target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
3 December 2008
|
16. On 3 May 2010 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the County Court’s judgment, holding as follows:
“7. The [applicant] is mistaken in arguing that the County Court had wrongly interpreted the legal nature and the evidentiary value, in respect of the person’s admission of guilt, of the ruling ordering discontinuance of the criminal proceedings.
The County Court has correctly found, relying on what was established by the Tartu County Court’s ruling and judgment of
|
8 October 2010
|
43. According to the applicant’s submissions on 31 August 2010 he again collapsed on the floor in the corridor of block X of the Kielce Remand Centre. Only then was he prescribed a wheelchair. However, since the chair which he received in the detention centre was, according to his submission, in such a state that its use constituted a danger for persons using it, the applicant requested his wife to provide him with another wheelchair; this she did, on
|
12 September 2001
|
12. On 7 May 2001 the Buiucani District Court adopted an additional judgment, awarding the applicant damages (MDL 6,558) against V. for the late enforcement of the judgment of 27 May 1999. V. appealed. On
|
16 and 20 December 1999
|
43. On 10 January 2000 the Regional Court asked the Supreme Court to extend the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2000, submitting that the proceedings could not be terminated because the experts in psychiatry had submitted their report on Z.R.R. late, a witness had been ill, Z.R.R. had challenged the trial judges and hearings scheduled for
|
9 January 2012
|
26. On 10 May 2012, in response to the applicant’s request for the recognition and enforcement of the Romanian judgment of 11 November 2010 granting custody to her (see paragraph 14 above), which had become final and enforceable on
|
17 November 2005
|
20. On an unspecified date in October 2005 the President of Moldova, Mr V. Voronin, held a meeting with high ranking officials, among whom was the Prosecutor General, the head of the Anti-Corruption Department, the head of the Cadastral Authority and the prefect of the county where the applicants’ land was situated. During the meeting he expressed great dissatisfaction with the fact that in spite of his clear indications to numerous State bodies, the applicants’ property was still in their possession and had not been returned to the State and a monastery. He gave them a deadline of
|
7 August 2001
|
71. In the Government’s submission, this report stated that because of the exceptional meteorological conditions on 7 August 2001, when the actual rainfall exceeded several times the amount forecast, it had not been possible to avoid a sudden large-scale evacuation of water from the Pionerskoye reservoir. According to the Government, the report further stated that the actions of the Water Company on the date in question had been in compliance with relevant regulations and correct, and in particular the water release regime chosen by the Water Company on that day had been close to optimal. According to the report, on
|
3 June 2000
|
8. The incident was reported to the police by an investigator, who had been tipped off earlier the same day. The police arrested S.V. that night. Traces of the crime having been discovered on S.V.’s hands and clothes, an investigator charged him on
|
18 June 2006
|
41. By August 2006 the police filed a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators with the Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office (Opštinsko javno tužilaštvo) in Jagodina. The complaint concerned the attack of
|
13 April 2011
|
11. A further prolongation request was processed by the District Court on 3 March 2011. Although this time the defence had been notified, the court did not await its observations on prolongation, and maintained the applicant’s detention, in essence relying on the grounds previously quoted.
