target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
December 1997
|
9. In October 1997 the Kirovskyy Court sent its judgment to the local police with a view to ensuring its enforcement. As submitted by the applicant and eventually established by the domestic courts (see paragraph 12 below), he continued living at his permanent address. Although he was placed on a wanted list for a brief period in
|
28 February 2006
|
8. As the applicant failed to pay the fine, on an unspecified date a bailiff applied to the Ocnita District Court to have the fine converted into thirty days’ administrative detention, under Article 26 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph 14 below). According to the bailiff, the applicant had been ordered to pay the fine by
|
22 August 1997
|
8. On 20 August 1997 the applicant sent a letter to the notary claiming that the decision of 26 November 1996 was incorrect in that it did not deal with all the immovable property which had belonged to her father. She requested “that the inheritance proceedings continue and be completed”. On
|
20 June 2002
|
10. On 20 July 2005 the first applicant sought judicial review of the Minister’s order by the Supreme Administrative Court. He argued that no reasons had been given for the order, depriving him of any protection against arbitrariness because he had been unable to discover which actions on his part had been deemed a threat to national security. He also argued that the measures against him had interfered with his family life. However, the authorities had disregarded this and had not examined whether a fair balance had been struck between his rights and the public interest, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, which formed part of domestic law. In that connection he relied on the Court’s judgment in the case of Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (no. 50963/99,
|
September 2006
|
50. In his opinion of 18 April 2009, an assistant town prosecutor again considered that no action was required on the part of the prosecutor in reply to the applicant’s complaint. The assistant town prosecutor held as follows:
“The applicant has been admitted to hospital in relation to infiltrating pulmonary tuberculosis, as well as cervical spinal myelopathy affecting movement of the right arm and the legs...
The main diagnosis (tuberculosis) has been confirmed by X-rays and bacteria analysis. The following medical acts were carried out: blood tests, an electromyography (EMG) test in
|
5 October 2001
|
110. On 30 September 2005 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s complaint and ordered the investigators to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of the abduction and allow the applicant to view the investigation file. The text of the court’s decision included the following:
“... from the case-file materials it follows that the investigation failed to take all the necessary steps to establish the whereabouts of the abducted man and identify the perpetrators. In particular, they failed to:
- identify and question the witnesses who had been at the checkpoint during R. Vakhayev’s arrest on
|
February this year
|
19. The second applicant then conducted a short interview with X’s new counsel:
“Second applicant: Have you any comment on the explanation the taxi driver has given now?
X’s new counsel: I have no comment to make at this time.
Second applicant: Why not?
X’s new counsel: I have agreed with the public prosecutor, and the President of the Special Court of Revision, that statements to the press in this matter will in future only be issued by the Special Court of Revision.
Commentator: Even though X’s new counsel does not wish to speak about the case, we know from other sources that it was he who, in
|
24 July 2014
|
32. On 24 July 2014 the Moscow City Court found Mr Udaltsov and Mr Razvozzhayev guilty of organising mass disorder on 6 May 2012 and sentenced them to four and a half years’ imprisonment. On 18 March 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of
|
several years
|
79. According to the information provided by the applicant on 13 September 2012, the judgment of 17 April 2009 remains unenforced to that date and M. continues to live with his father. The applicant submitted that she had not seen her son for
|
18 February 1999
|
10. In August 1999 L. instituted another set of proceedings in the Yevpatoriya Town Court against the first applicant, claiming additional payments, since the amount awarded to L. by the court decision of
|
8 September 1999
|
13. The applicant's appeal against the detention order of 8 September 1999 was dismissed on 1 November 1999 by the Tverskoy District Court, which held that the competent prosecutor had authorised the extension in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It took into account the applicant's character, the gravity of the charges against him, “the particular circumstances of the criminal offence” and the need to take additional investigative measures and procedural steps. The decision of
|
18 December 2002
|
18. While the second lawsuit was still examined on appeal, the applicants, having not received any answer from the Ministry by December 2002, filed another lawsuit, asking the court to provide legal interpretation as to whether the Ministry had a right under the domestic law to delay and decline registration multiple times, and to forward the matter of constitutionality of the Ministry's actions for the consideration of the Constitutional Court. On
|
5 or 6 August 2008
|
