target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
eight years
|
26. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court had given detailed and convincing reasons for its findings, which were based on a whole range of evidence. The Supreme Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to
|
17 October 2000
|
51. The applicants submitted several press and NGO reports indicating that a number of people had disappeared or had been found dead after being detained by police officers from the Khanty-Mansiysk Region on secondment at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. Those documents also indicated that servicemen had on several occasions set fire to nearby buildings where, it was suggested, the victims’ bodies could have been found. In particular, the reports mentioned Abdulkasim Zaurbekov, who had been employed at the VOVD as a construction worker and had disappeared on
|
12 February 2003
|
12. The applicants and the Child Rights Protection Institution lodged cassation appeals. On 8 November 2002 the President of the Supreme Court suspended the execution of the Mažeikiai District Court’s decision until the cassation appeal could be examined. On
|
16 May 1996
|
14. When Atilla did not return on the evening of 25 March 1996, the applicant thought that he had been detained in custody. The following day he applied to the governor's office and also to the chief prosecutor's office at the State Security Court. He applied again to the same prosecutor on 29 March and on 1, 9 and 19 April. On
|
5 November 2003
|
26. In a decision of 21 September 2004 the request was refused on the ground that the applicant could attend courses in prison and that he had made no substantial efforts to date towards paying compensation to the victim. The decision also referred to the reasoning of the decision of
|
8 March 2002
|
11. On 8 February 2002 the Human Rights Chamber joined the applicants’ cases (see paragraph 8 above) and those of Mr M. Š. and the Association for the Protection of Unemployed Shareholders of Agrokomerc and adopted a single decision. It was delivered on
|
20 October 2008
|
34. On 30 June 2010 the Vladikavkaz Investigation Department once again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations. The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of
|
19 July 1994
|
15. On 24 May 1994 the applicant wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister of the “TRNC”, asking whether the previous decision of the Council of Ministers was still in force since he was not allowed to visit the buffer-zone or cross over into Nicosia. He received no answer and on
|
17 October 2005
|
62. On 19 July 2011, based on the expert’s opinion (see paragraph 61 above) and the Ruše Authority’s report, the Maribor District Court issued an interim order prohibiting contact between the applicant, M. and the children. As far as the applicant was concerned, the court found, inter alia, that he had not complied with the Ministry’s decision of
|
16 October 1957
|
9. On 29 July 1994 the Director of the Łomża District Office refused to restore the property. It was found that the property had been used in accordance with the provisions of the original decision of
|
17 September 1998
|
15. In December 1997 the Federal Constitutional Court invited the Federal Parliament, the Federal Council (Bundesrat), the Federal Government, the Federal Social Court, the Governing Association of the worker's Health Insurances (Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften) and the parties of the proceedings before the lower courts to submit their written observations on the constitutional complaint. The latest observations were submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court on
|
August 2012
|
20. On 27 April 2012 the Prison Service notified the applicant’s solicitors that the applicant was listed on their database “as a priority for assessment” prior to the next ESOTP scheduled to commence in
|
12 June 2002
|
11. The applicant company appealed against the enforcement order of 2 May 2002 to the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht). It also opposed the 37 fines which had subsequently been imposed on it. On
|
24 April 1997
|
19. E. and the applicants sought leave to appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), complaining, inter alia, about the length of the proceedings. They also alleged that both E. and the applicant company had lodged summonses and, consequently, the two companies’ claims should not have been examined together. They further stated:
“[The applicant company] has been a party to the proceedings only as of
|
fourteen days
|
16. From 2009 to 2011 the applicant was held at the Prison Department Hospital (Laisvės atėmimo vietų ligoninė) in Vilnius in the following conditions:
- twenty-eight days in a room measuring 14.9 square metres, containing four beds (that is, 3.75 square metres per bed), and in a room measuring 12.11 square metres, containing three beds (that is, 4.03 square metres per bed);
-
|
9 February 2011
|
10. As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (see Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78). According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case, on
|
20 February 2007
|
62. On 5 March 2007 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaints of 8 February 2007 (against the Regional Court’s decision of 24 January 2007), 23 February 2007 (against the Regional Court’s decision of
|
11 April 2003
|
12. A directions hearing was held on 27 February 2003 before the High Court at which the parties were requested to file observations on the question whether the removal of the child from Romania was wrongful under Romanian law within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The judge in charge of the case also directed that the matter be set down for final hearing on
|
23 September 2013
|
1. The case originated in an application (no. 62614/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Gayk Levonovich Sarkisyan (“the applicant”), on
|
16 August 1995
|
7. On 3 July 1995 S.K.’s children from his previous marriage filed a criminal complaint with the police alleging that the applicant had embezzled from S.K.’s foreign bank accounts money belonging to his estate. On
|
26 July 2004
|
10. On 2 April 2003 the investigator sent a rogatory commission to the French authorities, asking them to verify whether the applicant had had contacts with the cosmetics company and whether she had been its representative in Moldova, as well as whether she had purchased cosmetic products from that company in order to import them to Moldova. On
