target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
5th June 2001
|
37. The court found that the period from the applicant’s arrest in January 1999 to the conclusion of his first trial on 31 August 2000 was wholly unexceptional and reasonable. As to the period between the discharge of the jury in the first trial to the conclusion of the second trial in June 2001, a period of ten months, the court accepted that the abandonment of the first trial was the fault of the prosecution, noting:
“11. ... The trial had to start all over again. It was not concluded by conviction at the end of the second trial until
|
three working days
|
9. The applicant was further informed, through the joint Return Decision and Removal Order, of his right to appeal against the Decision and Order before the Immigration Appeals Board (“the IAB”) within
|
ten months’
|
19. In addition, the court of its own motion decided to combine the sentences imposed in 1996 and 1999 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). The resulting sentence, determined in line with the relevant sentencing rules, was
|
18 November 2002
|
45. On 4 December 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court granted a further extension of the applicant's detention for three months, that is to say until 3 March 2003 [the decision mistakenly indicates 2002]. The grounds invoked by the court were identical to those set out in the decision of
|
14 September 1999
|
5. On 1 September 1999 the Romanian Copyright Office (“ORDA”) suspended the applicant from work for gross misconduct, that is, suspicion of fraud, malfeasance in public office and document destruction. A criminal complaint was further filed by ORDA with the prosecution authorities on
|
5 October 1998
|
21. In the NRTC’s view, the main safeguard against encroachments on freedom of expression in the national electronic media was the existence of internal regulations and their proper implementation. The NRTC noted that at three of its previous meetings it had discussed draft regulations drawn up by the BNR management board, and had noted that they did not envisage any mechanism governing the workings of the BNR collective bodies and the journalists’ rights and obligations. The NRTC’s recommendation for those matters to be addressed had not been heeded. The lack of precise regulations was somewhat offset by the existence of rules governing the workings of individual BNR programmes. However, the rules of the “Hristo Botev” programme did not say on which legal provision they were based and pre‑dated the BNR regulations on which they were supposed to be based. Those rules did not define clearly the competencies of the journalists in their various professional capacities as authors, hosts, editors, reporters and so on. Neither the BNR regulations nor the individual programmes’ rules dealt with the powers of collective bodies such as management and editorial boards. The applicant’s and the two other journalists’ dismissals showed that there existed confusion between administrative and professional bodies, which made it possible to have administrative interference in the content of radio shows. Rule 7 of the “Hristo Botev” programme (see paragraph 37 below), mentioned in the dismissal orders, was an example of that, because it said that changes in a show’s content could be made solely by written order of the respective manager. The editorial board’s resolution of
|
4 March 1997
|
26. In a judgment of 9 December 1997 the Supreme Court of Justice set aside the decision of 19 August 1997 and dismissed the applicants’ action on the grounds that it was out of time and manifestly ill-founded.
It noted that, according to Article 238 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one month was allowed for an appeal against a government decision alleged to infringe a recognised right. The time allowed began to run either on the date of the decision announcing the government’s refusal or, if the they did not reply, one month after the lodging of the application. The Supreme Court of Justice noted that the applicants had submitted their application to the government on
|
23 October 1997
|
11. The court did not examine the issue of the compensation that the applicant’s father had received for the expropriation, nor was this issue raised by the municipality during the course of the proceedings or at any time after. It appears that the applicant did not return this compensation. It also appears that after the judgment of
|
8 June 1999
|
16. The applicant lodged an additional claim asking to change the date of his dismissal and requesting the payment of an insurance premium, compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and the enforcement of the decision of
|
22 February 2000
|
54. The applicant and his common-law wife E. met each other in 1999 in Helsinki while they were both asylum seekers. They lived together in a reception centre for nine months until her deportation on
|
24 October 2002
|
9. On 3 October 2002 the prosecutor examined his complaint and rejected it on the grounds that the applicant was charged with a serious crime. His character (the applicant’s two prior convictions were noted) and his family responsibilities had not dissuaded him from committing a serious crime. The applicant lodged another complaint challenging his preventive measure; the same prosecutor rejected it on
|
December 1989
|
46. According to the facts established by the Court in the case of the Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 34-41, 24 May 2011), several criminal investigations into the fatal crackdown on the demonstrations of
|
16 December 1993
|
