target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
7 August 1995
|
10. On 20 February 2002 the police interviewed D.V. and J.V. D.V. said that on 6 August 1995 she had moved to a house in Veljun, together with the first applicant, G.O. and M.V. On 7 August 1995 the Croatian army had entered Veljun. When G.O. and M.V. had been killed she had not been in the house and had not seen who had killed them. J.V. said that he had lived in Veljun during the war. On
|
19 December 2006
|
18. On 14 December 2006 the applicant made a further application to the High Court for a stay of the enforcement proceedings. On 18 December 2006 the High Court refused the application for permission to apply for judicial review and the application for urgent interim relief. However, the application for interim relief was subsequently granted at an oral hearing on
|
23 March 2012
|
14. After interviews on the merits of their applications on 28 February 2012, on 19 March 2012 the applicants’ asylum applications were dismissed, but they were granted subsidiary protection (“oltalmazott”) under section 12 (1) of Act no. LXXX of 2007 (the “Asylum Act”). This decision was delivered and became final on
|
24 February 2005
|
20. Since on 25 March 2005 the applicant's detention would have reached the statutory 2 years' time-limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of his detention had to be ordered by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. On
|
the spring of 2000
|
12. According to the written statement, used by the court, M. stated as follows:
“... he has been the General Director of the Steel Company LLC since 1995. It specializes in buying scrap metal from individuals and legal entities in the region. One of the long-term suppliers for his company was [G.]. In
|
29 March 2005
|
29. On 26 March 2006 the applicant lodged a request with the Z. Minor Offences Court under the Protection against Domestic Violence Act, for minor offences proceedings to be instituted against B. She alleged that since
|
thirty days
|
31. On 19 April 1994 the public prosecutor started criminal proceedings against the applicant for fraudulent bankruptcy, fraud, forgery of official documents and forgery, and issued a provisional detention order for a period of
|
seven months of
|
9. On 25 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 6,000 in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to complete the enforcement within
|
the following day
|
46. Notwithstanding the date initially set for the first hearing, consideration of the merits of the case began on 26 June 2002. The applicant pleaded not guilty in court.
On 14 August 2002 the prosecution addressed the court. On
|
9 October 2000
|
14. The Court reasoned as follows.
“74. ... [The] reassignment [of the applicant’s case] was ordered by the Supreme Court after having expressly disagreed with the findings of the lower courts as to the facts and having stated its position concerning one of the principal aspects of the case ... even before the new assessment of facts and taking of evidence by the lower courts took place ... Considering in addition the Supreme Court’s failure to provide reasons for the reassignment, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant’s fears that the judges of the Supreme Court, including its Deputy President, had a prefixed idea concerning the outcome of the case and that the judges to whom the case had been transferred on
|
27 December 1966
|
11. On 23 January 1992 the applicant's predecessor Z.S. lodged an application with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) for annulment of the administrative decision of
|
26 November 1998
|
16. On 20 November 1998, following a request from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate and considering the number of the accused, the judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to extend the detention period until
|
10 May 2002
|
44. In order to substantiate his complaints before the Court, the applicant tried to obtain from the domestic courts copies of various documents from his criminal case file. By letters dated 19 April and
|
September 1994
|
45. Mr Yoldaş and Mr İpek asserted that in March 1993 security forces and village guards had assembled the villagers in Akrad-Günalan and had tortured them. Mr Abdulbaki İpek elaborated on the incident, stating that he was one of the four victims and that he had suffered three broken ribs. They also submitted that, angered by the landmine explosion, security forces and village guards had come to Suçıktı and had threatened to kill the villagers if they did not vacate the village. Such threats, added to earlier incidents, caused these witnesses and their families to leave the village on an unspecified date. Conversely, Masum Tosin, Hasan Kaya and Mevlude Uçar stated that the fire in
|
7 November 2000
|
11. On the basis of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, the applicant requested that the Town of Split, as the owner of the flat she occupied, conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and herself as the buyer. Since the owner declined her request, on