|
2 March 2005
|
14. On 5 July 2005 the Leova District Court found in favour of the entrepreneurs. The court established that L.’s activity on Sundays did not cause any kind of sanitary, traffic or other problems and that the decision of
|
three or four days
|
12. The applicant further states that on 12 February 2002, when he attended his village annual census, he and his family were declared non-nationals and ordered to leave Bhutan immediately. When he refused to surrender his national identity card he was detained for
|
21 January 2005
|
59. On 31 January 2006 the Garrison Court granted the applicants’ claim and ordered the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office to quash the decision of 16 April 2004. The court held as follows:
“... As established at the court hearing, by a judgment of
|
29 March 2004
|
58. On 3 March 2005 the deputy prosecutor of Balakhny town again dismissed the request for the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers. The deputy prosecutor copied the complete text of the decision of
|
13 December 2001
|
11. The statutory thirty-day time-limit for finalising the written version of the judgment of 16 October 2001 was extended by decision of the president of the District Court and it was finally sent to the parties on
|
22 February 1999
|
19. By a decision of 18 February 1999 the City Court, having reviewed the case-file from the prosecution, committed the applicant for trial. In respect of detention it was ordered in the decision: “To leave unchanged the preventive custody measure chosen with respect to the accused at trial.” The decision did not specify until when the applicant had to be kept in detention. The court relied on the relevant provisions, including Article 189, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant did not receive a copy of the court decision, but was notified by the public prosecutor of the renewal of his detention on
|
31 October 2002
|
25. On 26 March 2007 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Russian Government. On 4 July 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted an application for supervisory review by the Deputy Prosecutor General and quashed the Supreme Court's appeal decision of
|
5 March 1996
|
66. On 10 April 1996 the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against twenty people, including the applicants, under both Article 146 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to attempt to change or modify the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey in whole or in part, to attempt a coup d'état against the National Assembly or to use force to prevent the National Assembly from carrying out its functions, and Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to be a member of an armed group. The applicants were accused of various acts of violence, including voluntary homicide, attempted homicide, throwing explosive devices, taking part in an illegal and violent demonstration and armed robbery.
... 73. On
|
two and a half years’
|
12. The applicant has three criminal convictions in Estonia:
- on 27 January 1997 the Tallinn City Court convicted him of aggravated hooliganism (he had beaten a person in the street and later broken a door of an apartment and beaten its inhabitants together with two co-defendants), aggravated theft and attempted theft; he was sentenced to
|
February 2003
|
33. In November 2003, the applicant brought an action against the Iaşi District Court, the Iaşi Court of Appeal and the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi Court of Appeal, claiming that they had unlawfully examined a complaint she had made in
|
two years and six months'
|
25. Following the adoption of the new Criminal Code, the Istanbul Assize Court, by an additional judgment, reduced the applicants' original sentences to six years and three months' imprisonment on account of their membership of an illegal armed organisation and, for the second and the third applicants to
|
13 December 2002
|
16. On 30 April 2003 a panel of the Supreme Court of Justice, composed of judges V.M., I.P. and V.B., upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and ruled in favour of the former co-founders. It observed, inter alia, that the request for registration of S.R.L. Prometeu had been lodged with the Registration Chamber on
|
24 July 1996
|
19. In a judgment of 25 February 1999 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Hague Regional Court of 24 July 1996 in so far as it had awarded compensation to the applicant in an amount of NLG 20,100. It awarded the applicant compensation in an amount of NLG 11,250, rejected the rest of his claim and upheld the remainder of the judgment of
|
4 April 2012
|
15. The complaint against the bailiff was examined on 19 December 2012 by the Šiauliai District Court, which decided to dismiss Z.B.’s complaint. The court held that the writ of execution had been issued on
|
21 March 2000
|
12. On 4 April 2000 the executive council of İçel province issued an expropriation order in respect of the property in the context of the “Project for the environmental rehabilitation and regeneration of the streets around St Paul's Well”. On the basis of a valuation report submitted on
|
26 January 2013
|
8. According to the applicant, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants in the demonstration of 12 January 2013 were drawing the public’s attention to the deaths of soldiers in the army. The participants in the demonstration of
|
9 June 1995
|
30. On 20 June 1996 a private individual, M.N., submitted a civil claim asking for acknowledgement of his ownership rights to the house, no. 57-1, which had already been attributed to the applicant company by the court decision of
|
14 March 2001
|
33. On 5 and 7 March 2001 the applicant submitted two requests to the Riga Regional Court to decide on the lawfulness of his detention on remand, alleging that the consent from the United States to prosecute him had not been properly obtained. He also asked the court to order an additional pre-trial investigation and to alter the preventive measure applied to him. On
|
the same day
|
26. In an unsigned examination note in the medical file, allegedly drawn up on 16 or 17 April 1996, it is recorded that Mr Carabulea “explained in a moment of lucidity” that on 13 April 1996 he had been involved in a car accident. The note further records “cranial, thoracic and abdominal trauma which he [had] neglected”, and that “since 14 April he [had] had slight pains in the upper area of the abdomen, a dry cough and dyspnoea”.