11. On 17 June 1994 the Topoľčany Land Office decided to reopen the proceedings leading to its decision of 26 November 1992 pursuant to Section 62 (1) (a) and (b) of the Administrative Proceedings Act of 1967. The decision referred to the above finding of the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court of
|
10 June 2003
|
27. On 26 September 2003 the Court of Cassation examined and dismissed the applicants' cassation appeal in the absence of the parties and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation in its decision did not touch upon the issue of the applicants' absence from the hearing of
|
3 June 1994
|
31. In the meantime, on 29 September 1998, the Istanbul Security Department wrote to the management of the Çınar Hotel Casino and requested that the video recordings of the security camera for the night of
|
23 May 2001
|
10. Mr Kolev lodged an appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court against his dismissal, stating, inter alia, that he had never applied for retirement and that he had not reached retirement age. By a judgment of
|
23 January 2008
|
9. The applicant subsequently established contacts between the two undercover agents and S. for organising an international contraband trade in cigarettes after one of the undercover agents had pretended to have a suitable lorry at hand for transporting the cigarettes abroad. S. refused, however, to communicate directly with undercover agent P. by telephone and proposed to further communicate via the applicant. When undercover agent D. disclosed to the applicant on
|
the previous day
|
9. On 22 January 1998 Trud, a leading national daily newspaper, published an article under the headline ‘Credit millionaires disclosed’ and the caption ‘Several incumbent and former members of Parliament appear on the list’. In the article the newspaper reported on the handover of the list of “credit millionaires” to the chairman of the National Assembly
|
15 July 2004
|
15. On 10 July 2004 the Court’s letter of 8 April 2004 was received by the staff of colony no. 16/9 and was opened and stamped. According to the applicant, he had received the covering letter of 8 April 2004 and the text of the Convention on
|
12 August 2011
|
59. According to the Government, the applicant was examined by doctors from the SIZO medical unit upon her arrival there on 5 August 2011 but refused to undergo a detailed medical examination. On 6 August 2011 she refused to be seen by a generalist, a psychiatrist, and a dentist, to have her blood pressure measured, to undergo an electrocardiogram, a fluorography examination, and blood and urine tests. She maintained her refusal on
|
three-month
|
5. On 24 July 1990 the applicant asked the department in charge of the project (Technical Services of Municipalities and Communities in the Prefecture of Fokida (hereafter “T.S.M.C”) to compile a revised table of costs in order to take into account further work following an amendment of the project. However, no table was created within the determined
|
14 January 2015
|
18. The applicant served the first nineteen years of his sentence in the Koraal Specht prison (which was subsequently renamed Bon Futuro and is currently called Sentro di Dentenshon e Korrekshon Korsou or SDKK) in Curaçao. This prison has, since 1990, accommodated a special unit for prisoners showing signs of mental illness or serious behavioural disorders, the so-called Forensic Observations and Counselling Unit (Forensische Observatie en Begeleidings Afdeling – “FOBA”). The FOBA comprises two separate sections, one for observation and one for treatment. Although the applicant submitted that he had spent some time in the observation section, the Government stated during the hearing before the Grand Chamber on
|
25 February 1998
|
21. On 20 October 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the applicants' request. In particular, it found that, having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan, the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the disputed properties. The Supreme Administrative Court sent the case back to the authorities, asking them to take the necessary measures to make available the applicants' land (judgments nos. 4445/1997, 4447/1997 and 4448/1997). Those judgments were finalised and certified as authentic on
|
11 April 2002
|
17. In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal against the Torez Town Court, seeking compensation for the lengthy examination of his claim against the Torezantratsyt State Company. On
|
25 July 2002
|
8. In July 2002, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 22 February 2002 in his favour. On
|
6 December 2006
|
44. On 8 February 2007 the applicants and Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten and Nederlands Genootschap van Hoofdredacteuren, through their counsel Mr De Kemp, lodged a complaint with the National Ombudsman asking for an investigation into the AIVD’s conduct. They relied on the views expressed by the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations in his letter to them of
|
25 September 2003
|
6. On 22 July 2003 the Obninsk Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in respect of health damages and fixed a new amount of periodic payments with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on
|
the last five years preceding
|
17. On 7 July 2010 the Central Hungary Regional Pensions Board adopted a new decision in accordance with the instructions of the Budapest Labour Court and increased the applicant’s monthly pension to HUF 139,545 (approximately EUR 465) with effect from 1 May 2004. The decision ordered the payment, in arrears, of the difference between the pension due and the amount already paid.
