target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
between 18 May 2007 and 18 May 2008
|
26. On 28 October 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal partly upheld the first-instance judgment and partly remitted it. It also sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment. The applicant served this sentence
|
22 April 1993
|
7. On 4 July 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the NRAL in the Kranj Basic Court, Radovljica Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Kranju, Enota v Radovljici), seeking compensation in the amount of 2,487,490 Slovenian tolars (approximately 10,370 euros).
On
|
fifteen years
|
18. The Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the applicant’s conviction had not been that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary moral and value concepts, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of paedophilia by using the plural form “children”, “child sex”, “what do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. On the contrary, his first wife had been
|
about four years
|
98. On 12 January 2001 the first applicant was examined by another UNFICYP medical officer, Dr R.K., who made the following findings after his visit:
“Mr. Tsiakkourmas ... suffers from diabetes type II for
|
at least 1912
|
21. In a decision of 30 September 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint and on 19 November 2009 it served its decision on their representative. The relevant part of that decision reads:
“Only those facts on the existence of which depends the assessment of a violation of a constitutional right are relevant for the Constitutional Court.
In the civil proceedings ... it was established that ... the complainants ... had been in continuous exclusive possession of the disputed property since
|
17 August 2005
|
17. The retrial started on 17 August 2005. The Regional Court held a hearing and decided that “the applicant should remain in custody”. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that there had been no need for the decision of
|
1 December 1987
|
18. On 21 December 1987 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Roman Rota (Romana Rota) against the Ecclesiastical Court’s judgment. She submitted first that she had never received a copy of the judgment in question and complained that the court had not heard her submissions until
|
about one year and one month
|
9. According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant modified her claim on four occasions. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear. Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly due to other parties’ failure to appear, the absence or sickness of a judge, the need to collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for
|
the nine months
|
16. The applicant appealed against that decision and asked for a different restrictive measure to be imposed. He claimed that he was not guilty and that in the nine months of his detention the officers had not presented any proof of his guilt. He also denied the risk of his absconding because it was in his interests that the court examine his case on the merits and acquit him. The applicant denied that he would commit new crimes just because he was unemployed. It was the applicant’s view that if that were so then every unemployed person could be detained. He also claimed that his previous conviction should not have been taken into account when prolonging his detention on remand because he had been paying a fine imposed on him in that case and no one could be punished for the same offence twice. He also had a father and a brother, which showed his strong social ties. Finally, he had only been questioned twice in
|
eighteen-month
|
32. On 6 April 2006 counsel for the applicant lodged a complaint against the Prosecutor General's Office. She submitted that there were no legal provisions permitting the holding of the applicant in custody beyond the maximum
|
13 October 2006
|
31. On 1 September 2006 the Municipal Court's enforcement judge in charge of the applicant's case withdrew from the proceedings, stating that he did not meet the recently introduced legal requirements in respect of judges dealing with family matters (see paragraph 61 below). Since the Municipal Court in Krupanj had no other suitable judge, on
|
4 November 1998
|
20. The Director appealed against this decision as he did not have the power to issue a certificate for the use of the apartment, which power lay with the LDC. The Kyiv City Court allowed the Director’s appeal on
|
more than two years
|
8. On 27 May 2005 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court, issued a warrant for his remand in custody for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:
“The criminal proceedings were instituted in accordance with the law in force. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence for which the law provides imprisonment of
|
22 August 2008
|
17. The military investigator obtained written statements from some of the police officers who had taken part in the operation, the applicant, and witnesses suggested by the applicant. In his report to the prosecuting authorities, submitted on
|
6 November 2009
|
17. On an unspecified date the second applicant’s mother – who had been informed by one of the detainees about what had happened – reported the incident to the Ombudsman and visited her son. She observed that his eyes were closed and his face and visible parts of his body were covered in bruises. She reported this to the prison administration and asked that it be investigated. On
|
1 February 1995
|
10. On 2 January 1995 the applicants’ lawyer, following the court’s request of 2 December 1994, supplemented his clients’ action. On 3 January 1995 the District Court issued a payment order against the defendant who, on
|
between 24 November 2003 and 19 January 2004
|
63. On 3 March 2004 the Deputy Head of Hospital IK-12 (ИК-12) of the Main Department for the Execution of Sentences replied to a query by the applicant's wife:
“In reply to your request... I inform you that [the applicant] was placed in [IK-12 hospital]
|
8 November 2010
|
17. On 10 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision. He pointed out, inter alia, that on 19 October 2010 he had requested to be provided with the content of the applicant’s file and that on
|
18 November 1997
|
31. On 24 March 2005 the District Court partly upheld the applicant's action and awarded him a lump sum of RUB 45,919.02 in outstanding compensation for health damage, monthly payments of RUB 3,857.94 in compensation for health damage and RUB 6,000 in compensation for damage caused by a delay in payment of monthly sums. Thus, as compared with the quashed final judgment of
|
before January 1993
|
17. In August 2002, in the course of separate criminal investigations against the physician, another medical expert submitted his opinion on the applicant’s HIV-positive status to the Wiesbaden Public Prosecutor. While not concurring with the first expert’s opinion that it was very likely that she had contracted the virus
|
5 December 1996
|
38. The hearing was however adjourned once at the plaintiff’s request with the applicant’s consent and once by the court due to the enactment of an amendment to the Courts of Justice Law 1960 (Law no. 14/60) abolishing full courts. On
|
approximately half a year
|
5. On 3 December 2001 the applicant lodged an action for damages against two individuals. The Trnava District Court's decisions concerning the applicant's obligation to pay court fees and the appointment of a legal‑aid lawyer to the applicant were examined by the Trnava Regional Court for
|
fifteen months’
|
38. On 29 April 2005 the second applicant was convicted by a majority verdict of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, for which he was later sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with a term of
|
fifteen days
|
24. On 26 May 2010 the State Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for a retrial stating that the Asylum Service should make a more thorough assessment of the applicant’s claim. On 21 June 2010 the Asylum Service refused the applicant’s request for asylum and granted him a period for voluntary departure of
|
November and December 2000
|
37. On 10 January 2001 the Prosecutor General informed Parliament of the provisional findings of the forensic medical examination conducted by the Russian experts, which showed that the body found in Tarashcha was that of Mr Gongadze (99.64% probability). Nevertheless, the identity of the body could not be confirmed as there were witnesses who claimed to have seen Mr Gongadze alive in Lviv after his disappearance, in
|
17 January 1997
|
35. In the decision the Public Prosecutor identified D.P., J.K. and M. J. as the officers accused in the applicant’s complaint. After giving a summary of the applicant’s allegations, the Public Prosecutor concluded:
“In the course of the proceedings, the additional information concerning the above-mentioned criminal complaint by the Slovenj Gradec Police and the MIA – Office of the Minister – were obtained. This enabled it to be established that the above-mentioned officers, all employees of the MIA, had participated in the procedure against the applicant.
It would appear from the already mentioned report of the MIA – Office of the Minister – that the employees of the MIA acted in accordance with their powers.