A computerised tomography performed
|
22 November 2004
|
11. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by a lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On
|
26 March 2009
|
12. According to the fourth applicant, he had lived with his family in a private house at 24 Mayakovskiy Street. He submitted a certificate from the Urus-Martan Administration, dated 3 July 2002, stating that he had lived on real estate measuring 365 square metres at 24 Mayakovskiy Street. The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in the Chechen Republic in 1999. It did not specify whether the fourth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate. The fourth applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by the Urus-Martan Administration on
|
12 June 2013
|
70. On the same day the applicant’s representative Mr Gladkikh was interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury. The relevant part of the interview records stated as follows:
“On
|
28 September 2003
|
29. In the course of the inquiry information was received about the possible infliction of the injuries in question prior to the applicant’s arrest. Namely, on 28 September 2003 the Priobskiy police station registered a complaint to the effect that on that date at about 2 a.m. on Martjyanova Street in Biysk unidentified persons caused injuries to Alchagin V. During the inquiry Alchagin V. explained that on
|
6 December 2007
|
122. Mr X. pressed charges against the first applicant on 4 September 2007, for failure to make the child available for one of his visits. On 4 December 2007 it was considered that these proceedings should be archived since relevant certificates proving the child’s illness at the time were submitted. The following day the case was archived by the Procuratore del Fisco (Attorney General). On
|
7 March 2012
|
124. On 15, 22, 24 and 25 March 2012 the applicant submitted written requests for medical treatment and complained about the lack of that treatment to the colony administration. On 26 and 30 March 2012 the head of the administration offered the applicant the opportunity to undergo treatment in the medical unit of the colony and also allowed her to choose between two medical institutions in which to undergo a paravertebral block procedure. The applicant asked to consult the neurologist, Dr P., who had been her doctor in SIZO no. 13 and whose diagnoses had been fully confirmed by the German doctors. The head of the administration refused to allow her to consult Dr P., referring to the conclusions of
|
September 2006
|
8. In the resumed proceedings, the applicants raised an objection against an action of the liquidator, namely, the sale of real estate belonging to the debtor. In May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the objection. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision in
|
15 April 1999
|
23. These allegations attracted considerable attention on both sides of the Irish border and became the subject of police investigation in both jurisdictions. The Government stated that the police investigation in Northern Ireland was focussed on determining whether Weir's allegations should be assessed as sufficiently credible to require a full investigation. They obtained from the journalist an edited transcript of the interview with Weir. While his whereabouts were unknown to the RUC, Weir met with senior Irish police officers at the Irish Embassy on
|
11 May 1998
|
28. On 7 April 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to stay the proceedings of 30 March 1998. On 16 April 1998 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor dismissed the applicant's challenge to the prosecutor, finding that it did not satisfy the applicable legal requirements. On
|
20 March 1989
|
10. On 29 June 1988 the applicants resumed the proceedings before the Chalkidiki Court of First Instance. They also lodged a further application for a final unit amount of compensation to be assessed. They sought GRD 400 per square metre. In its observations in reply of
|
15 November 1999
|
80. Several of Yandiyev’s classmates from the Moscow Sociology University stated that they had not seen him after the summer of 1999. They described him as a devout young man who had observed Islamic customs and studied religious literature. The investigation obtained a copy of the order by the Rector of the University by which the student Yandiyev had been discharged as of
|
15 April 2002
|
14. Up until 14 February 2007 the applicants and their representatives requested the formers’ release pending trial several times both before the Istanbul State Security Court and the Istanbul Assize Court. On each of those occasions the trial court rejected the applicants’ requests, considering that the reasons justifying their remand in custody still obtained on account of the “nature of the offence of which they were accused, the evidence in the file, and the continuing risk of escape”. Binnaz Demirbaş’s objection of
|
19 August 2008
|