The 1997 Pensions Act provides that if a pension authority has made a mistake to the detriment of an applicant, the difference is to be paid for only
|
seven-month
|
24. Between 19 and 22 December 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted, in particular, that the court had failed to review within 30 days whether the reasons for his detention persisted, and when it had done so, it had merely copied the earlier reasoning without really examining what exactly would disturb public peace and order, as nothing had happened when he had been released after the
|
16 February 2010
|
6. On 30 June 2005 he was placed during his pre-trial detention in Poarta Albă Prison. On 9 November 2006 he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. He served his sentence in the same prison until
|
30 April 1997
|
14. Mr Thake claims that in about 1993 the level of disturbance at night from aircraft noise increased notably and he began to be woken or kept awake at night by aircraft noise. Mr Thake found it particularly difficult to sleep in warmer weather, when open windows increased the disturbance from aircraft noise, and closed windows made it too hot to sleep, and he found it hard to go back to sleep after being woken by aircraft noise early in the morning. He was sometimes kept awake by aeroplanes flying until midnight or 1 a.m. and then woken between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. Mr Thake was also sometimes woken by aeroplanes flying at odd hours in the middle of the night, for example when diverted from another airport. In 1997, Mr Thake became aware that he could complain to the Heathrow Noise Line about aircraft noise if he made a note of the time of the flight. By
|
between 2006 and 2007
|
64. The applicant disputed the idea that he had been put in a cell for single occupation and stated that no such order had ever been issued by the detention authorities. He stressed that he had always shared a cell with other detainees in the remand prison. To support that statement, the applicant submitted a certificate issued by a remand prison official on an unspecified date, apparently
|
21 February 2011
|
28. Before the expiry of the previous detention order, the regional prosecutor sought an extension of the applicant’s detention. On 18 November 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until
|
25 November 2002
|
9. It can be seen from the report on the facts submitted on 26 April 2006 by the Federal Prosecutor before the Brussels Court of Appeal (see paragraph 27 below) and that court’s judgment of 19 January 2007 (see paragraphs 29-41 below) that, on
|
15 December 2003
|
87. On 5 December 2003, five days after his arrival at remand prison no. IZ 77/1, the applicant wrote a letter to the court in which he described the conditions of his detention in and transfers to and from the courthouse. He submitted that in these circumstances he was unable to examine the case file and prepare his defence properly. He also indicated that the convoy officers had refused to accept any written complaints from him. He sought permission to read the case file in the detention centre. By letters of 9 and
|
15 December 2004
|
8. On 18 January 2002 the Maryinsky District Court ordered the PDN No.3 to pay Mr Andrusenko UAH 244.39[3] in compensation for salary arrears and moral damage. By another judgment delivered on the same date Mr Andrusenko also received UAH 56[4] in salary arrears. By a letter of
|
from 2004 to 2006
|
13. On 23 August 2006 the prosecutor decided to declare the applicant a suspect in the criminal case. The prosecutor found that, as chairman of the Labour Party and also acting in an organised group with other members of that party, the applicant had sought to finance the party unlawfully and to avoid the financial supervision of the party and its political campaigns, by organising the party’s fraudulent accounting
|
24 September and
|
8. The applicant was provided with a lawyer through the legal aid scheme on 21 September 2001 and the latter's performance was allegedly poor and of little help to his defence. In particular, notwithstanding the applicant's requests that the lawyer visit him more frequently and consult on his case, that lawyer allegedly visited him only on
|
12 November 2001
|
6. In 2000 and 2001 the applicant and a group of ten other persons were accused of being members of a criminal gang and of having committed numerous offences, including ten murders and thirteen attempted murders. The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on
|
14 September 2002
|
