
|
between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996
|
12. On 10 April 1996 the Arbitration Court, having resolved issues regarding the first applicant's status, ruled partly in its favour. Specifically, Genex was ordered to: (a) pay compensation in the amount of USD 1,999, 992, plus 6 % interest, on account of the first applicant's inability to operate the casino in question
|
February 2000
|
24. The decision of 10 April 2006 to adjourn the investigation (and subsequent similar documents) indicates that in May 2005 the investigation identified S.B. as a suspect. He was charged with aggravated murder and robbery. In
|
3 February 2005
|
18. On 27 January, 3 February, 26 May and 5 September 2005 the applicant was questioned as an accused person. On two occasions (on 27 January and on 26 May 2005) the applicant stated that a lawyer’s presence was not necessary. On another occasion (on
|
29 October 2003
|
22. On 9 September 2003 the defendants requested a transfer of the case to another court. By decision of 18 September 2003 the Korsakovskiy District Court granted their request and transferred the case to the Novosilskiy District Court. However, on
|
15 and 20 March 2000
|
7. On 8 February 2000 the District Court asked the defendants to indicate clearly in writing whether or not they contested the claim, at the risk of a default judgment. The applicant and the company filed their statements of reply on
|
28 September 2004
|
8. On 12 March 2004 the local authority offered the applicant a flat, but she refused it. On 9 August 2004 the local authority offered another flat (measuring 76.78 m²) and the applicant accepted it. On
|
17 December 2003
|
48. On 5 December 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court, using the same reasoning as in the previous extension orders, extended the applicant's detention until 6 January 2004. The detention order was upheld on appeal on
|
20 January 2010
|
33. The applicant, who was no longer represented by counsel, subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decisions of the Berlin Regional Court dated
|
10 May 1994
|
14. At the end of March 1994, or the beginning of April 1994, Hüseyin Koku was arrested, taken into custody and placed in detention on remand. He was accused of membership of, and helping and abetting, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). During his time in prison he was kept blindfolded, given electric shocks, subjected to falaka and to Palestinian hanging, hosed down with ice cold water, deprived of water and sleep and beaten with truncheons and iron bars. On
|
25 February 2002
|
22. It appears that during the first-instance proceedings the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court held 13 hearings, two of which had to be cancelled because of the absence of a defence lawyer and witnesses. At the hearing held on
|
November 2003
|
17. According to the applicants D.A.-aia, O.M.-ov, V.S.-dze and G.D.‑dze are very well-known public figures in Georgia who, with V.M.‑shvili, the Georgian Minister of the Interior, played an active part in the so-called Rose Revolution that brought about the resignation of President E. Shevardnadze in
|
26 May 2007
|
22. For reasons unknown, on 27 July 2007, while quashing the refusal to investigate the death of Ms Eneyeva, the Kabardino-Balkariya prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings in case no. 25/35-07 to investigate an alleged abuse of powers by an unidentified police officer who had hit Ms Eneyeva on her legs inside the police vehicle at the market on
|
7 November 1995
|
5. On 11 October 1995 the Fălticeni Court of First Instance upheld an action by the applicants and authorised them to recover in co-ownership, as their mother’s heirs, a plot of land measuring 0.26 hectares situated in Cornu Luncii village, in a place known as Cotromanţi.
The first page of that judgment states that it became final on
|
the following day
|
16. In December 2008 the second applicant started to work in Dubai. After the first applicant returned to the Philippines for three months in January 2009 (see paragraph 11 above), the employers significantly changed their conduct towards the second applicant. They threatened not to pay her family if she made any mistakes. They refused to let her leave Dubai, including by refusing to return her passport and ordering her to repay them her travel costs and related expenses. They also told her that she would be put in prison if she ran away or went to the authorities in Dubai for help. They physically and emotionally abused her, and there was one incident when one of her employers struck her across the shoulder using significant force. She was also forced to work from around 5 or 6 a.m. until midnight or 1 a.m.
|
5 October 1999
|
10. For the period between October 1996 and March 2001 the Sofia City Court held hearings on 15 October 1996, 4 February 1997, 28 March 1997, 4 November 1997, 21 April 1998, 30 October 1998, 20 April 1999,
|
18 July 2001
|
74. On 18 May 2004 the Grozny court received a complaint by the fourth applicant dated 15 March 2004 about the decision to suspend the investigation into the kidnapping of his son Rustam Achkhanov. In his complaint the fourth applicant reported the following. On
|
17 May 2007
|
14. The applicant received a total of five letters in response, informing him that he would only be transferred to another category of prison following the final determination of his criminal case. The responses, however, failed to address the majority of his complaints. The applicant stated that on
|
forty‑five years
|
16. The court noted that pursuant to the Ordinance, as it was at the time, it had been the Commissioner who had had to make an offer, and in the event that the offer had been refused, the same Commissioner had had to institute proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board (hereinafter “the LAB”). Pursuant to the Ordinance as amended, it was still for the Commissioner to make an offer. It was open, however, for the receivers of the offer, if they disagreed, to institute proceedings to challenge the offer before the LAB. Nevertheless, in the present case, it had taken
|
15 June 1993
|
37. On 21 December 1992 the third applicant, and on 21 January 1993 the fourth applicant, filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court which transferred their appeals to the Administrative Court on
|
between 1992 and 1998
|
16. On 2 July 2008 the Yasamal District Court granted M.’s request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21 July 2003 until M. could move to one of the houses recently constructed for temporary settlement of IDPs. The court relied on the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004 on Approval of the State Programme for Improvement of Living Conditions and Increase of Employment of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (“the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004”), according to which the relevant State organs were instructed that until the return of the IDPs to their native lands or until their temporary settlement in new houses, IDPs should not be evicted from public apartments, flats, land and other premises, regardless of ownership, they had settled in
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.