10. When making further statements on 6 July 2009, the authorities told the applicant that since the 2007 elections, the UFC held twenty-seven seats in the Togolese parliament. The applicant replied that he was aware of this. When asked who exactly had persecuted him, he repeated that during his stay in the camp for flood victims, he and other members of the UFC had organized demonstrations to demand fair distribution of the relief supplies, as some members of the UFC had not received any of the food donations. On
|
25 February 1958
|
15. On 18 January 1999 the Civil Court (First Hall) found for the applicant. It declared the taking null and void, as the property was not being used for a public purpose, and therefore contrary to the Convention. It further found a violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. It considered that the period to be taken into account started running on
|
no more than six days
|
16. On 7 December 1999 a medical report was drawn up. It stated that on 16 January 1995 the applicant had sustained injuries which by their nature were considered minor, resulting in health problems of
|
21 January 1998
|
10. On 10 October 1996 the Miskolc District Court, having heard the debtor and obtained documents from his employer and the bank handling the transfer of child maintenance payments in foreign currency, informed the Bratislava 5th District Court directly of its finding that the debtor had been making regular payments. Since no reply or acknowledgement was received from the Slovak authorities, the Miskolc District Court attempted service through the Ministry of Justice. Service was finally acknowledged on
|
from December 1999 to 8 January 2000
|
56. On 25 February 2000 the Kyiv City State Administration's Department of Religious Affairs asked Mr Makarchykov to provide it with the minutes of the Parishioners' Assembly that had elected Mr Pavlo Osnovyanenko as its prior, confirmation that the Parish's prior belonged to the Moscow Patriarchate and confirmation that the prior's position had been vacant
|
19 October 2009
|
29. On 15 December 2009 the Grozny Oil Institute informed the investigator that Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov had not attended classes since 19 October 2009. One of his classmates and a professor confirmed that they had not seen him at the Institute since
|
9 December 1998
|
15. On 17 December 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Argeş Forensic Laboratory. The forensic report drafted after the examination stated that the applicant had been hit with a hard object, probably on
|
27 November 2005
|
26. On 6 December 2005 the applicants filed a complaint with the Tbilisi City Court, demanding their immediate release. They claimed that they had been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) and Article 5 of the Convention, since no judicial decision had authorised their detention since
|
November and December 2002
|
32. On 8 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint of 26 February 2004 inadmissible, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. In this context the Constitutional Court held that the principal questions of whether there had been any illegal action causing damage to the applicant and who was responsible for it fell to be determined by the ordinary courts. More specifically, the question of whether a crime had been committed in connection with the events complained of was to be determined in criminal proceedings. The Constitutional Court noted that in the criminal proceedings in the present case the applicant had failed to claim standing as an aggrieved party, which would have given her a series of procedural rights enabling her to influence their outcome. The fact that the criminal courts had sole jurisdiction in the matter meant that the Constitutional Court had power to intervene only if the criminal courts had acted manifestly arbitrarily. The applicant had, however, put forward no arguments to that effect. The Constitutional Court further held that, in any event, in so far as the complaint pertained to the District Police Department's failure to take action in
|
2 June 2008
|
20. Subsequent to the two judgments against her of 2 July and 17 December 2007 (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above), on 19 June 2008, the public prosecutor brought criminal charges against the first applicant. She was accused of failing to allow the meeting scheduled for
|
31 October 2002
|
20. The applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of his case. On 19 October 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court granted his application, quashed the judgment of 28 June 2002, as upheld on
|
19 September 2018
|
15. On 17 February 2016 the Komi FMS issued a decision ordering the first applicant to leave Russia within five days of receiving the decision, under the threat of deportation, and banning his re-entry into the Russian Federation until
|
16 August 2003
|
20. On 26 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for ill-treatment. It was noted that they had denied having ill-treated the applicant, that the applicant had made a statement on
|
2 April 2007
|
22. It further found that it was clear from the report dated 4 January 2007 submitted by the governor of Aachen Prison, who had recommended not suspending on probation the order for the applicant’s preventive detention, that there had not been any developments on his part warranting a different conclusion. Likewise, at the hearing of his case on