|
at least 12 years’
|
5. On 16 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 17 July 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 16 October 2004. It found that there were reasonable grounds – in particular, evidence from witnesses – for suspecting him of the offence charged. The court further noted that the applicant was liable to a statutory maximum sentence of
|
17 July 2009
|
35. The Government indicated that the design capacity of the cells had never been exceeded, relying on the certificates established by the prison governor on 29 June 2009. They also produced four statements by prison warders (dated 24 June and
|
soon after that date
|
53. On 18 February 2008 the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, holding that the time-limit for bringing an action under Article 60 § 1 of the former Code of Obligations, which had started running on the date of the explosion, had expired by the time that the applicant had brought his claims. The Court of Cassation held in this connection that the explosion at issue had taken place on 3 May 2004 and that,
|
January-July 2011
|
22. On 18 August 2011 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Călăraşi DGASPC, seeking a court order for payment of financial compensation corresponding to her unspent annual leave, and for a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays for the period
|
7 September 2012
|
101. On 30 November and 18 December 2012 the Government informed the Court that an inquiry into the applicant’s disappearance was pending and that the authorities did not have any information on the applicant’s forced transfer across the Russian border. They enclosed copies of the release certificate and the judgment of
|
no less than two years’
|
11. On 6 July 2010 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow accepted the investigator’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention, having authorised it until 17 September 2010. The District Court reasoned as follows:
“The investigating authorities have charged [the applicant] with a socially dangerous act, a serious criminal offence for with the criminal law prescribes punishment in the form of
|
4 November 1994
|
42. On 14 February 1995 the Berlin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision of 10 January 1995 and his further motions challenging R. On 29 March 1995 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of the Berlin Court of Appeal of
|
28 January 2004
|
11. The applicant’s lawyer filed an application to set aside the judgment, enclosing a letter from the Supreme Court dated 5 February 2004 confirming that he had participated in the hearing of an appeal on points of law at 3 p.m. on
|
27 October 2007
|
28. The applicant appealed against the Sabail District Court’s order of 20 October 2005, complaining about a lack of evidence and the absence of any relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention. On
|
between 27 March and 28 April 2009
|
38. Over the following months the applicant was kept mainly in the prison hospital, except for short periods in December 2008, and January, March and July 2009, when he was transferred to the NCO and other civilian hospitals for check-ups. The medical records show that over that time the applicant was kept under constant medical supervision, having regular laboratory tests and examinations (blood and urine tests, ultrasound examinations, several tomography scans, determination of cancer markers, and bacteriological sputum tests), and having repeated consultations with medical specialists, including an oncologist, urologist, and an infection specialist. The medical file also shows that
|
19 September 1996
|
31. On 26 April 1999 a judge-rapporteur of the Sofia District Court remitted the case back to the Prosecutor's Office for correction of a serious procedural deficiency. Namely, she found that it was still not clear for what offence the applicant was being tried because the charge brought against him on
|
27 March 2005
|
17. On 16 March 2005 the Regional Prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against J.W. stating that no offence had been found as the “censored” note had been probably written by mistake. On
|
October 2010
|
14. On 24 January 2011 the District Court received extracts of Ms K.’s medical history provided by a regional psychiatric hospital. According to the medical records, she suffered from long-term alcohol abuse and had a tendency of having compulsive heavy drinking episodes. In
|
30 June 2006
|
24. On 26 June 2006 the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Moldova, Valeriu Balaban, wrote a letter to the Moldovan Bar Association in which he stated, inter alia, the following:
“Lately, the Prosecutor General’s Office has been confronted with the phenomenon whereby some Moldovan lawyers involve international organisations specialising in the protection of human rights in the examination by the national authorities of criminal cases. These organisations are used as an instrument for serving personal interests and for enabling suspected persons to avoid criminal responsibility.