However, the applicant successfully appealed and was released on
|
23 October 2003
|
37. As regards living essentials, the applicant insisted that the detention centre was not equipped with any bedclothes, mattresses or pillows. The Government's assertion that the applicant had refused to take the bedclothes “as a sign of his disagreement with his arrest” he qualified as a blatant lie. In the applicant's words, if a detainee refused to take any objects for personal use provided by the detention centre, that fact was always recorded in a special register. He insisted that after his arrest he had not been provided with any bedding at all. Moreover, on
|
30 March 1999
|
9. On 13 March 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 24 February 2000. The decision stated that the purchase contract had been concluded prior to the introduction of the applicant’s action of
|
29 April 2002
|
41. Between 16 and 19 April 2002 the Audiovisual Coordinating Council (“ACC”: see paragraph 58 below) organised a series of meetings with managers and staff at TRM to discuss the issue of censorship and other problems facing the company. On
|
Monday 7 October 2013
|
17. On 4 October 2013, which was a Friday, a letter was sent to the State Border Guard Service in Daugavpils informing them of the decision and stating that the applicant was to be informed of it immediately. They also asked that one copy of the decision be handed over to the applicant and that the second copy be sent back to the Asylum Affairs Division with the applicant’s signature confirming that he had been informed of it. The letter, together with two copies of the decision, was received in Daugavpils on
|
4 March 2004
|
36. On 23 February 2004 the applicant made another request to be allowed to travel to Germany, putting forward arguments similar to those supporting his previous requests and stressing that the separation from his wife since 1998 had caused her to apply for a divorce, as could be seen from the grounds cited in her divorce petition (see paragraph 8 above). He repeated his request on
|
24 November 1988
|
22. On 10 October 1988 the plaintiff filed an application to strike out the applicant’s counterclaim. Following the filing of the applicant’s opposition the application was fixed for hearing for 27 October 1988 but was then adjourned by the court until
|
20 March 2003
|
9. According to the applicant, on 13 March 2003 she was arrested and taken to Chişinău police headquarters, where she was detained throughout that day, without any record of the detention being made. The Government submitted that her detention had been duly recorded. Because she had serious health problems, an ambulance was called and she was taken to hospital at the doctors’ request. The applicant spent seven days in hospital under police supervision. On
|
23 October 2002
|
10. In December 2003 the applicant and the Bailiffs requested the Public Prosecutor of the Dzerzhinsky District of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the Public Prosecutor”) to institute criminal proceedings against the officials of the Pension Department for intentional non-enforcement of the judgment of
|
24 March 2003
|
23. The applicant’s case was adjourned further in December 2002 and February 2003 on application by him under section 3 of the 1994 Act, the “exceptional circumstances” being the pending House of Lords appeals. The parties were requested to keep the court updated. The applicant was subsequently informed by letter from the Court of Appeal dated
|
19 September 2002
|
44. On an unspecified date the applicant asked for leave to study the file. On 29 August 2002 the Tver Regional Court granted the application and returned the case file to the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver. The applicant later applied for the hearing to be held in his presence. On
|
2 August 2003
|
65. On an unspecified date in July 2003 Ilinden notified the mayor of Petrich that it planned to hold a meeting at Samuilova krepost on 2 August, to commemorate the one-hundred anniversary of the Ilinden uprising. Apparently the mayor assented and on
|
between 17 July and 4 September 2006
|
57. On 16 October 2006 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court to open an investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with a suspicion that he had committed eight acts of theft, in the period
|
4 January 2003
|
7. On 28 February 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 2,655.70[1]. On 12 August 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On
|
25 November 2000
|
7. On 25 November 2000 the applicant asked the Kirovskiy District police department to institute criminal proceedings against her former husband, Mr Ch., complaining that he had assaulted her. She provided a police investigator with a certificate from the Tomsk Town Hospital no. 1. According to that certificate, on
|
23 May 2013
|
26. According to the Government, on the same day a court clerk notified the applicant of the hearing of 14 May 2013 by calling him on his mobile telephone, and on 7 May 2013 by sending him a letter by registered mail, which was, however, returned undelivered on
|
from 11 July 2000 until 13 December 2001
|
9. On 13 December 2001 the Jarosław District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The period which he had already spent in detention, namely one year, five months and three days (
|
7 and 9 March 2002
|