8. It is apparent from a copy of the police logbook submitted by the applicant that her late husband was taken to the police station by officers Ag. and Na. at around 1 p.m., according to the record, for the purpose of verifying his identity; this verification was completed and he was released at 1.30 p.m. It is also apparent from the evidential material that between 4.15 and 4.45 p.m. the applicant’s husband was in an office, apparently on the fifth floor, where he was interviewed by investigator R. According to the material in the case file record, the applicant’s husband stated during the interview that he and V. had left the house of victim G. after drinking vodka together. Subsequent to this interview, for unspecified reasons the applicant’s husband was interviewed again, this time by field officer (оперуполномоченный) Kh., and made a written statement affirming that V. had punched G. during a quarrel. It appears that the applicant’s husband was thereupon required to come for another interview on
|
21 September 2000
|
29. On 1 August 2007 the City Court, allowing the respondents’ request, ruled that a technical expert assessment of the disputed part of the house was necessary for the proper examination of the case. In view of the respondent’s disagreement with the applicant’s allegation that the area of their tenancy coincided with that of her estate, the court ruled that an expert of the Ministry of Justice be charged with replying to a number of questions concerning the architecture of the house. The questions were similar to those posed by the District Court on
|
26 May 2011
|
30. On 19 July 2017 the offence under the investigation was reclassified into an offence of exceeding power by using violence, an offence under Article 333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code. The responsible prosecutor concluded that there was sufficient medical evidence to show that the applicant and other detainees had sustained various injuries on
|
September 2012
|
55. The victim appealed. In her appeal of 23 December 2013 it was stressed that the breach of procedural obligations under Article 2 in this case had taken on a lasting character. Pointing to the relevant passages in the Isayeva and Abuyeva and Others judgments, both cited above, the appeal argued that the following fundamental defects of the investigation, as identified by the Court, had not been corrected in the new round of proceedings: there had been no independent evaluation of the proportionality and necessity of the lethal force used; no individual liability had been established for the aspects of the operation which had led to civilian losses, and these aspects had not been studied and evaluated by an independent body, preferably a judicial one. It was reiterated that the expert report of
|
January 1998
|
67. On the same day the applicant's lawyer applied to have added to the file a copy of the criminal complaint that he had just lodged against Mr Serge Klarsfeld, the chairman of one of the civil-party associations, on the basis of Article 434-16 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited publication before a final judicial decision of comments intended to exert pressure with a view to swaying a trial court's decision. He criticised Mr Klarsfeld for the content of a number of interviews he had given concerning the revelation of the family tie between some of the victims and the President of the Assize Court, to whom Mr Klarsfeld had imputed bias in the defendant's favour, and impugned the fact that only disciplinary proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor's office against Mr Klarsfeld's son, who had made the revelation in
|
from 10 January 1983 to 13 September 1984
|
11. At a hearing on 16 October 1997 at the Federal Office for Refugees (Bundesamt für die Anerkennung ausländischer Flüchtlinge), the applicant gave evidence that one of his sisters had been executed in Iran in 1982 or 1983, while another had been imprisoned
|
27 June 2001
|
33. In this statement taken by a lawyer, Cihan Aydın, the applicant said that he was under pressure due to his application. He had been called to the gendarmes’ station and threatened. After he submitted documents to the Court, the documents were sent to Silvan and the gendarmes there, who were perpetrators of the incident, threatened him to force him to withdraw his complaints. He was frightened that they would do bad things.
Statement by the applicant dated
|
18 March 2005
|
18. On 22 July 2005 the Zagatala District Court convicted the applicant of all the offences as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The applicant complained in the course of the proceedings that he had been ill‑treated by the police during his arrest and in police custody. He also complained that the criminal case against him had been fabricated by the police because of a pre-existing dispute he had with some officers from the Zagatala District Police Station. In this connection, he claimed that the drugs had been planted by the police officers and that despite his request, the search of his person and car had not been carried out immediately after his arrest. However, his complaints were not addressed in the judgment. The part of the judgment concerning the applicant’s conviction reads as follows:
“The criminal offence committed by the accused T. Layijov was not only proved by witness testimonies, but also other materials in the case file...