Examples of such incidents are the case of Gurgurov, triggered by the lawyer Ana Ursachi, and the case of Colibaba, triggered by the lawyer Roman Zadoinov. The international media coverage of these cases prompted action by the representatives of Amnesty International with a view to safeguarding the rights of the above lawyers’ clients.
After having examined with sufficient thoroughness the complaints alleging torture and abuse on the part of the police ... the prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaints on the ground of lack of proof that offences had been committed. ...
... In such circumstances the irresponsible attitude and behaviour of the lawyers Ana Ursachi and Roman Zadoinov give rise to concern. They knew that no acts of torture had been committed against their clients. However, they complained to international organisations without first attempting to use the national mechanism for solving such problems. They presented the facts erroneously in order to win their cases...
Such practices by lawyers will be investigated by the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to determine whether they have committed the offence provided for in Article 335 § 2 of the Criminal Code, by making public on an international scale false information about alleged breaches of human rights which gravely prejudice the image of our country.
Accordingly, the Bar Association is called upon to take account of the facts described above, to bring to the attention of lawyers the situation so created and to prevent as far as possible any prejudice to the authority of the Republic of Moldova.”
The above letter generated a heated debate in the media. On
|
26 December 2001
|
14. In the meantime, the applicant applied, without success, to various authorities requesting their assistance in the enforcement of the judgment given in his favour and the re-inscription of the title deed of land no. 46 in his name. The latest such petition was dated
|
1 November 1994
|
16. On 25 October 1994 the police interviewed P.P. He described the accident and said that he had taken the two injured men out of the BMW with the help of other drivers who had stopped nearby. The same day he gave a blood sample. The sample was analysed on
|
the day before
|
17. On 28 May 2000 the applicants' counsel reported to the investigating judge that during the search carried out on 27 May 2000 they had learned in an informal conversation with a police technician that the vehicle had been entered
|
fifteen years’
|
19. By a judgment of 24 November 2003 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court convicted the applicant of abduction, extortion and illegal acquisition and possession of firearms and drugs. It sentenced him to
|
17 April 2001
|
23. In her submissions of 22 December 2000, the applicant requested the court to hold a hearing urgently, notwithstanding her potential absence. At the same time, she objected to being represented by a legal aid-lawyer, which was not obligatory before a first-instance court. Consequently, on
|
the year 2000
|
13. In March 2000 the applicant had a nervous breakdown and stayed in a psychiatric hospital between 2 March 2000 and 12 April 2000. It cannot be established on the basis of the file where the applicant lived for the rest of
|
late January 2005
|
7. In December 2004 a group of individuals transported a considerable quantity (possibly three tons) of hashish (which in the Netherlands is a banned substance) from one hiding-place to another. It appears that the possessors of the hashish later found some of it missing and came to the conclusion that it had been removed by one E. In
|
almost five weeks
|
8. In January 2000, the applicants were involved in an affair which had large‑scale media coverage called “The Car Boot Affair” (Afacerea Portbagajul). R.V., the applicants’ friend, was kidnapped and subjected to ill‑treatment for
|
14 April 2009
|
19. On 14 April 2009 the applicant complained to the Botanica prosecutor’s office of his ill-treatment. He made a similar complaint to the military prosecutor’s office on 15 May 2009, describing in detail his ill-treatment and the conditions of his detention. He relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and noted that he had not received any reply to his complaint of
|
3 July 2003
|
7. An outpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was ordered in the course of the pre-trial investigation. On 2 July 2003 she was apprehended and taken to a psychiatric facility for examination. On
|
about seven days prior
|
61. On 12 October 2004 the investigators ordered a report on Rasul Tsakoyev’s body based on his medical records. On 13 October 2004 the experts issued their report, according to which the injuries had been inflicted
|
28 August 1999
|
41. On 22 August 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated. The judgment read, in particular:
“On 5 June 1998 [the applicant] was placed in cell 3/19 of remand prison IZ – 52/1 where he remained until
|
14 January 2013
|
10. From 1 January 2006 to 27 January 2010 the applicant served his sentence in correctional facility IK-7 in the Mordoviya Republic. In January 2010 he was transferred to correctional facility IK-11 in the Mordoviya Republic, where he was detained until his release on
|
between 31 July 1995 and 3 April 1997
|
7. On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant's constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case
|
26 September 1997
|
34. On 10 February 1997 the applicant appealed against conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Cassation, which under the relevant law was acting as an appellate court in cases such as the applicant’s.