88. By a letter of 14 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 replied to a query of the SRJI concerning the search for Mr Said-Selim Kanayev. It stated that, upon the termination of the special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi, the head of the administration, Mr G., signed a statement to the effect that he had no complaints in respect of the servicemen, but lacked information as regards six residents of Stariye Atagi, including Mr Said-Selim Kanayev. The letter went on to say that the investigating authorities had inspected the scene of the crime and questioned the relatives of the missing persons on several occasions so as to verify the version that residents of the village, including Mr Kanayev, had been among the members of the illegal armed groups killed during the combat. However, the identities of the persons killed during the combat had not yet been established. The letter further stated that the allegations to the effect that the servicemen who had detained Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had claimed money for his release were unfounded, and that – according to the information provided by the Chechen Department of the FSB (Управление ФСБ РФ по Чеченской Республике) – Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had been a member of an illegal armed group. Finally, the letter re-stated the events of
|
12 May 2007
|
31. On 3 April 2007 the relevant District Election Committee registered the applicant, upon his application, as a single constituency candidate for the parliamentary election to take place in Armenia on
|
five months’
|
20. On 19 January 2006 the Binagadi District Court convicted both defendants under Articles 161.1 (falsification of election documents) and 308.1 (abuse of official power) of the Criminal Code. Both defendants were fined and sentenced to
|
24 April and 25 May 2000
|
14. On 21 August 2000 the Agency submitted a new application for re‑consideration of the judgment of 21 October 1999 due to discovery of new circumstances. This time the Agency claimed, in addition, that on
|
4 April 2017
|
17. A detailed description of the facts surrounding the State’s takeover of Yaşarbank and the proceedings initiated by the main shareholders may be found in the case of Yaşar Holding A.Ş. v. Turkey ((merits), no. 48642/07,
|
6 October 2015
|
30. On 6 October 2015 the Commercial Court of the Central Circuit held a public hearing while noting the absence of the parties and that they had been duly notified of the cassation hearing but had chosen not to attend. The cassation court then proceeded with the examination of the case on the basis of the case file and the parties’ arguments concerning the charge and procedural matters. The cassation court then upheld the appeal decision. In particular as regards the matter of notification, it considered that the decision to start proceedings had been dispatched to the applicant but that he had avoided being served with judicial notifications; however, he had been able to continue to keep himself informed, via the court’s website, of the appeal proceedings after the first-instance judgment against him (see the “Relevant domestic law and practice” section below). The decision of
|
April, May or June 2002
|
28. On 23 April 2002 the applicant asked the Pleven Regional Court to allow him to leave Bulgaria for twenty‑five days to visit his wife and daughter in Germany. He chiefly relied on the same arguments as before. On an unspecified date in
|
5 July 2001
|
7. On 12 June 2001 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in detention, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It invoked the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by attempting to bring pressure to bear on other members of the criminal group. The applicant appealed. On
|
7 December 2010
|
38. Finally, the Supreme Court took into account the fact that on 5 May 2011 the Court had granted the applicant’s request for the application of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and had indicated to the Government that they should suspend his extradition and administrative removal to Uzbekistan (see paragraph 4 above). The decision to quash the extradition order and discontinue the extradition proceedings became final. 2. The applicant’s arrest and detention pending extradition
(a) The applicant’s arrest and the detention orders of 31 October and
|
20 April 2007
|
9. On 9 April 2007 the Znamensk Town Court of the Astrakhan Region granted his claim, having found the reference to the legislative changes inapplicable to the applicant’s case. The court confirmed the applicant’s and his four family members’ right to housing provision in the form of the housing certificate, to be performed at the expense of the federal budget and at the place of the claimants’ registration as persons in need of housing. The court ordered the Moscow housing commission to include the applicant’s family of five in an “order list” (список-заявка) for receipt of a State housing certificate. The judgment became final on
|
the mid-90s
|
24. In 2000 Mr Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation. One of the points of his political programme was to “liquidate the oligarchs as a class”. Furthermore, President Putin advocated, according to the applicants, the renationalisation of the oil and mining industries, which had been privatised by his predecessor in
|
26 November 2007
|
19. On 28 September 2009 the District Court confirmed the refusal to prosecute dated 23 January 2009. The judge noted (apparently with reference to 2007) that for some time the institution of criminal proceedings had been refused because “at the time no written statement could be obtained from [the applicant] in relation to his complaint”. This had prompted the supervising prosecutor to set aside, among other things, the refusals to prosecute dated 1 October and