|
26 May 2004
|
108. It does not appear that the applicant company appealed against this decision before the Circuit Court.
(c) Enforcement of the judgments concerning the 2000 Tax Assessment
(i) First-instance judgment of
|
24 September 2002
|
7. On 25 and 19 September 2002 respectively the applicants were arrested in Grozny in the Chechen Republic and taken to the Operational‑Search Division of the North Caucasus Operations Department of the Chief Directorate of the Russian Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit (ОРБ-2 СКОУ ГУ МВД РФ по ЮФО hereinafter “ORB-2”). After their arrest they were taken to the temporary detention facility at ORB-2 (hereinafter “the IVS”). Official records of the applicants’ arrest were drawn up on 30 and
|
28 June 1984
|
12. On 24 April 1984 he was sentenced by the Lyons tribunal de grande instance to six months' imprisonment for burglary. The court also activated the suspended sentence he had been given previously. On
|
30 November 2001
|
8. On 3 December 2001 the applicant was examined once again at the State Security Court branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor who examined him explained in his report that the applicant had complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. It was reported that the applicant had stated that he was beaten up in the minibus while he was being taken to the Security Headquarters, and that he had been under psychological pressure while he was in police custody. Referring to the X‑ray of
|
the morning of 13 December 2000
|
124. On 16 December 2000 the SBA police interviewed Mr V.Z., the owner of the white Isuzu pickup with registration number UJ 100, which the first applicant claimed had been travelling in front of him towards Pergamos on the relevant morning. V.Z. stated that on
|
11 February 2001
|
26. On 29 May 2001 Investigator G. ordered a forensic medical examination to be carried out. The investigator found that:
“On 10 February 2001 [the applicant] was arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence by police officers of Otradnoe District Police Station of Moscow [(Отделение внутренних дел района Отрадное г. Москвы)]. On
|
23 December 2003
|
22. Furthermore, on 10 and 16 December 2003 the applicant's lawyers (Ms Yulina and Mr Glushenkov) filed their own grounds of appeal against the detention order of 1 December 2003. Those grounds were addressed to the Military Court of the Moscow District. They were sent to the prosecutor's office for comment. On
|
26 March 2003
|
9. Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. On 19 March 2004 it gave three decisions declaring the applicant's actions inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. On
|
the afternoon of 2 July 2001
|
17. The third and fourth applicants did not witness Zelimkhan Umkhanov's detention but referred to eye-witness statements submitted by them to the Court. According to those statements, at about 4 p.m. on 2 July 2001 Zelimkhan Umkhanov was detained in Groznensky Lane in Sernovodosk. The applicants submitted several statements of villagers who had witnessed Zelimkhan's detention in the street. Several witnesses, including K. Ch. (see above), stated that they had seen Zelimkhan Umkhanov in APC no. Ch025 in
|
29 August 2002
|
37. On 20 September 2002 M. made a gift of the apartment to K.N., a third person. On 21 February 2003 the latter sold the apartment to K.R. The applicant alleged that she only became aware of the ruling of
|
19 November 2007
|
22. On 28 June 2007 the applicant applied for asylum in the United Kingdom, alleging that his father had been killed in a land dispute between the Dioula and Bete community and that he would be at risk in Ivory Coast owing to his Dioula ethnicity. On 4 October 2007 his application was refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who found no objective evidence that the Dioula were targeted solely on account of their ethnicity, and that the delay in claiming asylum had adversely affected the credibility of the rest of the applicant’s claim. A deportation order made by the Secretary of State was served on the applicant on
|
17 to 25 February 2000
|
28. On 17 February 2000 the second applicant was arrested by the police for swearing in public. Immediately after the arrest he was allegedly questioned about his involvement in the above-mentioned kidnapping. According to him, from
|
29 June 2000
|
33. On 23 June 2000 the Court of First Instance requested the applicant to provide, in accordance with section 22 of the Enforcement Act (see paragraph 51 below), written evidence that the undertaking's claim had been transferred to her. On
|
7 and 8 August 2000
|