The Supreme Court of Cassation listed the case for hearing on
|
17 June 2010
|
8. After the applicant’s departure from Kyrgyzstan, on 25 June 2010 the Kyrgyz authorities charged him in absentia with involvement in riots accompanied by violence, inter-ethnic clashes, arson, use of firearms and destruction of property on
|
26 January 2005
|
144. Following the above-mentioned complaint, on 30 May 2010 the investigation was resumed. In addition, on the same date the investigators opened a criminal case against the unidentified persons who had killed the applicants’ relatives on
|
30 October 2000
|
8. On 18 August 2000 the second applicant was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment and the first applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Prior to sentence the confiscation hearing was formally postponed until after passing sentence and was fixed for
|
the same date
|
25. By a decision of the same date the appeal court then quashed that judgment, found the applicant guilty, and imposed a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB – equivalent to 298 euros (EUR) at the time). This decision became final and enforceable on
|
28 August 1996
|
34. On 15 July 1996 the Nowy Targ District Court again ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination. It noted that psychiatric reports had been ordered twice in quick succession. As views on the applicant's state of health were divided, it considered that a fresh consultation was required. That took place on
|
14 February 2000
|
31. The appeal hearing was fixed for 7-9 March 2000. Although he accepted that the restitutionary damages' (private law) issue raised points of general interest, the AG confined the appeal to the public law injunction. However, by letter dated
|
15 March 2002
|
27. In June 2002 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Trostyanets Court against the police seeking compensation, under Article 440-1 of the Civil Code, for non-pecuniary damage on account of the search of
|
after 17 October 1990
|
6. On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Administration of Certain Property Act (“the Takeover Act”) entered into force. It provided that property belonging to persons who had left Croatia
|
the period from 15 September 1986 to 6 October 1989
|
44. On 3 October 2003 the Commercial Court issued a decision, the relevant part of which read as follows:
“III. On the basis of a ... decision of this court. ... of 26 January 1996 ... the Croatian National Bank is ordered to calculate the creditor’s claim in the amount of HRK 1,100, together with the following interest:
- for
|
between 24 March and 13 April 2001
|
14. On 6 February 2004 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor decided not to prosecute six police officers who had been involved in the applicant’s arrest and detention on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. In his decision, the public prosecutor referred to the medical reports, which noted no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body. The public prosecutor further stated that the applicant’s allegation regarding his unacknowledged detention
|
19 September 2007
|
8. Shortly thereafter, in February 2007, the applicant brought a civil claim in court, seeking to contest his paternity of the child in question. On 1 March 2007 the Varna Regional Court dismissed his request, finding that it was time-barred due to the expiry – in 2004 – of the year-long limitation period counting from the child’s birth or from learning thereof (see the section “Relevant domestic law and practice” below”). This finding was confirmed by two higher judicial instances, the final decision being pronounced by the Supreme Court of Cassation on
|
three-year-old
|
12. T. appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 20 February 2002, after an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court's judgment and convicted the applicant of defamation committed without better knowledge. No fines or other penalties were imposed, but the applicant was ordered to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounting to EUR 504.56 and legal costs of EUR 2,861.11. It reasoned:
“At the hearing [the applicant] and [the doctor] have essentially given the same account of the events as before the District Court. [The applicant] has, however, stated that having noticed the bruise on the child's back on the evening before the visit to the doctor's, she asked the boy where it had come from and he said that his father had hit him.
According to the doctor, the applicant had provided the preliminary data, which he had first written down on paper. Later they had been recorded in the medical report based on his dictation. He had dictated the information immediately after the applicant and the child had left the room. The report did not contain any conclusions reached by the doctor himself.