|
6 September 2006
|
38. The Chief Constable’s decision of 16 August 2006 (see paragraph 35 above) was served on the applicant on 14 September 2006. The applicant did not appeal. However, on 12 September 2006 he had produced documents, including the OMCT’s letter of
|
7 January 2004
|
20. On 19 October 2004 the Regional Court gave a detailed judgment in the case, which referred to the following articles published in the applicant company’s newspaper and summed up by the Regional Court as follows:
“(1)
|
9 October 2007
|
7. On 8 June 2006 the Bielsko-Biała Social Security Board refused to grant the applicant a disability pension. On 20 March 2007 the Bielsko‑Biała Regional Court dismissed his appeal against that decision. On
|
28 May 2004
|
13. On 26 May 2004 the applicant’s mother lodged a complaint with the Sovetskiy district police, alleging that the police officers had subjected her son to ill-treatment in order to make him confess to a crime which he had never committed, and requesting that they be prosecuted. On
|
February 2003
|
5. HADEP was a political party which had been established on 11 May 1994. At the time of its dissolution on 13 March 2003 its general secretary was the second applicant, Mr Ahmet Turan Demir, who had been elected to that post in
|
the autumn of 2011
|
52. The first applicant had claimed in court that she was a victim of injustice and that she would fight until X was returned to her. To shed light on her own situation, she had chosen to post her story on the Internet in June 2011 with a photograph of herself and X. In that article and several comments posted during
|
7 February 2007
|
28. On 18 October 2006 the Vranje Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Ministry of the Interior to reinstate the applicant in his previously held post. The Ministry of the Interior appealed. On
|
12 August 1994
|
11. On 31 August 1994 the applicant company submitted observations in response to those of the Ministry. In their observations the lawyers for the applicant company referred to a number of documents which had been appended to the Ministry’s written defence arguments of
|
25 January 1994
|
17. On 21 September 1993 the applicant requested orally the termination of public care and M.’s return to his home, relying on a psychiatric opinion dated 14 September 1993 by Dr M.L. showing that the applicant’s mental state was now normal and that he was able to assume M.’s care and upbringing. The social welfare officials did not grant the request. According to the Government, the officials explained how to appeal against their refusal. This was contested by the applicant. The applicant’s further request of
|
22 November 2004
|
11. In a letter dated 9 November 2004 the applicant’s legal counsel wrote to the Vivantes management. He pointed out that, on account of the lack of staff, the patients’ basic hygienic care (ausreichende hygienische Grundversorgung) could no longer be guaranteed. He also requested the management to specify how they intended to avoid criminal responsibility – also for the staff – and how they intended to ensure that the patients could be properly cared for. He pointed out to the management that only then could they avoid a criminal complaint or a public discussion of the situation, with all its negative implications. He gave the management until
|
6 September 2012
|
19. The Court of Appeal noted that the expert, in his opinion submitted to the Family Court, had explained that contact with the father did not in itself jeopardise the child’s welfare. However, the expert considered it necessary to prepare the parents by improving their communication before reinstating contact. The Family Court’s decision had failed to take this “prerequisite” into account. The parents had not undertaken any steps in this direction. When heard in the Court of Appeal on
|
21 August 2009
|
28. Following that decision, the applicant contacted the UNHRC/Paris Office and the Director of the OFPRA. By a letter of 18 August 2009, the former replied that, according to the information communicated by the Cameroonian delegation, the French Consulate in Yaoundé was willing to issue a visa to his wife and to two of his children, Vanessa and Benjamin. With regard to the birth certificate for his daughter Michelle, he was advised to submit a request to the Yaoundé tribunal de grande instance for a supplementary judgment relating to a birth certificate. By a letter of
|
February and March 2003
|
23. On 29 July 2003 the Cherkassy Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The court based its findings on the materials in the criminal case file received from the relevant Russian authorities and the materials obtained during the judicial examination of witnesses by the court in Russia in
|
30 December 2005
|
18. At the prosecutor's request, on 23 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention by twenty-five days. The court cited the relevant provision of domestic law and found that:
“[the applicant] is accused of a particularly serious crime, evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully, the accused could put pressure on witnesses and the victim, there is a need to verify the submissions of a co-accused and there is a danger of the fabrication of evidence and collusion between the accused. Also, the [applicant] has not made any declarations to the investigating authorities relying on his right to remain silent, which allows him to fabricate defence evidence should he not be detained”.