In total 181.62 grams of cannabis-based narcotic substances, 19.75 grams of opium, one hunting knife and one “Nokia” mobile phone taken within the framework of the case had been recognised as real evidence...
Therefore, the fact that the accused T. Layijov committed the criminal offences provided for by Articles 234.1, 234.2 and 228.4 of the Criminal Code was again proved in the court investigation by witness testimonies, expert opinions, records of face-to-face questioning and other official information in the case file.
The preliminary investigating authority had rightly qualified the criminal offences of the accused T. Layijov under Articles 234.1, 234.2 and 228.4 of the Criminal Code. He should be found guilty under these Articles and be punished.”
According to the judgment, the period of imprisonment was to be calculated from
|
October 2006
|
18. According to the medical documents provided by the parties it appears that following complaints by the applicant about pain in the region of his bladder and difficulty in urinating he was seen by two independent urologists in
|
the same day
|
22. The first applicant put the bodies of his relatives in the courtyard of the house at 112 Voronezhskaya Street. Contrary to local tradition, the applicant and his relatives did not bury the bodies on
|
31 December 2009
|
38. Legislative Decree no. 90 of 23 May 2008, which subsequently became Law no. 123 of 14 July 2008 (on “Extraordinary measures in response to the waste disposal crisis in Campania and subsequent civil protection measures”) – appointed the head of the civil emergency planning department to the post of undersecretary of State to the Prime Minister’s Office and made him responsible for managing the crisis until
|
eight years
|
54. On 30 December 2009 the State Prosecutor lodged an appeal, in which she criticised the court for not considering the fact that owing to his age, gender and body mass X was much stronger than the applicant, and was also in a position of power on account of his economic and social status. Moreover, she pointed out that X had operated manual transmission vehicles, which required him to use both his arms. The prosecutor further argued that the criminal offence in question did not require the sexual act to have been committed by force; it was sufficient that the applicant opposed it. She also stressed that the proceedings had already been pending for
|
23 June 1995
|
10. After the Municipality had refused to grant a building permit, the applicant company brought proceedings in the Tirana District Court seeking compensation of 60,000,000 leks (ALL) for its loss. Its claim was dismissed by judgment no. 4064 of
|
20 January 2007
|
15. On 5 July 2007 the applicant wrote to the Romanian Minister of Justice, informing him of the conduct of the hearing. The applicant explained that he had not been given the opportunity to challenge the statements made by his wife’s attorney, in particular regarding: (i) the time it had taken the applicant to institute proceedings after the date of the wrongful removal or retention of the child, which according to the applicant had been
|
8 June 2004
|
21. On 6 May 2003 the Van State Security Court found the applicant guilty of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On
|
9 December 2002
|
8. On 17 September 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 20 November 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and dismissed ZT’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on
|
30 December 1996
|
18. On 14 November 1996 the Kranj District Court inquired about the applicant's address. The lawyer knew that the applicant had moved to Turkey but was not aware of his new address. It appears that the applicant notified his lawyer about his address on
|
30 June 2004
|
20. On 11 December 2003 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, asking that the applicant's detention be prolonged beyond the statutory time-limit of 2 years – until
|
20 August 1988
|
125. Mrs Ristanović was born on 19 November 1968 in Zavidovići (Bosnia and Herzegovina). She is currently a Serbian citizen. She moved to Ljubljana (Slovenia) in 1986 in search of work. She married there and on
|
15 December 1998
|
43. On 18 December 1998 the administration sent to the Registry the applicant’s letters of 30 November, 3 December and 15 December 1998. They also included a transcript of the administration’s meeting of
|
10 June 2003
|
11. On 17 April 2002 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on 24 September 2002. An appeal lodged by the applicant against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on
|
6 November 1998
|
7. On 4 January 1999 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”) quashed the judgment of 6 November 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court however upheld the decision of
|
13 May 2002
|
27. Further hearings were scheduled for 4 January, 6 February, 6 March, 9 April and 14 May 2002. The court heard evidence from twenty witnesses.