On the basis of the doctor's testimony and the case record, it has been proved that the applicant intentionally, albeit without better knowledge, said that [the father] was guilty of having struck his
|
between five and sixteen years old
|
35. The applicant’s spouse was a Danish citizen. She was born a Palestinian national and had lived briefly in Lebanon, arriving in Denmark at the age of nine. The couple’s children, who at the relevant time were
|
the lapse of fifteen days
|
32. On 2 November 2010, following the Court of Appeal’s decision in favour of the applicant’s extradition as well as the applicant’s appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court, the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to prolong the interim measure initially indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, “until
|
18 September 1997
|
5. On 5 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Prague Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) against the National Property Fund (Fond národního majetku) for unjust enrichment in the amount of 5,288,148 CZK (176,085 EUR). The court received the action on
|
29 March 2004
|
11. In August 2002 the applicant hurt his wrist. The wrist was bandaged and the applicant was given an ointment. The swelling went down. During transport to the correctional colony on 23 January 2004 the applicant hurt his wrist once again. He asked to be examined by a doctor. On
|
27 April 2011
|
27. The advocate-general at the Court of Cassation concluded in his opinion that the judgment should be quashed on the basis of Article 10 of the Convention. In particular, he stated that the remarks had not disclosed any attack or personal animosity but rather had constituted, in the immediate aftermath of a highly contested acquittal, an irrepressible outburst based on the factual observation of the jury’s composition and echoing more general debates within society. Among those debates he mentioned the courts’ treatment of police officers implicated in criminal proceedings, stating as follows:
“We need only recall the judicial ramifications of two cases that caused a sensation and attracted widespread media coverage at the time of the proceedings resulting in the acquittal of gendarme C: [after] the pursuit and death of Zyed B and Bouna T in 2005 [triggered riots for weeks, the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal on
|
November 2006
|
74. On 28 March 2008 lawyer I.V. lodged an appeal against the decision on detention arguing that he had received the impugned decision on 25 March 2008, whilst the panel’s session had taken place in
|
the next day
|
134. H.M. stated that on 24 April 2004 the third applicant’s father had told him that his son had been taken to the Military Prosecutor’s Office. Since he was acquainted with investigator A.H., who lived in his neighbourhood, he promised to find out the reasons for the third applicant’s arrest. On
|
June 2001 – June 2005
|
6. From 20 January 2006 onwards the Tax Agency (Skatteverket) conducted audits of value-added tax, employers’ social security contributions (arbetsgivaravgifter) and income tax at the three Swedish companies Ergonia Sweden AB, SNS-LAN Trading AB (“SNS”) and Mouse Trapper Nordic AB. The audit covered the period
|
thirteen days
|
25. On 7 October 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible to the extent that it concerned delays in the proceedings before the District Court. It noted that the Regional Court had only actually dealt with the case for
|
3 December 2002
|
38. On 22 February 2002 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision on
|
28 April 2008
|
22. On 22 April 2008 the Centre invited the second applicant to come to the Centre on 5 May 2008 in order to give a statement in connection with appointing a guardian for her mother in the proceedings to divest her of legal capacity. On
|
5 January 2001
|
14. On 4 January 2001 the applicant met at Oakington with a lawyer from the Refugee Legal Centre, who contacted the Home Office to enquire why the applicant was being detained and to request his release. On
|
31 October 2005
|
7. On 8 March 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted against B. for document forgery committed in conspiracy with others. On that day the police recorded telephone conversations between B. and the applicant which suggested that certain documents relating to his driving licence and his study in the driving school had been kept in her flat. The recorded conversations were later documented in a report on
|
23 June 1982
|