On
|
27 February 2007
|
16. Counsel for the applicant complained to a court about unlawful actions of the Moscow transport prosecutor, who had permitted the applicant's detention in excess of forty-eight hours without a judicial decision, on the basis of a non-procedural communication from the Belarus authorities of
|
6 July 1998
|
46. After the remittal of the case, no other new evidence was produced or adduced to the file. On 16 July 2003, the prosecutor again decided not to press charges against D.C. in respect of the acts punishable by the Romanian Criminal Code under Article 200 §§ 2 and 3 and Article 201 (acts of sexual perversion). The decision was founded on the evidence already existing in the file (the medical certificate of
|
July and August 2007
|
9. On arrival at correctional colony no. 13, the applicant immediately expressed his willingness to commence HIV treatment. That request was recorded in his medical records, but the treatment was not initiated. Tests performed in
|
7 July 1993
|
22. All necessary steps were taken to investigate the killing of the applicant's parents and brother, including the collection of evidence. After having completed his preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor of Mazıdağı issued on
|
7 September 2001
|
115. On 6 September 2001 the applicant's representative applied to the GPO, stating that, according to the media, journalists had visited Tarashcha on 15 October 2000. The journalists had examined the body in the Tarashcha morgue and taken photographs of it. She asked the GPO to interview those journalists and to join the photographs to the criminal case file. On
|
the same day
|
7. By order of the same day, issued by an investigator and confirmed by a prosecutor, the applicant was charged with the five burglaries and was detained on remand. No specific reasons were cited in the order of the investigator for detaining the applicant, but reference was made to the aforesaid order of the prosecutor to detain the applicant. The applicant was presented with the order and at 4:20 p.m. on
|
three years
|
11. In the second category of cases, where the original owners maintained their ownership rights, albeit in name only (nuda proprietas), the Land Ownership Act 1991 established conditions enabling the owners to enjoy their property rights to a greater extent. In particular, it provided for the land to be let to the existing users, with a notice period expiring on the date when the temporary right to use the land came to an end. The tenants were, however, entitled to have the lease extended by ten years unless an agreement to the contrary was reached between the parties. The landowners were also entitled to request, within
|
15 December 2010
|
55. The High Court considered that there would also be a real and present (reell og aktuell) danger of abduction in relation to Y if he were to have contact sessions. It was unlikely that he himself would abduct the child, but he might be pressured or tricked into aiding an abduction, for example by being threatened or tricked into disclosing information about A that could help to identify the foster home and foster parents. Y had previously stated that he had received such threats. He had told the police that the applicant’s cousin and younger brother had threatened to kill him, and that this had allegedly taken place on
|
10 January 2005
|
200. Mr Shchekin presented two reports: one referring to the personal income-tax evasion charge and the other in relation to the corporate tax evasion charge. Both reports were collected by the defence on
|
23 February 2012
|
8. On 21 April 2005 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having raped a seven-year-old boy, P. They took him to a police station where, according to the applicant, he was beaten. In his initial application to the Court the applicant stated that a police officer “hit him once in the right side of his body” and after that several police officers started beating him. In his written observations submitted to the Court on
|
4 June 2002
|
20. The applicant appealed against the judgment. She submitted that the District Court had incorrectly considered itself bound by the judgment of 4 June 2002, which had concerned a dispute involving a different cause of action and different parties. It had concerned a dispute over the election results between Mr K. and the electoral commission; the applicant had been a third party to that dispute. The issues relating to defamation or compensation for non-pecuniary damage had not been examined in the judgment of
|
14 September 2000
|
15. On 25 May 2001 the trial began. The District Court was composed of the presiding judge B. and two lay assessors, B. and G. The applicants’ lawyers, relying on Articles 59 § 3 and 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unsuccessfully sought the removal of the presiding judge, alleging her personal bias against the applicants. The applicants and their lawyers, referring to the hospital reports recording the applicants’ injuries, further complained to the District Court about the ill‑treatment occurring in the police station on
|
August 2011
|
8. The Ialoveni District Court dismissed the applicant’s arguments and, relying on the same grounds as before, extended his detention for a further three months. The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of Article 186 § 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decisions of May and
|
a period of eight days
|
38. On 22 December 2008 the investigating judge informed the applicants’ counsel that he had complied with the instructions of the pre-trial Chamber and that it was now up to the applicants to decide whether to take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of subsidiary prosecutors within
|
the next day
|
27. In relation to the question of access to a solicitor, the judge observed that the deferral of twenty-four hours was effective until the morning of 22 October 1990. However, the applicant’s solicitor did not arrive until 12.10 p.m. on 23 October. The trial judge noted that there had been a suggestion that the solicitor may have been unintentionally misled as to the length of time of the deferral but found, having heard the solicitor and police officers concerned, that he was satisfied that the solicitor was accurately informed that the deferral was for twenty-four hours. He further noted that it might well have been convenient for the solicitor to delay his visit to Castlereagh until