At the hearing held on 9 April 2002 the court, at the Regional Prosecutor’s request, ordered that evidence from a DNA identification test of several hairs found on the victim be obtained to determine whether they belonged to the applicant. However, on
|
21 September 2009
|
10. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 2 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) awarded her additional HRK 2,000 in compensation. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on
|
31 March 1992
|
5. By a court decision of 1985, confirmed by the Appeal and Supreme Courts’ decisions of 1986 and 1987 respectively, the applicants were established as successors in title to a property which had belonged to their late grandfather. On
|
December 2010
|
39. In April 2011 the Lithuanian authorities granted the applicant legal aid for one year for the proceedings concerning non-execution of the HCJ order in Lithuania.
On 22 April 2011 the State-appointed lawyer wrote to the applicant that she had become acquainted with the case regarding the non-execution of the HCJ judgment. She wrote that V.T. had not taken the son for the visit [of
|
as early as 31 March 2004
|
38. On 11 May 2005 the Regional Court sent a letter to the GPO which stated as follows:
“During the judicial proceedings all the defendants changed their original statements and alleged that they had been subjected to ill-treatment (sometimes amounting to torture) during the pre-trial investigation, as a result of which they were forced to incriminate themselves and plead guilty to criminal offences which they had not committed.
The statements of the defendants are indirectly confirmed by some of the materials in the case-file.
The court requested the [GPO]
|
early February
|
28. On 20 December 1995 the court asked the applicant's counsel what was upholding the case, to which the latter replied on 5 January 1996 that due to vacation his pleading could not be expected until
|
13 October 1999
|
12. On 9 February 2000 the applicant filed a new petition to the Constitutional Court in which he complained about delays in the proceedings before the Košice I District Court. On 28 June 2000 the Constitutional Court delivered a decision in which it held that the above Constitutional Court’s finding of
|
fourteen days
|
10. On 21 October 2013 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It found that from 19 December 2012 to 21 October 2013 (the day the court issued its decision) the applicant had had 1.98 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic standard of 3.1 sq. m, and that during that period for
|
eight and a half months
|
12. In the course of the proceedings the applicant several times specified his claim. Eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s, his representative’s or both parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s representative’s request, which protracted the proceedings by
|
11 May 2001
|
12. On 24 April 2001 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud), sitting in private, dismissed the applicant's complaint against the District Court's detention order of 8 March 2001, upholding the grounds for his detention pursuant to Article 67 a) and c) of the CCP, referring, inter alia, to the applicant's earlier prosecution on suspicion of murder. The court made it clear that from the material evidence gathered so far, including records of telephone tapping and from the statements of the applicant's wife, the criminal prosecution against the applicant was justified. According to the applicant, this decision was notified to him on
|
20 August 1991
|
26. On the same day the Central Committee and the Riga Committee of the CPL declared their support for the National State of Emergency Committee and set up an “operational group” to provide assistance to it. According to the Government, on
|
4 August 1999
|
14. On an unspecified date the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey referred the applicant to the Izmir branch of the Turkish Medical Association. Between 7 and 11 December 1998 the applicant underwent various medical examinations, the results of which were noted in a medical report of
|
November 2006
|
17. On 29 May 2008 the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicants, without considering the merits of their case. It stated that new parliamentary elections had been held in January 2007, which was why the applicants’ complaint had effectively become moot. It noted that their complaint could not have been treated as a constitutional appeal, as envisaged under the Constitution adopted in
|
18 May 1992
|
10. In the meantime on 7 May 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicant of being an accessory to a bank robbery and murder of a clerk on
|
four years’
|
6. Andreas Martzaklis: imprisoned on 7 May 2011 and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Athens Criminal Court, a decision given by the Indictments Division of the Khalkida Criminal Court in 2010 ordering the execution of a sentence passed by the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal which had been stayed, and a judgment delivered by the Athens Court of Appeal sentencing him to