7. On 18 November 1981 the General Directorate of National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü) seized and later expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant for the construction of a dam. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was deposited with a bank in the name of the applicant on
|
22 August 2003
|
46. On 10 July 2003 the investigator closed the criminal case against all the other doctors from Apsheronsk Hospital and preferred criminal charges against the head of the surgery department Mr Da. On
|
3 March 2005
|
90. On 23 February 2005, referring to the above statement by the National Forensic Medical Authority, the District Court informed the applicant by letter that it had decided under Chapter 12, Article 4a of the Code of Judicial Procedure to appoint a guardian for her in respect of the ongoing proceedings. It was noted that counsel M.S., who was considered to be suitable for the task, had given his consent. The applicant was provided with the opportunity to give her opinion on the matter by
|
two months’
|
32. On 29 September 2013 the applicant was transferred to Buchanska Correctional Colony No. 85 to serve a sentence (the parties did not submit to the Court the details of the applicant’s conviction). He was provided with ART medication for
|
the night of 4-5 August 2009
|
56. On 5 November 2009 the investigators drew up a plan of steps to be taken in the criminal investigation. The document stated, amongst other things:
“... the following hypotheses concerning the abduction are in the process of being checked out: 1. The disappearance of A.-Ya. Askhabov is related to his arrest as a result of a special operation conducted by representatives of federal power structures; 2. The victim [Abdul-Yazit Askhabov] was the target of a crime committed by other persons for other motives.
In connection with the above, it is necessary to do the following: 2. examine the registration log of detainees in the temporary detention unit (the IVS) of the Shali ROVD, identify and question the IVS officers who were on duty on
|
27 May 2008
|
24. The investigation was closed for the fourth and last time on 21 May 2008, it having been concluded that no criminal offence had been committed. The applicant was informed of this by a latter dated
|
4 March 1992
|
75. On 26 April 1999 the applicant appealed against the revised land redistribution plan. He complained of the size of the property that the heirs of his father had been allocated under the said plan for plots nos. 3 and 4 in his request no. 12007 of
|
7 December 2010
|
31. Between 31 March 2010 and 21 June 2011, the first applicant addressed the public prosecutor on four occasions seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings as provided for by law. By letters of
|
December 2013
|
22. At the end of the hearing, the magistrate, taking into account the contents of the articles written by the applicant – and finding that they had promoted the terrorist organisation in question, even after 17
|
2 June 2005
|
21. On 29 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court decided not to take cognisance of the applicant's appeal against the District Court's decision of 29 April 2005 extending his detention, since the period of detention authorised by that decision had expired on
|
7 December 2007
|
22. On 9 May 2008 the trial court held a hearing. It was attended by the applicants and Mr V.Š., their lawyer. The driver was not present, despite the fact that he had been properly summoned. Mr V.Š. stated:
“I decline to examine the protected witness, K.N. and I object to the court record of
|
23 September 2003
|
18. All the above hearings concerned procedural issues. The first hearing on the merits of the case took place on 17 September 2003. At the beginning of this hearing the applicant repeatedly challenged the presiding judge by questioning her impartiality. The judge ordered that he be removed from the courtroom for improper behaviour. The applicant attempted to dismiss his lawyer. The judge, however, refused to recognise the dismissal and the applicant’s counsel continued to represent him. On
|
14 September 2009
|
12. The applicant was taken into immigration detention on 10 November 2009 and directions for his deportation to Nigeria were set on 12 November 2009 for 19 November 2009. On 13 November 2009 the applicant sought interim measures from this Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent his deportation. He submitted with his application a report from a specialist psychiatric registrar dated
|
The same day
|
12. On 2 November 1993 the applicants appealed, primarily requesting that the neighbours be ordered to move the dog yard. They also considered the measures ordered by the Health Board insufficient and requested the court to indicate a time-limit for the measures.