|
the autumn of 2006
|
12. The Board found that the second applicant had failed to substantiate her story as she had produced no documents in support of it and as she had been unable to recall, for example, how many times she had been interrogated. It found it questionable that she had not been aware of the first applicant’s involvement with Akrami, or what had happened during the demonstration. Moreover, the Board found that the fourth applicant was healthy and that the third applicant, who had both physical and social difficulties, had improved significantly as from
|
13 May 1996
|
10. In the meantime, however, the applicant, on 10 April 1995, lodged a request for re-opening of the proceedings. After two hearings (the first one was adjourned due to the applicant's late submissions) the renamed Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani), on
|
30 June 2004
|
47. On 16 December 2004 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Vidzeme Regional Court, following a complaint by the first applicant, quashed the 12 July 2004 decision on the ground that the review had been deficient: a forensic report on the first applicant’s medical examination had not been included in the case-file materials; the second applicant had not been questioned about the events of
|
19 February 2007
|
53. On 18 May 2007 the second and third applicants lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 25 September 2006 alleging that they had learned of the house expropriation proceedings against the first applicant only on
|
13 May 2004
|
36. On 30 April 2004 the applicant requested the State Police to assess the legality and adequacy of the procedural actions performed in the course of the pre-trial investigation of the criminal case against him. On
|
7 December 2004
|
162. By a letter of 22 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk regional department of the police replied that at the investigator’s request they had questioned several officers who had worked in Argun at the time of the abduction. Those officers had submitted that in 2004 the authorities had obtained information that Mr A.Kh. and Mr Islam Reshidov had planted a bomb in the building of the Argun municipal administration. On
|
the night of 6 to 7 February 2002
|
29. On 8 February 2002 the applicant was questioned about the circumstances of the alleged beatings. The applicant’s daughter was also questioned and stated that she had seen the police officers pushing the applicant in the back, the applicant falling down, then the police officers handcuffing the applicant and kicking him on his back and the sides of his body. The officers on duty, B. and St., submitted that during
|
10 January 2007
|
10. On 8 June 2005 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure about the Minister’s failure to give a decision in the case within a reasonable time. She reiterated her complaint on
|
23 January 2013
|
130. The court’s assessment of the evidence examined at the first-instance and appeal hearings began as follows:
“Having viewed the recording of the video surveillance camera installed at the ATM of Unibank in the town of Ismayilli, directed at M.F. Akhundov street leading towards the administrative buildings of the IDEA and the Education Department, the court determined that between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013 [the situation] was relatively calm on that street.
Having examined [reports] of APA, Trend and other mass media ..., the court noted that the media had reported that, as a continuation of the events starting on
|
25 February 2002
|
27. On 10 December 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to submit his claim in accordance with the formal requirements. The applicant appealed. The District Court submitted the case to the court of appeal on
|
7 October 2010
|
43. Another request for a release lodged by the applicant in August 2010 was dismissed by the Novotroitsk Town Court on 26 August 2010 with reasoning similar to that employed by the court in its two previous decisions on the same matter. The judgment was upheld on appeal on
|
23 February
|
15. The applicant was detained in a military detention centre between 23 February 2001, at 8.30 p.m., and 28 February 2001, 1.30 p.m. It appears that during this time he was medically examined three times, on
|
7 October 2000
|
25. As a result of the investigation, some additional written statements had been collected from the witnesses in the case, including the applicant, police officer M. – who had escorted V.K. on 16 September 2000 to office 315, investigator K. and officer on duty A.M. It appears that the latter three essentially confirmed the version of the events set out in the decision of
|
9 October 2001
|
26. The assessment of that criterion, however, falls within the unfettered discretion of the Court of Appeal for the final decision on the facts and evidence (Court of Cassation, Employment Division,
|
6 January 1982
|
17. Upon the administrative authorities’ failure to reply within sixty days, which is considered to be a tacit refusal of the request under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577 of
|
11 October 1999
|
18. The applicant's next appeal, dated 19 July 1999 and followed up by a second request of 3 September 1999, was dismissed by a decision of the Varna Regional Court on 24 September 1999, which was upheld on
|
January 2000
|
69. On the same date the district prosecutor's office requested the penitentiary service departments in the Southern Federal Circuit to provide information as to whether Usman Mavluyev had ever been admitted to custodial facilities in these regions. The heads of remand prisons in the region were also requested to provide information as to whether Usman Mavluyev had been held in any such facilities at any time after
|
27 October 2000
|
20. The District Court based its judgment on the depositions by Mr I. made during the pre-trial investigation, the testimony by Mr L. and Mr S., the deposition by Mr T. made during the pre-trial investigation, the confession statements made by Mr V. and Mr B. during the pre-trial investigation, and the applicant’s statements in which he had admitted that on