In addition, on
|
about one month
|
8. According to the applicant, he and the mother agreed in writing on 3 February 1995 that they would participate equally in the care of their daughter and that she would spend an equal amount of time,
|
12 June 2018
|
9. On 28 July 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have P.S.’s property rights to 2.50 of the 8.17 hectares given to him annulled. The prosecutor submitted that 2.50 hectares of the plot was covered by forest. Since that forest was situated in a city, it was considered a forest of national importance and could therefore only be owned by the State (see the relevant domestic law cited in Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10 and 2 others, §§ 86-89,
|
1 October 1995
|
6. By decision no. 492 of 16 November 1995, the Zhytomyr Regional Department of the State Property Fund (регіональне відділення Фонду державного майна України в Житомирській області) transformed a State enterprise, M., into a joint-stock company, which resulted in its privatisation. An audit of M.’s assets carried out on
|
19 February 2002
|
19. The applicant then applied to the Lille tribunal de grande instance, seeking the annulment of the decision to give the child up and an order for her return. She submitted that the consent she had given on
|
10 November 2004
|
43. On 5 November 2004 the prosecutor applied for an extension of two months to the applicants’ pre-trial detention, until 13 January 2005. By a decision of 10 November 2004, a judge at the Supreme Court, after reviewing the application in the presence of the prosecution and the applicants’ lawyers, granted the extension. As grounds for that decision he noted that the applicants had been accused of particularly serious crimes and that the “circumstances of the case” gave reason to believe that if they were released the accused would attempt to impede the establishment of the facts and evade justice. In his view, a request by the applicants to be released on bail had to be rejected for the same reasons. No reference to any specific, factual circumstances of the case was given in the decision of
|
that same day
|
9. On 8 May 2001 the applicant arrived in the Netherlands, where on 21 May 2001 he applied for asylum (verblijfsvergunning asiel voor bepaalde tijd) at the asylum application centre (aanmeldcentrum) at Schiphol. A first interview with an official of the Immigration and Naturalisation Department of the Ministry of Justice took place
|
at least four months
|
35. Following a criminal investigation and delays in the resulting trial due to Mr K.I.’s mental health, in February 2015 the Varna District Court found Mr K.I. guilty of causing moderate bodily harm to the applicant by breaking his jaw. It sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay the applicant 2,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The court noted that the fracture had impaired the applicant’s chewing and speech functions for
|
15 August 2014
|
26. On 4 August 2014, the Family Court forwarded the privately commissioned expert opinion to the court-appointed expert, who responded to the criticism and gave details of his methodology in a letter of
|
Between 21 and 27 September 2004
|
10. On 20 September 2004 two daily newspapers with a large circulation published the applicants’ allegations that they had been beaten up by the police. The next day the Press Service of the Ministry of Interior issued an official denial.
|
at least three months
|
22. On 16 June 2011 the applicants lodged an application with the Aliens Appeals Board for the decisions refusing them residence permits and ordering them to leave the country to be set aside and for a stay of execution. They argued that the decisions, with the reasons given therein, had not provided them with the examination required by Article 13 taken together with Article 3 of the Convention (M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 336, ECHR 2011) of their fears regarding a return to Serbia and of their health problems. Firstly, the reasoning was erroneous and incomplete (error as to their nationality, identifying them as Kosovars instead of Serbs, failure to mention their return to Serbia and their Roma origin). Secondly, they could not be blamed for having failed to provide, during their Dublin interview, documents certifying their health problems and their movements to date or for not having substantiated their fears regarding a transfer to France. Like all Dublin asylum-seekers at that time, when they had attended those interviews they had not been assisted by a lawyer or informed of the documents that they should bring and no document had been requested of them. As they had expressed their fears, the Belgian authorities should have asked the appropriate questions and requested the relevant documents in order to ensure that their return did not infringe their fundamental rights. The applicants also argued that France should not have been determined as the State responsible for examining their asylum applications. Under Article 16(3) of the Dublin II Regulation, the obligations regarding the determination of the State responsible ceased where the third-country national had left the territory of the Member States for
|
5 October 1999
|
24. In a judgment of 18 June 1999, the Administrative Court of Appeal found against the applicant. Leave to appeal against the judgment was refused by the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) on
|
4 March 2003
|
10. In his statement he said that he regularly drove a white Ford Escort and that he was married to a Thai national. In reply to questioning, he stated that he did not remember his whereabouts on 3 March 2003 and that he did not know a certain N. and M. and three other Turkish nationals (K., R., and M.I.). Neither had he ever paid or received money from the aforementioned persons. He further stated that he had never made or received calls to and from Turkey. He denied having, on
|
17 April 2002
|
6. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Częstochowa Regional Court (decisions of 19 July 2001, 18 October 2001, 29 November 2001) and by the Katowice Court of Appeal (decisions of