|
the night from 23 to 24 June 2005
|
14. On 27 July 2005 investigator B. dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. From the text of his decision, it is not clear whether he had conducted new examinations of the applicant and her colleagues, whom he had questioned earlier. He had also interviewed the applicant’s husband and some other colleagues of hers, who had provided positive references as to the applicant’s character. With reference to the medical report, B. noted that there were several bruises and contusions on the applicant’s body, but no injuries in the area of the genitals or the anus. He concluded as follows:
“Regard being had to [the evidence stated above], the additional inquiry conducted in response to the [applicant’s] complaint has not led to the discovery of the objective data showing that on
|
22 April 2003
|
31. On 19 April 2005 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal convicted the applicants of the crime of aggravated murder as defined in Articles 174 and 176 (a) of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to sixteen years’ imprisonment. The other provisions of the judgment delivered on
|
fifteen-day
|
8. According to the transcript of his statement dated 23 January 2008, which was also video-recorded, Sh. stated that the applicant had employed him to work on his father’s house, that in April 2007 I. had worked on the site on terms he had negotiated with the applicant and that in November I. had worked while serving his
|
13 February 2001
|
21. On 21 November 2000 the district court granted the applicant's application to request materials from the criminal case in which the applicant had been granted victim status in substantiation of his pecuniary damage claims; the hearing was postponed until
|
9 April 1994
|
109. The witness was the Public Prosecutor of the town of Bismil at the time of the events. The bodies were found in an area under his jurisdiction and he participated in the examination of the bodies on
|
the next five years
|
78. The witness added that the last X-ray examination of the applicant had not shown any signs of nitrification, fibrosis or lung deformation. Mr Yusev’s X-ray had revealed only signs of fibrosis. They were now in a special group of inmates and would be under medical observation for
|
2 July 2003
|
27. On 1 August 2005 the Court of Appeal found the applicant and his co-defendant Y.G. guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment with confiscation of their property. The court based their conviction, among other things, on the testimony of Ms V., who had seen the applicant and Y.G. before and after the murder, on fingerprints from Y.G. found at the scene of crime, on the confessions made by the applicant and Y.G. in the presence of their lawyers, and on the applicant’s written confession of
|
21 April 2004
|
30. On 12 May 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Sovetskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, having found as follows:
“From the criminal case file no. 69727 it is evident that on 27 April 2004 the police performed an operative drill concerning [the applicant] on the basis of [the police] order of
|
17 March 2005
|
39. On 11 March 2005 Ko. received the order of 10 March 2005 and on the same date started the examination. The expert finalised the examination on 14 March 2005. The resulting report was completed on
|
Saturday 11 March 2000
|
17. On 24 November 2000, in the light of this expert report and the statements given by the various parties involved, the head inspector of the Ministry of Health drew up a report concluding that the midwives G.E. and A.Y., employed in the Karşıyaka Public Hospital and the Alsancak Public Hospital respectively, had failed in the duties attached to their functions, in that they had sent the patient home in spite of her continuing pain and without having had her examined by a duty doctor. He also considered that doctors F.B. and Ö.Ç., employed at the Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital, had failed in the duties attached to their functions, in that they had not requested a consultation with a gynaecology and obstetrics specialist, nor indicated to the patient that she should seek such a consultation. Furthermore, the investigation concluded that a complaint report had been drawn up concerning the issue of the liability of T.K., H.V., S.A. and Ö.Ö., doctors in the gynaecology and obstetrics department at the Ege University Medical Faculty Hospital, so that it was not necessary to rule again in their respect. The head inspector reached the same conclusion as to the liability of the impugned ambulance company, and a separate report had been transmitted on this matter to the İzmir Directorate of Health.
The investigation report noted, however, that doctors T.K., H.V., S.A., and Ö.Ö. had failed in their obligations and thus caused, by their negligence, imprudence and lack of experience, the death of Mrs Şentürk. Finally, the committee considered that Dr S.A.A. from the Ege University Medical Faculty Hospital had committed no error in transferring Mrs Şentürk to the gynaecology and obstetrics department.