33. Based on these findings of fact, the Varna Administrative Court held that the state of affairs which lay at the origin of Mr Neshkov’s claim had come to an end on 19 August 2003. The applicable five-year limitation period had therefore expired on
|
November 2005
|
81. On 22 April 2010 a psychiatrist and a psychologist analysed the applicant’s medical records at the applicant’s mother’s request. They found that in the absence of any anomalies in the applicant’s brain, his neurological disorder could not be organic in nature. It was highly probable that they had been caused by psychological trauma. Given that the nervous tics had appeared for the first time in
|
23 January 1997
|
15. The Appeal Court found that the facts mentioned in the article were of a kind to which the protection of private life typically applied. The Supreme Court had already found in 2002 that the national television broadcast on
|
December 2003
|
8. Over the following months, she wrote several times to the solicitors for the first three defendants requesting that they deliver their defence, on each occasion offering some additional time for this purpose. By
|
20 August 2008
|
39. On 15 November 2009 the applicant sent a complaint to the Supreme Court against the “decision” of judge I.Š. contained in her letter of 5 November 2009. He pointed out that after the decision of
|
14 December 2011
|
52. After June 2010 there were many developments in the case, with its various political and financial repercussions, and they were widely reported in the media. On 17 November 2010 the Court of Cassation ordered the transfer of all the aspects of the Bettencourt case to the Bordeaux tribunal de grande instance. Mrs Bettencourt’s daughter withdrew her claims but the criminal proceedings were later resumed, and on
|
8 January 2008
|
16. On 7 January 2008 the applicants lodged a previous application (no. 565/08) under the Convention, complaining that their deportation to Pakistan would constitute a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. They also requested an interim measure to stay their deportation under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On
|
1 January 1997
|
12. The applicant filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 11 April 1991. On 18 April 2002 the Prosecutor General's office refused his application but forwarded a copy of it to the Stavropol prosecutor “to bring the applicant's sentence into conformity with the new Criminal Code [of
|
August 1999
|
10. On 30 May 2001 a psychological autopsy was carried out. It established that A.T. had not been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Prior to his being drafted into the army, A.T. had been examined by a panel of doctors, including a psychiatrist, and found fit for military service. During psychological aptitude testing he had been assigned to the third (second lowest) group in terms of psychological stability (the lowest group containing the least psychologically stable recruits most likely to suffer a nervous breakdown). In
|
the summer of 2009
|
71. In the course of the trial against the applicant the District Court heard, among other witnesses, the representatives of the human rights NGOs who had visited the applicant after the alleged beatings in
|
15 June 2000
|
11. A hearing was held on 4 May 2000. On 24 May 2000 the child’s mother counter-claimed that the applicant should be prohibited from meeting their son on the ground that the applicant drank and had behaved in an aggressive manner. At a hearing held on
|
4 April 2003
|
29. On 3 March 2005, while the court proceedings on the applicant’s appeal against the bailiffs’ service’s order of 24 December 2004 were pending, the bailiffs’ service issued a ruling (“постановление”) restricting the applicant’s right to leave the country. The ruling stated that the applicant was seeking to evade the enforcement of the judgment of
|
10 October 1997
|
16. According to the judge rapporteur of the Supreme Administrative Court appointed in the case, the decision of the ÖSYM was based on pure supposition and should be annulled as it was devoid of any legal basis. However, on
|
at least ten banking days
|
12. On 27 March 1998 the Ministry of Finance issued a Treasury bond valued at MDL 20,000,000[1] in favour of the applicant company, payable by 10 July 1998. The Treasury bond provided that the applicant company had to present it to the Ministry of Finance
|
26 April 1994
|
20. On 15 February 1994 the District Court judge heard the thirteen-year-old M., who stated that she did not wish to talk to the applicant or accept presents from him and that he should no longer bother her. She also said that she had a father whom she loved, though it was not her natural father. The court held a hearing with the applicant and the child’s mother on
|
three weeks
|