|
the end of December 2003
|
53. According to the respondent Government, the regional prosecutor reopened the investigation on 6 November 2003 and transferred the case to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office. Apparently, by
|
23 July 2003
|
11. On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of
|
21 September 2007
|
20. On 10 September 2007 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasoning given by the first-instance court. It ruled that the applicant was responsible for the events related to his detention since he had neither paid the fine within the time-limit set nor notified the court of the payment once made. This decision was served on the applicant on
|
October 2003
|
41. On an unspecified date in October 2003 the applicant's relatives applied to the local police in connection with his abduction. The police officers allegedly told them that in the early morning on 23
|
31 December 2002
|
23. At the hearing held on 12 November 2002 the District Court heard the expert. The applicant requested that the expert be excluded from the case on grounds of bias. On 12 December 2002 the District Court requested the expert to comment on the applicant’s request. The expert replied on
|
18 June 2010
|
33. Meanwhile, in a report of 30 June 2010 the Ivanić-Grad Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Ivanić-Grad) informed the Split Municipal Court of the measures taken to prepare the children for their stay with their father during the summer holidays, as ordered under the measure of
|
22 December 2003
|
34. The bailiff's intervention scheduled for 1 October 2003 was adjourned pending a decision on V.P.'s request for transfer of jurisdiction and because the State Attorney's Office did not receive the summons. The next intervention was scheduled for
|
5 October 2001
|
77. On 11 April and subsequently on 7 October 2005 the investigators requested that the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of the Interior inform them which military units had manned the checkpoint on
|
19 October 1999
|
104. A report of 30 April 2003 gave the results of the examination of the register of military actions of the aircraft of the United Group Alignment (журнал боевых действий авиации ОГВ) for the period from 29 September 1999 to 20 January 2000. According to the report, on
|
30 November 2011
|
23. In the meantime, on 2 November 2011 the District Court issued a further order extending the applicant’s detention until 16 May 2012. The court’s reasoning was identical to that employed in the two previous detention orders. The City Court upheld the decision on
|
29 July 2005
|
5. The applicants claimed to be the owners of a building in Valletta, Malta. The Government contested this claim, stating that it appeared from the relevant records and from a letter written by the applicants themselves on
|
2 July 2013
|
25. On 20 November 2013 the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the Cassation Court”) quashed the decision of 14 August 2013 (see paragraph 24 above) and upheld the Desnyansky District Court’s decisions of 19 June and
|
10 September 2008
|
34. On 30 June 2008 the insolvency panel of the District Court endorsed a draft proposal on the distribution of the bankrupt company’s estate to the nineteen remaining creditors. It was proposed that each of them receive 2.85% of the claim acknowledged in the proceedings, which in the applicant’s case amounted to EUR 237,86. The court scheduled a further hearing for
|
28 December 2012
|
22. However, following a smear-positive test of the applicant, he was transferred back to tuberculosis hospital no. 3 on 26 December 2012 with the following diagnosis: smear-positive infiltrative tuberculosis, moderately grave course of the sub-compressive first-degree diabetes, diabetic polyneurologia and chronic hepatitis C. The applicant’s condition on his admission to the hospital was considered “sufficiently satisfactory”. As appears from the medical record, he continued receiving antibacterial chemotherapy with four first-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. His regimen also included hepatoprotectors, vitamins and insulin. An X-ray exam performed on
|
11 September 1997
|
32. On 9 June 2005 the Gorodnya Prosecutors’ Office refused to institute criminal proceedings. In addition to the reasons given earlier it stated that the applicant had falsely noted that on 11 September 1997 officers S.V. and V.V. had been accompanied by officer I.P., while no such officer had served in the Gorodnya Police at that time. It also referred to a statement by Mrs A.P., one of the two ladies who had been with the applicant on
|
April 2014 to January 2015
|
70. According to information provided by the prison administration, the applicant had sixteen short-term meetings with his wife (not taking into account his meetings with her in her capacity as his lawyer) during the period from
|
23 June 2008
|
9. On 14 April 2009, Attorney K. sent to the applicant on behalf of the Housing Cooperative a letter ordering her to sell her part (salgspålegg) in accordance with section 5-22 of the Housing Cooperative Act 2003 (burettslagslova, see paragraph 75 below). K. referred to his previous correspondence and to Mr A’s conviction by the City Court of
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.