100. Secondly, the judgment referred to the testimonies of Ms Kikalishvili and Mr Tsartsidze, the relatives of Mr Kakushadze. They testified about what Mr Grigolashvili had told them about the events of
|
four months
|
15. On 20 January 1997 the applicant requested that a bailiff be called on to record officially that his detention had become unlawful as the last order extending it, dated 13 September 1996 and effective from midnight on 19 September 1996 for a period of
|
31 January 2007
|
15. On 8 January 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. It held that in the light of the first-instance court’s judgment, the reasons for the applicant’s continued detention were still valid. A further interlocutory appeal was dismissed by the Katowice Court of Appeal on
|
November 2004
|
138. In accordance with section 5 § 2 of the Compensation Law, as in force between November 1997 and November 2004, housing compensation bonds could also be used to purchase, “with priority”, State or municipal dwellings. However, municipalities had no interest in parting with their real property in exchange of compensation bonds and prefer to sell for cash. Some municipalities adopted rules according to which not more than 20 or 30% of the price of a dwelling could be paid by compensation bonds. The Supreme Administrative Court, when examining an appeal against a refusal of a mayor to sell an apartment for bonds, held that persons who had lost cases under section 7 did not have a right to buy an apartment, the matter being within the discretion of the municipality (опр. 2571/17.04.2001 по адм. д. 2065/01, ВАС-III, see paragraph 105 above, concerning the case of Nikolovi v. Bulgaria). In
|
1 June 1995
|
17. In reaction to this complaint, on 14 February 1996 the Main Customs Office informed the applicant company that the permit of 1 June 1995 was of a temporary character. It was to remain valid only until a bridge in nearby Świeck was to be constructed. After the construction of this bridge had been terminated, the border crossing in Słubice was to be used only for small trans-border movement of goods and persons. This was to be understood as allowing for crossing of the border by persons, but taking merchandise out of the country via this crossing did not fall within the ambit of the notion of the “small trans-border movement of goods and persons” and therefore the permit of
|
3 April 2009
|
23. On 9 June 2009 the Magaremkentskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court questioned the bailiff, the paediatrician, the psychologist, the representative of the local child welfare service and two attesting witnesses, who all gave an essentially similar description of the events of
|
20 August 2007
|
104. On an unspecified date in March or April 2008 the second applicant complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation of criminal case no. 30028 to the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny (“the District Court”). She stated that the investigators had suspended the investigation on
|
24 July 2012
|
95. On 10 August 2012 the Kirovskiy district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms K. and Ms P., finding that there was insufficient evidence of a criminal offence under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. It noted that only four witnesses had confirmed that ill‑treatment had occurred: the applicant, the applicant’s mother, Ms Ch. and Ms Pt. (in her statements of
|
four consecutive days
|
8. On 19 March 2005, following the pronouncement of the divorce of the applicant and his wife, the Budapest Central District Court placed the couple’s son with the mother. After appeals, on 27 March 2007 the Supreme Court regulated by a final judgment the applicant’s access rights in a way that he had access to his son
|
6 November 2000
|
68. A decision of 2 October 2000 taken by the investigator in charge and approved by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 ordered that the term of the preliminary investigation should be extended until
|
thirty days
|
20. The hearing on 27 November 1995 was again adjourned due to the defendants’ absence. It appears that MJB had in the meantime ceased to exist and that B.J. had changed her address. The court invited the applicant’s counsel to inform it within
|
28 June 2007
|
26. At a hearing on 8 March 2011 the advocate-general recommended quashing the judgment. He expressed the view that a right lawfully acquired abroad or a foreign decision lawfully delivered by a foreign court could not be prevented from taking legal effect in France on grounds of international public policy where this would infringe a principle, a freedom or a right guaranteed by an international convention ratified by France.