|
8 December 1999
|
9. On 3 September and 29 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, invoking the same grounds as in the previous detention orders, authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until
|
8 July 2003
|
23. On 24 January 2003, on account of their inability to exercise their profession as journalists, following the refusal by Tele M to allow them access to the radio’s newsroom, the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor for opposition to the enforcement of a final decision. On
|
6 further months
|
42. Subsequently, the court made an application under Article 222 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 90-91 below) to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), asking it to prolong the applicant's and Cz.S.'s detention for
|
14 April 2008
|
38. At the applicant’s request, but in Ms K.O.’s absence, the French first-instance court of Créteil issued a preliminary injunction placing the child with the applicant and granting him exclusive custody rights on
|
the same date
|
95. On 4 April 2006 the Constitutional Court examined an application by Mr N., who had submitted that the lack of any limitation in time on the detention of a person pending extradition was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention. In its decision no. 101‑O of
|
28 November 2012
|
12. On 19 October 2011 the applicant’s representative was punished for contempt of court in connection with his insulting letter to the court. He was fined 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant’s representative appealed and his appeal was initially rejected for formal reasons but was ultimately admitted for examination on its merits. On
|
29 August 2002
|
36. On 29 August 2002 the Golosiyivskiy District Court of Kyiv (before October 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kyiv) lifted the attachment order on this apartment as “the main dispute had been resolved”. According to the applicant, neither she nor her representative were present at this hearing. She also contended that Judge U., the president of the court, who rendered this ruling, had intervened unlawfully in the proceedings as at that moment they were pending before the Darnytskiy District Court of Kyiv (formerly the Kharkivskiy District Court of Kyiv). The applicant further pointed out that in the ruling of
|
17 December 1948
|
31. On 25 October 2010 the Supreme Court accepted the appeal submitted by the Solicitor General and overturned the decision of the Administrative Court. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“In the Supreme Court’s opinion, which has been stated in several of this court’s cases, a restitution order can be considered as legally impossible to enforce, if there are breaches of the law which cannot be remedied with the application of other legal means, as is the situation in the present case. In particular, with the [restitution] order more was restored to the [applicants] than what they had been entitled to, having in mind the surface of the property which was in their legal predecessor’s possession. In support of this, the State organs submit ‘Geodetic Review of the Association of Land Experts of Macedonia’ and ‘Review of old units of land area and their conversion into hectares, areas and sq. m’ as evidence that one shinik in the city of Kumanovo amounted to 650 sq. m. This finds support in the expropriation decision of
|
the period between 19 June 2006 and 8 May 2007
|
20. In the meantime, on 8 May 2008 it had been established by the investigator that Ch.’s actions in respect of Z. contained the elements of a criminal offence under Article 117 § 1 of the Criminal Code (causing physical suffering by inflicting regular beatings) for
|
25 December 2006
|
59. On 8 December 2006 the Naro-Fominskiy Garrison Military Court ordered the commandant of military unit no. 72064 to grant the applicant priority housing in accordance with the law in force. The judgment became final on
|
18 December 2001
|
37. On 20 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General. On 22 July 2005 a reply was given by a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The reply contained a reference to section 18(2) of the Law on Operational Activities, in accordance with which investigative operational activities could be launched before the initiation of a criminal case. The prosecutor explained that the investigative test had been authorised on
|
28 March 1980
|
14. On 4 March 1997 the Deputy President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court issued written notice to the Commission on Rehabilitation of the Dnipropetrovs’k Municipal Council that:
“... by a resolution of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court of
|
19 December 1996
|
33. Between 19 November and 4 December 1996 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court in connection with appeals against detention. In its cover letter to the Supreme Court, the Regional Court drew attention to the fact that a hearing had been listed for
|
4 January 1999
|
10. On 18 December 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of its decision. This decision was not served on the applicants. However, it was sent to the registry of the Bafra Cadastre Court on
|
24 March 2003
|
10. On 16 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the above decisions and on 11 November 2002 he requested the courts to renew the procedural time-limit for lodging it. On 2 December 2002 the Melitopol Court rejected the applicant's request as unsubstantiated. On
|
4 April 2017
|