20. The fourth option was the applicant's detention in St Patrick's, which option was adopted with “considerable reluctance” by the court as the only manner of vindicating the applicant's constitutional rights. The High Court acknowledged that it was a penal institution. However, having noted the conflicting constitutional rights of the applicant, the applicant's needs, the constitutional obligations of the State to the applicant and the relevant jurisprudence of the High and Supreme Courts in similar cases, the High Court judge was satisfied that the evidence supported his findings that, in the absence of any other facility within the State, the place most suitable to ensure the applicant's welfare was St Patrick's, and that the High Court could exercise its “inherent jurisdiction” developed by the jurisprudence (to which the judgment referred) in making an order for the applicant's detention there. It was noted that the applicant had been in that institution previously and seemed to have done well there. Accordingly, he ordered that the applicant be brought to St Patrick's by the police and be detained there for
|
the last 20 years
|
6. On 8 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide. She was first interviewed by a police officer. On 9 April 1999 she was charged with murdering E.L on 8 April 1999. On 9 and 10 April 1999 she was questioned by the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor. During the questioning she stated that she had been having alcohol problems for
|
9 February 2006
|
9. On 3 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of twenty days. The court found that
“... the criminal investigation is in its final phase; the final charges are to be submitted and the accused is to have access to the file. Taking into account the serious nature of the crime of which he is accused, the damaging effect of the deed and that, once aware of the contents of the file, the applicant could influence witnesses, destroy evidence and abscond from law enforcement authorities and the court, the court considers justified the prosecutor's request for prolonging the period of detention and rejects the lawyer's request for bail.”
On
|
5 December 2013
|
12. On 24 December 2012, 22 July and 30 September 2013 the criminal proceedings were terminated because no elements of a crime could be established. Those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered. In particular, on
|
3 September 1996
|
7. On 9 October 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint against the appeal decision with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). On 17 October 2001 the Administrative Court set aside the appeal decision of
|
25 March 2011
|
30. On 13 July 2010 the custody judgment of 24 November 2009 became final and the decision on interim custody rights came to an end. From that moment, efforts to enforce the final custody judgment commenced (see paragraphs 38-42 below). On
|
17 May 1993
|
5. On 23 March 1993 a certain H.I. lodged a criminal complaint with the Marmaris public prosecutor against the applicant and a certain S.K., accusing them of forging a bond. The prosecutor initiated an investigation and questioned the applicant on
|
22 March 1997
|
22. On 25 August 1997 the prosecutor discontinued the investigations instituted at O.'s request. He considered that the applicant had not committed a criminal offence. It had been established that since
|
29 May 2013
|
36. On 6 May 2013 the court invited the applicant to submit evidence that his wife, as his son’s mother, could return to the United States, in particular that she would be provided with a visa, accommodation and a work permit. The applicant did so on
|
January 1997
|
6. In May 1996 the liquidator prepared the interim balance sheet (közbenső mérleg) that was sent to the applicants. On 31 May 1996 the applicants raised an objection concerning the interim balance sheet. In
|
27 March 2004
|
48. In a witness interview of 5 April 2004 Suleyman Elmurzayev, one of the three men who had been taken away and then released on the date of the incident (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above), stated that on
|
13 October 1999
|
21. Meanwhile, on 22 September 1999 the Kraków Regional Court again extended the detention of the applicant and the other co-defendants, this time until 30 December 1999. The court referred to the reasons given previously and held that they were still valid. In particular, there were good grounds for believing that if released the defendants might commit another serious crime. The applicant appealed, submitting that as the case had been transferred to the prosecution authorities, it would indicate that there was no “high probability that he had committed the crime with which he had been charged” since the prosecution needed to collect more evidence. On
|
19 January 2001
|
17. In the period between 25 November 1999 and 21 March 2001 the applicant filed four rush notes urging the court to accelerate the proceedings. Also, on 31 May 2000 she had challenged the partiality of all judges of that court but eventually, on
|
13 March 2009
|
44. Lastly, the Deputy Attorney General established that the actions of a certain police investigator when executing the search for the applicant had been erratic. However, even though his actions could be deemed to constitute a disciplinary offence, the investigator no longer worked in the police force and could not therefore be punished.