He noted in particular that in Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg (no. 76240/01,
|
6 June 2011
|
8. Criminal proceedings were initiated and O.T. was examined by a forensic psychiatric expert who confirmed, in an expert report dated 8 November 2010, the earlier expert findings (see paragraph 6 above). The expert furthermore added that O.T. posed a danger to society and needed coercive psychiatric treatment (psühhiaatriline sundravi). On 6 May 2011 the Harju County Court terminated the criminal proceedings and ordered that O.T. undergo coercive psychiatric treatment, which commenced on
|
between 23 November 2005 and 13 January 2006
|
9. On 3 March 2006 S.Š. gave his evidence before an investigating judge of the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru). He said that he had overheard conversations between the applicant and M.G. in which they had discussed the murder of three persons of which M.G. had been accused and which had revealed that the applicant had been an accomplice in these crimes. The relevant part of the written record of his statement reads:
“Owing to health problems I was placed in Zagreb Prison Hospital
|
20 May 2003
|
25. During the trial the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that the length of his detention was excessive and that the charges against him lacked a sufficiently strong basis. In a number of decisions refusing his applications for release (of
|
the last hundred years
|
14. On 6 August 1999 the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) dismissed Mr Meischberger's action. It noted that it had initially been intended to show the exhibition in Prague, Bucharest and Luxembourg as well; now the intention was to close down the exhibition. The court further found that it could be ruled out that the painting had adversely affected the claimant or divulged information about his private life, as the painting, which resembled a comic strip (“comixartig”), obviously did not represent reality. However, a painting showing the claimant in such an intimate position could, regardless of its relation to reality, still have a degrading and personally debasing effect. In the present case, however, the right of the applicant association to freedom of artistic expression outweighed Mr Meischberger's personal interests. When balancing the latter's interests against the interests of the applicant association, the court had regard in particular to the fact that the exhibition was dedicated to the association's artistic spectrum over
|
22 August 2013
|
7. Among them, applicant no. 1 was released on 20 February 2009, applicants no. 2 and 4 were released on 1 July 2013, applicant no. 5 was released on 21 June 2013, applicant no. 12 was released on 4 November 2013, applicant no. 13 was released on
|
26 May 2005
|
26. On 24 May 2006 an appeal lodged by the applicant against the Labour Court decision was rejected by the Court of Cassation, which considered that the Labour Court decision was in accordance with its decision of
|
20 June 1996
|
6. After having pronounced the parties’ divorce in a partial decision, having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 9 November 1994 the Debrecen District Court adopted a decision on the property. This was reversed by the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court on
|
2 June 2002
|
10. On 27 May 2002 the applicant was charged with robbery. On the same day the Oktyabrsky District Prosecutor requested the court to place the applicant in pre-trial detention since the applicant had been previously convicted, had again committed a serious crime and could escape. The Oktyabrsky District Court, reiterating the grounds mentioned by the prosecutor, ordered the applicant’s detention until
|
December 2005
|
25. On 23 June 2006 the Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg considered the applicant’s claims against correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil in part. As regards the applicant’s allegations concerning a lack of medical assistance in the ensuing period, the court dismissed them as unsubstantiated. It noted that the applicant had been able to consult medical professionals from both the medical unit of the penal establishment and the municipal outpatient clinic and hospital where he had undergone an examination and surgery in
|
before 23 April 1999
|
16. However, on 9 July 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment, finding that the case should have been examined under Law no. 4616, which provided, inter alia, for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed
|
5 April 2004
|
9. On 8 June 2009 the applicant sought the reopening of her case in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 February 2009. After an initial refusal, on 24 September 2009 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the judgment of
|
6 November 2008
|
38. By submissions dated 1 December 2009 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court against the decision of the Lüneburg District Court of
|
14 June 2001
|
48. At the next hearing, on 11 October 2000, the proceedings were concluded and the court gave judgment awarding the applicant's claim in part and rejecting it in part. On 11 June 2001 A.Š. appealed against the judgment. On
|
23 September 2002
|
78. On 19 March 2009 the Magadan Regional Court delivered its judgment based on the jury’s verdict. The applicant was convicted of armed hooliganism at the town hospital involving beatings and threats to medical staff in the presence of patients, assault and battery, and two other violent attacks on citizens, including the episode on the road on
|
the beginning of the nineteenth century
|
10. On 4 May 1987 the Koszalin Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments (Wojewódzki Konserwator Zabytków) issued a decision adding the applicants’ property to the register of historic monuments (rejestr zabytków) on the grounds that a Jewish cemetery had been established on it at
|
about four years earlier
|
93. On 26 November 2010 the applicant company complained about that decision to the Kyiv Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior. It stated that there were no grounds for attaching the aircraft as material evidence in the criminal case in question, which had been opened
|
29 September 2010
|
47. On 30 March 2011 the applicant appealed to the District Court against the District Court Prosecutor’s Office’s decision of 21 February 2011. He argued, inter alia, that the prosecutor’s office’s decision had relied only on part of the evidence on file. Also, he criticised the expert report of
|
20 August 2015
|
45. On 18 August 2015 the applicant took a flight from Moscow to Antalya, Turkey. The Russian border guard service seized his passport and handed it over to the aircraft crew. The Turkish authorities denied the applicant entry to the country and sent him back to Moscow on
|
24 February 1984
|
12. On 22 August 1994 the applicants lodged an action against the owner of a sports centre seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land.
The principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of
|
23 September 2002
|
25. On 24 February 2003 the applicant's request for rectification was rejected by the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. The prosecutor stated that the grounds invoked by the applicant had already been examined by the Court of Cassation in its decision of
|
12 April 2000
|
82. By a decision of 17 April 2000 an investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Achkhoy-Martan District ordered that criminal proceedings against the applicants be instituted under Articles 126 (2) and 208 of the Criminal Code on the basis of the results of the “operative measures” taken in the house of the Chitayev family at 32 [rather than 28] Matrosov Street in the town of Achkhoy-Martan on
|
from 1952 to 1976
|
38. In addition to the technical passport and the plan of the house mentioned above, the applicant submitted photos of the house and written statements dating from August 2010 by two former officials of the village council, Ms Khachatryan and Mr Meghryan. The former states that she was the secretary of the village council
|
2 June 2010
|
35. The authorities deported twenty-two people on the same day at around 6.30 p.m. (nineteen adults and three children). Forty-four people (forty-two men and two women), including the applicants, were arrested. The persons against whom deportation and detention orders had been issued on
|
28 August 2012
|
40. The court found that the applicant’s allegations regarding a risk of ill-treatment in the event of his removal to Uzbekistan were “based on assumptions” and were “not corroborated by the case-file materials”. It also dismissed the applicant’s counsel’s argument that the applicant could not be subject to administrative removal because he had a pending application for refugee status. The court stated in this connection that on
|
12 April 1995
|
15. Of all the participants in the above transaction, only the applicant was arrested and charged. The applicant suspects that the other participants were undercover police officers or informers acting on police instructions, but their identities and status have never been revealed to him. In this regard he considers it relevant that at the time of the alleged dealings, Lerway was on bail to the Middlesex Crown Court in respect of a large scale conspiracy to supply cannabis. One of the conspirators was a former Flying Squad Detective. It was known to the applicant that Lerway had acted as a participating police informer in that case and it was further known that the police officers involved in the applicant's case had also investigated the conspiracy for which Lerway was on bail. The applicant believes that sentencing in Lerway's trial was deliberately postponed until
|
three months
|
17. On the same day, 2 August 2014, the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s application for the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of
|
the same date
|
8. Following an autopsy, on 14 May 2003 it was established that Vasiliy Mikhalkov had died on 29 April 2003 of an acute internal haemorrhage and the laceration of the small intestine resulting from abdominal trauma sustained on
|
29 October 2009
|
34. On 23 April 2010 the Moscow City Prosecutor lodged a motion before a court asking it to extend the term of the applicant’s detention pending extradition up to eighteen months, that is, until 3 November 2010, for the reason that after the adoption by the Supreme Court of Russia of the Directive Decision on
|
8 and 9 August 2014
|
27. On 25 October 2014 the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the Court, including the file relating to the present case, to Mr Aliyev’s lawyer. The investigator’s relevant decision specified that “since it has been established that among documents seized on
|
November 2005
|
54. According to information supplied by the Government, the investigation was adjourned and reopened at least six times. On five occasions the case file was transferred between various military and civil prosecutors. In
|
18 May 1994
|
89. The witness was the commander of the Tepe gendarme station between October 1993 and July 1994. He was responsible, inter alia, for ensuring the security of Türeli village and its inhabitants. He stated, however, that he had never been to Türeli or Dahlezeri during his term of service at the Tepe gendarme station. He explained that at the relevant time they were unable to get to the remote villages since they did not have a vehicle at their disposal. The witness did observe that the soldiers under his command would have visited Türeli village for the purposes of carrying out investigations. The witness deposed that no military operation had been conducted on
|
5 October 1998
|
20. Following an appeal by the applicant on points of law the Zaporijya Regional Court, in a judgment of 18 August 1998, quashed the judgment of 28 April 1998 and remitted the case once more to the court of first instance. In particular, the Regional Court noted that the issue of the lawfulness of the Institute's decision of
|
19 September 2006
|
33. The applicant continued to receive all the benefits that came with his post during the proceedings. It appears from a letter sent to him by the Treasury of the Republic of Cyprus that the applicant was considered as having retired from the date of his dismissal,
|
28 August 2001
|
16. The town council appealed, alleging that the applicant company had no enforceable entitlement to both the inflation rate and the loss of profit. It considered that, from the interpretation of Article 3712 § 3 of the CCP, the applicant company was not entitled to claim the updating of the amount since that fact was not mentioned in the operative parts of the judgments of
|
22 February 2000
|
9. On an unspecified date Major-General V., the head of the “East” zone group of the joint forces of the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior, wrote to the Shali district prosecutor’s office:
“In reply to your written enquiry of
|
8 July 2003
|
11. The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office about the court bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 17 February 1998 in full. On 5 July 2002 an investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Baltachevsk District informed her that a criminal case had been opened against the bailiffs under Article 315 of the Criminal Code (“Non-enforcement of a conviction, judgment or a court decision”).