19. On 12 April 2017 the Joint Court rejected the applicant’s request of 21 March 2017. It noted that the Procurator General opposed the request, submitting that it was a fact of common knowledge that the prison infrastructure of Sint Maarten offered room for improvement, but that this was the responsibility of the Minister of Justice of Sint Maarten. The applicant could be transferred to Curaçao, where the conditions of detention were better, but the applicant had opposed such a transfer. If he consented to a transfer, he could find himself a spacious single-occupancy cell in Curaçao within a matter of days. The Joint Court further noted that on two previous occasions it had considered and rejected requests filed by the applicant to suspend or terminate his detention, and it found no substantial change of (personal) circumstances warranting a different finding as regards the applicant’s deprivation of liberty. In this respect the Joint Court took into account that during the hearing on
|
the present day
|
6. All four applicants were dismissed by their respective employers and subsequently brought separate civil claims against them, seeking reinstatement and/or pecuniary damages. They all obtained final court decisions in their favour, which remain unenforced to
|
25 October 2006
|
22. On 11 June 2008 the prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against C.A. and D.A. The decision was almost identical to the three previous decisions, adding that the specialist who had filed the report of
|
16 October 2001
|
33. Criminal proceedings commenced before the 2nd Chamber of the Malatya State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”). In the course of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. The applicant told the trial court that his statement had been extracted under torture while he was in police custody. He repudiated the statement and maintained his innocence. The trial court had regard to the Tunceli prosecutor’s decision of
|
23 September 2004
|
17. On 16 April 2005 the same investigator from the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The decision reproduced verbatim the text of the decision of
|
12 October 1993
|
31. The applicant appealed, seeking to have the public care revoked or, in the alternative, to have meetings organised more frequently and to have the care plan reviewed at the latest in December 1993. On
|
the period between 2005 and 2007
|
13. According to the applicant, in 2005 and in 2006 he complained to the prison doctor about various health problems, including stomach pain, but his complaints remained unnoticed by the authorities. His medical records for
|
Two weeks later
|
20. On 9 June 2004, having received the applicant's petition for a dismissal of his counsel, Ms G., from the case, the District Court stayed the proceedings until 29 June 2004. On 2 July 2004 Ms G. successfully asked the District Court to be released from her duty as the applicant's representative.
|
16 November 1999
|
9. On 16 August and 15 September 1999 the Central Bank of Russia (“the Central Bank”) declared a moratorium until 17 November 1999 on the execution of all creditors’ demands against the SBS-Agro Bank (“the bank”). The moratorium was later prolonged. On
|
20 December 2016
|
27. As regards the absence from the first-instance hearing, the appeal court noted that the notifications of the hearing had been sent to the applicant by registered mail and by telegram to his known address, but had not been delivered as the flat had been closed and the applicant had failed to collect the telegram pursuant to a notification thereof. Further, on
|
9 March 1998
|
83. On 29 December 1997 the government adopted decision no. 1203, granting the Metropolitan Church of Moldova a right of use in respect of the land on which the chapel built by the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was situated. That decision was confirmed by a decree of
|
17 November 2005
|
10. On 21 October 2005 the applicant filed a new application for asylum, which was rejected by the Minister on 27 October 2005. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court of The Hague on
|
18 December 2008
|
28. On 27 May 2013, that is to say after lodging his complaint with the Court, the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Education and requested the reopening of the proceedings concerning his dismissal from the civil service. The applicant relied on the Espiye Criminal Court of First Instance’s final judgment of
|
13 August 2004
|
167. On 5 October 2004 the City Court turned down the request for an injunction and on 13 October 2004 it issued execution writs in respect of the Ministry’s decision of 2 September 2004. The court referred to Information Letter no. 83 of the Supreme Commercial Court of
|
17 August 2002
|
16. On account of the District Court's decision on deportation, the police authorities had begun preparations to enforce it. In that connection, the Swedish embassy in Damascus ascertained that the applicants had left Damascus legally on
|
21 August 1995
|
39. The proceedings in the action of 19 April 1996 ended with dismissal of the action by a judgment of the District Court of 28 April 2004. It was observed that the defendant had no legal capacity to act and that, therefore, the contract of
|
10 July 2008
|
41. In his appeal on points of law of 15 April 2010 against the Regional Court’s judgment the applicant complained, inter alia, that neither he nor his counsel had had an opportunity to examine A.K., the main witness against him, at any stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, A.K.’s testimony had not been corroborated by further significant evidence as regards the actual commission of the crime by the applicant. The applicant also argued that, after A.K.’s conviction in the criminal proceedings conducted against him had become final on
|
18 April 2001
|
13. The proceedings D102/99, concerning alleged failures to perform professional duties in client relations, started on 12 May 1999 with the appointment of an Investigating Commissioner, who issued his report on
|
29 April 2002
|
16. The prosecutor's office heard evidence from the applicant, D.C. and P.T., and from two eyewitnesses who had been present on the terrace at restaurant M, and examined the written records of statements by Toni and Sven. At the prosecutor's request, both the applicant's and D.C.'s flats were searched by the police. No drugs or other illegal substances were found.