The report on the findings of the investigation into the events which occurred at the Ege University Medical Faculty Hospital include the following points:
“After her examination in the emergency department ..., Menekşe Şentürk was transferred to the obstetrics department ... Menekşe Şentürk, who was 34 weeks pregnant, was examined by the duty team at the obstetrics department. During the ultrasound carried out by the duty team ..., the child’s heartbeat was not heard and it was ascertained that he or she was dead ... The patient’s relatives [were informed] that it was necessary to remove the child, for the sake of the mother’s health ... However, as the patient’s relatives had stated that they did not have the resources to pay hospital fees ... the duty team did not admit the patient to hospital and transferred her to the İzmir gynaecology and obstetrics hospital in this condition, after obtaining her signature attesting that she was refusing hospitalisation ... Although by law they ought to have dealt with the procedures concerning costs [only] after admitting the patient to hospital, examining her, reaching a diagnosis and providing care [to the patient], it is understood that the doctors failed in their duty by transferring her without treatment, [although she] was in an emergency situation and suffering persistent pain, and thus caused her death.”
Various witness statements were cited in this investigation report. In particular, some of them read as follows:
“Statement by Mehmet Şentürk: ... on
|
13 November 2001
|
7. On 14 August 2001 the Regional Court prolonged his detention until 19 November 2001. It considered that there was a real risk that the suspects, including the applicant, might obstruct the investigation, having regard to the nature of their criminal activities and the severity of the anticipated penalty. It also referred to the need to collect further evidence. On
|
14 March 2007
|
60. On 2 November 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the first and second applicants’ employers, as part of the privatisation process. On 13 December 2006 privatisation was stayed, but on
|
10 June 2002
|
10. On 14 June 2002 the Migration Department refused to issue a new residence permit on the ground that the applicant posed a “threat to national security and public order”. In this connection the immigration authorities referred to the file classified as “secret”, which had been received from the State Security Department on
|
11 December 2006
|
51. On 24 November 2006 the applicant called on the Loznica Social Care Centre to request the enforcement of the interim access order as rendered by the Municipal Court. She was informed that the Centre was not in charge of the case, as M.J. lived in Belgrade.
(b) The interim access order of
|
between 16 and 22 December 2002
|
34. On 14 July 2003 the Temporary Operational Group of the Russian Ministry of the Interior informed the first applicant that they had not carried out any special operations in relation to Khava Magomadova in the village of Chervlennaya
|
10 June 2003
|
23. On 14 July 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Sunzhenskiy District of the Republic of Ingushetia (“the district prosecutor's office”) informed Musa Zabiyev that his complaint concerning the events of
|
24 September 1998
|
10. The Government submitted that on 18 September 1998 the applicant had been placed in a temporary detention centre in Naro-Fominsk pursuant to a warrant for his administrative arrest. He had been released on
|
23 February 2009
|
36. The applicant appealed against the District Court judgment of 18 November 2008 to the Court of Appeal, stating that he had requested the Government to repeal his expulsion order and that he had lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights on
|
1 December 2006
|
40. The problems underlying the non-enforcement of domestic judgments in Russia and various measures taken or considered by the authorities in the context of the implementation of the Court’s judgments were addressed in detail in the Committee of Ministers’ documents CM/Inf/DH(2006)45 of
|
November 1939
|
15. On 1 September 1939 Germany invaded Poland, starting the Second World War. On 17 September 1939 the Soviet Red Army marched into Polish territory, allegedly acting to protect the Ukrainians and Belorussians living in the eastern part of Poland because the Polish State had collapsed under the German attack and could no longer guarantee the security of its own citizens. The Polish army did not offer military resistance. The USSR annexed the territory newly under its control and in
|
4 to 11 July 2008
|
61. The relevant parts of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, concerning his visit to the Republic of Moldova from
|
19 February 1999
|
14. Under section 60 of the Competition Act, only a company affected by the Competition Authority’s decision could lodge an appeal against it to the Market Court (Marknadsdomstolen). No appeal was lodged against the decision of
|
20 February 2007
|
21. Based on the forwarded complaint, the Kaposvár Prosecutorial Investigation Office launched an investigation. The Office subsequently heard the applicant and numerous police officers, held an identification parade and a series of confrontations, and obtained an expert opinion. In spite of the fact that the applicant claimed to have recognised two of the four police officers who were present during his ill-treatment in the custodial unit, the Office terminated the investigation on
|
approximately six years
|
22. On 4 March 2004 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava I District Court had violated Ms I. Dvořáčková’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It found that the case was not particularly complex and that the plaintiff had not by her conduct contributed to the length of the proceedings in a substantial manner. The decision stated that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Court, totalling
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.