The Deputy Attorney General therefore refused to open a pre-trial investigation on the basis of the facts mentioned in the Court of Appeal ruling of
|
15 April 2002
|
15. On 17 September 2003 the applicant lodged with the Presidium Court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 16 April 2002, as upheld on appeal, as well as of the detention order of
|
19 October 1999
|
102. In another letter of the same date the district prosecutor’s office informed the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District (военный комендант Урус-Мартановского района) that after the bomb strike of
|
13 July 2015
|
40. Concerning the applicant’s right to obtain early release, the report specifically stated that “since 1987, there has been no federal parole system in the United States”. The applicant, however, could ask for early release if he provided substantial assistance after his conviction and the imposition of his sentence. In addition, US law also allowed for compassionate release under section 3582 of Title 18 of the US Code. The report specifically stressed that the Bureau of Prisons could reduce the applicant’s sentence if it found that there was “an extraordinary and compelling reason to do so; for example, if a medical condition arose with López Elorza that would warrant such a modification”. Finally, the applicant could also seek executive clemency in the form of commutation (reduction) of his sentence. The report noted that in cases similar to the applicant’s, commutation of life sentences was not “a rare occurrence”. It gave as an example that of
|
17 December 2008
|
11. Subsequently, the Łódź Regional Court began the trial. The first hearing was held on 8 April 2008. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on 11 and 19 September 2007, 11 June and on
|
15 December 2004
|
17. The police investigator charged A.I., V.I. and O.B. under Article 286 of the Penal Code (insulting a public servant or a person discharging public functions) and Article 290 of the Penal Code (resistance to a public servant or a person discharging public functions). However, on
|
22 January 2003
|
37. In September 2000 the two criminal cases opened at the applicants' requests were joined in the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office with investigation no. 12038. This investigation was adjourned and reopened several times. The last document in the file submitted by the Government is dated
|
30 June 2005
|
7. In 2000 the first applicant married a Romanian citizen, who currently lives in Hungary. The couple are raising four children from the previous marriage of the wife and they have successfully claimed numerous allowances on their behalf. On
|
29-30 November 2001
|
29. On 30 June 2005 the prosecutor of the Donetsk Region Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 25 March 2003, finding that the inquiry had been flawed, and remitted the case for further examination. He stated, inter alia, that the investigatory authorities had failed to question all the witnesses who saw the applicant on
|
10 October 2010
|
18. On 8 August 2011 the Regional Court forwarded the expert opinion to the parties and asked them to submit comments within five weeks. On 30 August 2011 the applicant lodged an objection to the method of calculating the fee for the expert opinion and applied for an extension of the deadline in order to be able to prepare substantial submissions in the light of the content of the expert opinion. On
|
30 September 2010
|
22. On 30 September 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2010. It is stated in the detention order that “if the defendant decides to lodge an appeal, he has the right to ask, within three days of receipt of the detention order, for his personal participation in the appeal hearing”. On
|
4 March 1999
|
17. In the meantime, on 12 February 1999, the Customs Administration, apparently having decided not to institute any further proceedings against the applicant, handed over the passport to the Slunj Customs Police Department. The Police noticed, however, that the applicant was registered as living in Zagreb for which reason, on
|
five and a half years’
|
29. On 30 August 1993 the Graz Court of Appeal, after an oral hearing in which the applicant and his defence counsel participated, granted the Public Prosecutor’s appeal against the applicant’s sentence and increased it to
|
5 August 1993
|
26. On 8 August 1993 the applicant received a third anonymous telephone call in which he was told that Ferhat’s body was at the morgue in Elazığ. Later that day the applicant discovered that the body had been buried on
|
20 July 2001
|
10. On 24 October 2000, the debtor transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service the amount of UAH 128.77 (the reimbursement of the travel expenses) to be paid to the applicant. However, this sum was only transferred to the applicant on
|
11 November 2008
|
14. On 8 October 2008 the applicant’s request for a change of counsel was rejected by the Migration Court, notably because the case was almost ready for judgment and the acknowledged differences between counsel and the applicant could not justify a change of counsel. Leave to appeal against that decision was refused by the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) on
|
25 February 2009
|
49. By letter of 16 May 1994, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor asked the District Police Headquarters to be kept informed of any developments in the investigation into the killing of Yusuf Ekinci until
|
12-year-old
|
40. After her husband had been killed, her house was put under constant surveillance, all visitors being recorded, and many asked by the policemen on duty why they were visiting such terrorists. Her
|
the same day
|
12. On 28 June 2001 the pre-trial investigation was closed, the first two applicants were served with the bill of indictment and the case was set down for trial in the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow. On
|
12 October 2011
|
14. On 31 August 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi convicted Mr Benyash of extortion and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. He was released in the courtroom. On
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.