The prosecutor concluded that on
|
27 March 2009
|
54. The applicant appealed. She submitted, in particular, that “the [first‑instance] court had not given any legal assessment to the fact that the criminal proceedings against [her] had been instituted on
|
the end of 1986
|
13. On 17 August 1998 the Munich Regional Court awarded the applicant a further DEM 10,000 (EUR 5,112.92) for non-pecuniary damage and declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation for any further damage resulting from the accident, without assessing the exact amount payable. Referring to the expert opinions, it found that the applicant's whiplash injury had healed by
|
8 April 2002
|
9. The following envelopes containing letters from the applicant's lawyer bear a stamp “censored on” (ocenzurowano dnia...), a handwritten date and an illegible signature:
1) the envelope marked “censored on
|
between 8 and 21 April
|
72. On 26 June 2009 the applicants commenced two sets of judicial review proceedings. In one (“the first action”), they sought to challenge the deportation orders. That action does not form the basis of their application to this Court. The other (“the second action”) was lodged against five defendants: (1) Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”); (2) West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”); (3) the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; (4) Manchester Magistrates’ Court; and (5) the Home Secretary. In their claim form, the applicants sought to challenge the legality of their treatment
|
22 July 2004
|
14. On 5 February 2004 Mr Câmpeanu was admitted to the CMSC. According to a report issued by the CMSC and sent to the CLR on 5 March 2004 detailing his condition upon admission, Mr Câmpeanu was in an advanced state of “psychiatric and physical degradation”, was dressed in a tattered tracksuit, with no underwear or shoes, and did not have any antiretroviral medication or information concerning his medical condition. It was noted that the patient “refused to cooperate”.
In her statement to the prosecutor on
|
4 and 5 April 1995
|
32. It transpires from the MIA’s report that, on 20 April 1995, the MIA had appointed a “working group” (delovna skupina) consisting of officers from the Slovenj Gradec Police and the MIA to assess the lawfulness of the procedures carried out by the Special Unit and the Slovenj Gradec Police. The Court has not received any documents produced or obtained by this working group, except the above-mentioned MIA report. The latter, which under the “subject” (zadeva) refers solely to the criminal offence allegedly committed by the applicant, reads as follows:
“Further to the analysis of procedures and activities which had taken place on
|
27 November 2012
|
23. On 28 April 2014 the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant and her son. It stated:
“The defendants in their appeal submitted that the judgment [in the criminal proceedings against V.O.] had not assessed [A.K.’s] guilt in respect of the criminal offence and that the court could thus not have relied on the circumstances established in the judgment of
|
February 2003
|
165. In February 2003 the head of the criminal police department in Khankala, Mr Zhizhin, informed the town prosecutor’s office that Mr Temergeriyev had not been taken to the criminal police department in Khankala, since there were no detention facilities there. In
|
9 July 2012
|
85. On 7 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 15 March and 17 July 2006, 16 January and 14 March 2007, 25 April 2011, and
|
the end of April 2013
|
26. The applicant arrived on 4 March 2013 at correctional colony no. IK‑42/4 in the Astrakhan Region (“colony no. IK-42/4”), where he was seen by the colony doctor, who noted that the applicant had been suffering from brain cyst. At
|
1 June 2000
|
33. On 15 September 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings on the complaint about the inactivity of the Warsaw Local Government Board of Appeal, given that the latter authority had issued its decision on
|
18 July 2001
|
23. On 15 March 2001 the Kranj District Court issued a partial decision granting compensation for the forfeited movable property to J.D.’s heirs, including the applicant. It awarded each of them 112,879 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (EUR 471), payable in State bonds. The decision was upheld by the Ljubljana Higher Court on
|
6 March 2006
|
23. On the same date the applicant’s lawyer lodged an administrative claim against the Governor of the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO) with the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Zaliznychnyy Court”), alleging that the continued detention of the applicant after