|
a period of less than one year
|
45. Hungary acceded to this Convention on 7 April 1986, promulgating it in Law-Decree no. 14 of 1986.
Article 12
“Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained ... and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is,
|
11 June 2007
|
20. His complaints lodged with the delegate judge referred mainly to an interference with his right to confidentiality when receiving visitors; his right to attend religious services (although that complaint was dismissed by the Bucharest District Court on
|
15 July 2002
|
11. On the applicant’s motion, on 19 November 2001 the judges of the Pest County Labour Court declared themselves biased. On 9 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to proceed with the applicant’s request for a re-opening. On 8 May 2002 the Labour Court rejected, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on
|
1 January 2012
|
17. On 14 January 2012 a senior Russian military officer of the western region, E.S. Kleimenov (cтарший офицер отдела СВ и БВС штаба западного ВО, капитан второго ранга), issued a report concerning the incident of
|
8 February 2000
|
16. Subsequently, as the length of the applicant's detention reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years as laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the Regional Court made applications to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) asking for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On
|
7 April 2008
|
8. The Pula Municipal Court dismissed further the applicant’s objection concerning an order for payment of the courts’ fees on 19 February 2008. Against this decision the applicant lodged an appeal with the Pula County Court and on
|
the beginning of October 1998
|
13. The Court of Appeal then set a new date for an oral hearing in February 1998. However, it was again postponed, this time because a hearing in a criminal case was given priority. Instead, the hearing was scheduled for
|
23 February 2003
|
13. On the same date the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal reviewed the applicant’s conviction, finding that:
“[The applicant, according to the decision of the District Court, was subjected to administrative detention] ... for attending an unauthorised demonstration in the Kentron District of Yerevan on
|
4 September 1992
|
9. On 13 August 1992, following proceedings on appeal, the Arnhem Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) convicted the applicant of attempted homicide and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention. In addition, the Court of Appeal imposed a TBS order (terbeschikkingstelling) with confinement to a secure institution (met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege). The TBS order took effect on
|
10 January 1995
|
46. By a letter of 18 October 1994 the applicants informed the court that they refused to undergo a psychiatric examination. They did not appear for the out-patient psychiatric examination at the Lublin Centre for Mental Health on the date fixed by the court on
|
28 October 1998
|
35. In his next letter of 18 December 1998, the Deputy Regional Prosecutor informed the Prosecutor General that there had been several medical examinations of the applicant during the last months in order to establish whether there had been any damage to his state of health caused by the prison administration. The last examination had been carried out on
|
February 2006
|
62. In November 2005, when the application was communicated to them, the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 12331 opened into the abduction and murder of Aslanbek Kukayev. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government replied that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses. They, however, agreed to produce several documents, “disclosure of which did not contravene the requirements of Article 161”. In
|
7 March 2001
|
32. On 19 March 2001 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the Grozny Prosecutor’s Office and asked that it be included in case file no. 14/33/0065-01, which had been forwarded to that office on
|
4 August 2002
|
35. Relying on the above evidence, the Supreme Court held that the activity of the applicant political parties, as manifested through conduct in line with a strategy predefined by the terrorist organisation ETA, consisted of “providing assistance and political support to the actions of terrorist organisations with the aim of overthrowing the constitutional order or seriously disturbing the public peace”, within the meaning of section 9(2)(c) of the LOPP. It concluded that the conduct of which the applicant parties had been accused corresponded to the cases referred to in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (f) and (h) of paragraph 3 of section 9 of that Law. It stated firstly that some of the conduct described, such as Batasuna’s demonstration in San Sebastian, where pro-ETA slogans had been heard, could be characterised as explicit political support for terrorism, while other conduct, such as the refusal of Batasuna and its leaders to condemn the Santa Pola attack of
|
the same day
|
13. On 30 March 2006 an altercation broke out between the Boacă family and the G. family, both parties behaving aggressively towards each other and armed with dangerous objects. The altercation occurred in front of the Clejani police station, where the G. family (belonging to the Ursari Roma community – țigani ursari) was going to make a criminal complaint against the applicants’ family about a previous altercation that had occurred
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.