On
|
August 2007
|
14. The set of facts relied on under this head involved some RMT members who were employed in railway maintenance by Fastline Limited, a company that formed part of a group of companies known as Jarvis plc. Another company in the group, Jarvis Rail Limited, was engaged in rail engineering work. At the time, Fastline and Jarvis Rail Limited (“Jarvis”) employed approximately 1,200 persons in total, 569 of whom were members of the RMT. In
|
February 2011 until October 2011
|
14. On 20 February 2012 the Shakhunskiy District Court granted I.’s application for a residence order in her favour and dismissed a similar application by the applicant. The court doubted the authenticity of an employment certificate from a private company submitted by the applicant. Given that he had not produced any official documents confirming his employment, the court found that he had not proved that he had a permanent income. There was no evidence that the applicant had supported his children financially during the period since his separation from I. in
|
21 June 2002
|
18. On 20 March 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 21 June 2002. Both the applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing. The court noted that the applicant's hospitalisation had been in accordance with the applicable laws. The court further indicated that the applicant's committal to hospital against his will had been necessary in view of his severe psychiatric disorder which made him dangerous to himself and others. Lastly, the court observed that it had been open to the applicant to ask for legal representation before the court at first level of jurisdiction. However, he had failed to do so and the decision of
|
19 January 2000
|
23. On 18 January 2001 the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ingushetia, in reply to a request of Adam Ayubov’s brother concerning the whereabouts of Adam Ayubov who had been detained by servicemen on
|
7 June 2002
|
14. On 4 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On
|
28 September 2001
|
9. On 14 March 2001 the applicant applied to the District Medical Examination Commission on Capacity for Work (Komisioni Mjekësor i Caktimit të Aftësisë për Punë (K.M.C.A.P. Dibër) – “the District Commission”) seeking to have his degree of incapacity determined and to be awarded benefits. By decision of
|
28 December 2005
|
18. On 21 March 2006 the Ryazan Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 28 June 2006, that is for a total duration of eighteen months. In taking the relevant decision the Regional Court had regard to the particular gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk that he would exert pressure on witnesses (the court applied the wording of the previous extension order of
|
1 August 2001
|
16. After that, the head of the Achkhoy-Martan District administration, Mr B., and the head of the ROVD, officer K., arrived at the FSB’s premises and asked the residents to go home. Having spent two days next to the FSB building, the crowd left on
|
10 May 2003
|
19. On 21 July 2006 the Centru District Court upheld the part of the applicants’ action against the national television service concerning the broadcasting of the video from the sauna and the defamatory statements made during the programme of
|
5 December 1995
|
25. Subsequently, hearings fixed for 6 April, 16 May, 29 June, 7 September and 25 October 1995 were adjourned, also for unknown reasons. Next hearing was held on 14 November 1995 when the court completed the questioning of the accused. Next hearing, fixed for
|
19 February 2003
|
26. On 5 April 2011 the applicant challenged four different constitutional judges for bias. In particular, he argued that Judge G. had made negative statements about the applicant’s professional skills in the context of the election of the President of the Supreme Court. The applicant noted that there had been statements in decision II. ÚS 5/03 of
|
17 May 2013
|
33. On 18 September 2013 the Regional Court held an appeal hearing. The applicant and his counsel were both present. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 14 May 2013, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. It noted that an expert opinion could not be obtained because V. had avoided the experts. It was impossible to take into account the expert opinion of
|
14 April 2011
|
14. On 7 March 2012 at 9.10 a.m. those items were restored to the applicant’s lawyer and, at 9.15 a.m., they were all seized from him again with reference to a letter rogatory from the Vienna office of the Prosecution Service of Austria of
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.