|
10 July 2003
|
12. The applicants’ lawyers asked the District Court to release the applicants on their own recognisance. Both requests were dismissed, on 11 and 14 July 2003, respectively, because the District Court had already examined the detention matter on
|
3 February 1999
|
11. The pre-trial investigation was completed and on 24 December 1998 the case file with the bill of indictment was referred to the Moscow Butyrskiy District Court for trial. On 29 December 1998 an application for release, pending before the Preobrazhenskiy District Court, was forwarded to the Butyrskiy District Court on the ground that the bill of indictment had been transferred to that court and that it should therefore deal with all aspects of the applicant’s case. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision, but on
|
31 January 2007
|
15. On 3 December 2006 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) on his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 (see paragraph 9 above). On
|
10 January 2012
|
280. According to the Government, on 13 December 2011 the US applicants submitted the application for K.S.’s adoption to the St. Petersburg City Court. As certain documents were not enclosed, the proceedings were stayed and the US applicants were instructed to submit the documents requested by
|
30 May 2005
|
34. While in the police station, the applicant made a written statement, which read as follows:
“I came to Moscow to protect my rights against various law enforcement agencies. As follows from my notification to the authorities on
|
10 October 2003
|
7. On 15 May 2003 the Tirana District Court supplemented the CSC’s decision by ordering the Tirana City Hall to pay the applicant’s salary for the period between 10 December 2001 and the date of reinstatement. The employer’s request for revision was dismissed on
|
4 February 2012
|
56. On 5 December 2013 Mr Nemtsov gave testimony as a witness in the first Bolotnaya case. He testified, in particular, as follows:
“... I was not one of the organisers of the event, but I was well informed about the way it had been authorised. On the website of the Moscow Department of the Interior a map was posted showing the location of the police [cordon] and the access points. The map was in the public domain and one could see that the park of Bolotnaya Square should have been opened. But it turned out to be closed. Moreover, we openly announced on the Internet, and it was reported in the media, that the route would be exactly the same as on
|
11 December 1986
|
22. Mrs Spencer suffered a work-related injury to her neck on 17 July 1966. She was awarded Special Hardship Allowance from 15 January 1967 and from 1 October 1986 this was converted to an award of REA. Her sixtieth birthday was on
|
8 June 2009
|
17. A further complaint of ill-treatment made by the applicant regarding the same allegations was also dismissed by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor on an unspecified date in 2009 and by the Siverek Assize Court on
|
23 January 1998
|
8. On 5 August 1997 Mehmet Özdemir was arrested and taken into police custody where he remained until he was released pending trial on 9 August 1997. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation. These proceedings ended with Mehmet Özdemir's acquittal on
|
19 June 2002
|
65. The first two applicants appealed in cassation, arguing in particular that the trial court had not been impartial and had been biased towards the prosecution, expressing this by denying the second applicant’s request to discontinue his and other defendants’ confinement in the cage and removing him from the courtroom on
|
13 October 1999
|
18. On 9 September 1999 the applicant requested the revocation of the new auditor’s appointment on the ground that he had failed to submit his opinion within the prescribed period. The auditor submitted his opinion on
|
25 June 2004
|
18. On 29 December 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of establishing a criminal organisation and international narcotics trafficking and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment. According to the applicant, the conviction related to a new charge of which he had never been informed. On
|
11 October 1999
|
39. The applicant maintained before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that his son had been abducted, that he did not know whether the persons who had abducted his son had been police officers and that he feared for his son’s life.
(b) Letter dated
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.