Datasets:
LLM-PBE
/
echr-date

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
target
stringlengths
11
70
prompt
stringlengths
200
10k
13 August 2013
11. The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition. On 23 November 2012, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation received a request from the Kyrgyz Republic seeking the applicant’s extradition. On
4 March 2008
33. On 16 March 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the State Attorney’s Office against G.M., M.T. and P.S., alleging that they had attacked him and his friend M.K. in bar C. He pointed out that they were part of a group from the Mokošica neighbourhood and that he had already been attacked by individuals from the same group on
12 February
16. The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration her individual situation. On
15 October 1996
18. He was “put on report” and an adjudication hearing before the prison governor was convened for 15 October 1996. The first applicant requested legal representation in a form submitted to the governor dated
between December 2000 and May 2004
60. The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements or the number of bunks. He disagreed, however, with the figure given by the Government for the number of inmates. According to him, between February and December 2000 he stayed in cell no. 4-9 that housed 18 to 35 inmates and
the day of the
18. It emerges from the case-file that an investigation was automatically launched in respect of the applicant for his alleged participation in an illegal demonstration. On 28 November 2007, as part of this investigation, he was questioned by the public prosecutor’s office. The relevant parts of his statements may be summarised as follows: “I completely reject the charges levelled against me. [On
3 November 1997
31. On 14 October 1997 the applicant’s lawyer submitted his grounds of appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal, including a reference to a letter of 26 September 1997 in which the Occupational Association for the Consumer Meat Industry had stated that it could not be excluded that it would conclude that it was not competent to determine the applicant’s request for AAW benefits. These grounds of appeal were transmitted to the LISV on
17 September 2001
28. The judgment of 10 September 2001 was subject to appeal to the Moscow Regional Court. However, the applicant did not appeal, allegedly out of fear of reprisals by the police officers implicated in the ill-treatment. Therefore, the conviction became final on
the autumn of 1999
73. In March 2000, the Department of Operational Research and Analysis (DORA) published a report, prepared on behalf of the DETR, entitled “Adverse effects of night-time aircraft noise”. The report identified a number of issues for possible further research, and was intended to form the background to any future United Kingdom studies of night-time aircraft noise. The report stated that gaps in knowledge had been identified, and indicated that the DETR was considering whether there was a case for a further full-scale study on the adverse effects of night-time aircraft noise, and had decided to commission two further short research studies to investigate the options. These studies were commissioned in
6 October 2003
26. One of the members of the panel of the Supreme Court, Judge D. Visterniceanu, disagreed with the opinion of the majority and wrote a dissenting opinion. He submitted, inter alia, that the first-instance court had failed to address all the submissions made by the applicant company and had illegally examined the case in its absence. Moreover, only one provision of the ANRTI Regulations had been applied, whereas it was necessary to examine the case in a broader light and to apply all the relevant legislation. Finally, ANRTI’s decision of
17 December 2004
13. The investigation also included a post-mortem psychiatric assessment of the deceased performed by a panel of three psychiatrists. In their first report, dated 19 November 2004, they stated that on the basis of the elements before them it was not possible to state whether Ion Anuşca had been influenced by another person to commit suicide. In their second report, dated
30 October 1998
13. On 22 December 1998 the Ombudsman found that the prison administration had censored a letter from the applicant to his wife in which he had accused the prison staff of theft. The Ombudsman found that, as a consequence, on
7 June 2005
6. By judgment of 16 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 July 2003. On 14 October 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received the money due to her on
26 June 2006
88. The applicant also made representations to the State Provincial Office, which sent the regional medical officer and health care inspector to Vanha Vaasa Hospital to interview the applicant and the hospital staff involved in her treatment. The regional medical officer also met the applicant’s representative. Furthermore, the authority acquainted itself with the applicant’s medical records and other documents related to the case and obtained written statements from hospital staff and the applicant’s comments on them. In its decision of
7 August 2010
18. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against A.N., alleging that he had forged the company shareholders’ minutes dated 20 February 2007. In the course of the criminal proceedings, an expert from the National Forensic Centre presented his report dated
26 January 2001
63. He did not know Serdar Tanış or Ebubekir Deniz personally. However, he had been informed of the threats that had been made against them on account of their activities as members of HADEP. He learnt of their disappearance on
6 June 2005
22. On 14 November 2006 Mr Aslan Abubakarov’s father contacted the Russian Prosecutor General, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his son’s abduction. On 22 January 2007 the complaint was forwarded to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor, who overruled the decision of
1 August 1997
29. On 16 June and 7 July 1997 respectively, the applicants requested leave to apply for judicial review of the governor's refusal of legal representation. Mr Ezeh also applied for an extension of time in which to do so. The applicants argued that the various statutory and regulatory changes since Hone and McCartan v. Maze Prison Board of Visitors ([1988] 1 Appeal Cases 379) had made adjudication of prison disciplinary matters indistinguishable from matters of summary jurisdiction and, therefore, legal representation ought to have been allowed as of right. On
February 1995
19. On 27 July 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court stated that under the Religious Denominations Act the Council of Ministers enjoyed full discretion in its decision as to whether or not to register the statute of a given religion. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was therefore limited to an examination of whether the impugned decision had been issued by the competent administrative organ and whether the procedural requirements had been complied with. In that respect the decision of
20 November 2000
10. On an unspecified date in 2000, at the request of the applicant’s two relatives, the Ruse regional prosecutor applied to the Ruse Regional Court (Окръжен съд) for a declaration of total legal incapacity in respect of the applicant. In a judgment of
1 June 2005
25. On 21 September 2005 the prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings, having held as follows: “On 8 July 2005 [the prosecutor’s office] received file no. 1195 pr. 05 related to [the applicant’s] complaint of ill-treatment by police officer K. [The applicant] stated that K. ... applied physical and psychological pressure on him. When questioned, K. stated that in May 2005 the police had received information about [the applicant’s] involvement in opium trafficking. On
28 April 2009
25. A week later a medical commission comprising medical specialists of the detention facility and doctors from the Centre examined the applicant and issued the following report: “Having studied the health complaints, the medical history, objective data and results of the medical examination ..., the commission is bound to confirm that [the applicant’s] kidney transplant has been rejected as a result of his refusal to take prescribed immunosuppressants. The commission’s attention was drawn to the fact that despite numerous discussions about the consequences of such a refusal, [the applicant] firmly continued refusing to take the above-mentioned medicines. He also stated that he would refuse any treatment provided in detention facility no. 5 in respect of any complications arising from his refusal [to take the medicines]. [The applicant] stated that he had refused to take medicines prescribed by the doctors from the Centre because he considered that he had not received effective medical assistance in respect of his complaints about toothache, pain in the area of his hip replacements and problems with his eyes. In an efficient manner, [the applicant] was once again informed that the deterioration of his health was entirely due to his intentional refusal to take the medicines (immunosuppressants) prescribed by the specialists from the Centre and did not result from any other illnesses. The commission’s conclusion is as follows: Type 2 insulin diabetes in an advanced form, [the patient is receiving] insulinotherapy. Diabetic nephropathy, nephroangiosclerosis, chronic renal failure [in the end stage], condition after the donor kidney transplant (2006). Kidney transplant rejection crisis on
three months
15. On the same day the Nizami District Court, relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of
19 February 2007
61. On 23 February 2007 the applicant filed a complaint against the Regional Court’s decision of 20 February 2007. He submitted that from the medical reports in the file it must have been clear that his heart condition had been serious from the outset. In his report of
9 June 2005
52. Lord Hope of Craighead observed, inter alia, that: “Article 15 of the Convention contemplates that the court may need to be provided with a determination from the authorities of the state of the child’s habitual residence that the removal was wrongful. So a judge is not to be criticised if he decides to use this procedure because he cannot responsibly resolve the issue on the information provided by the applicant. Nevertheless if he decides on this course delay will be inevitable. Great care must therefore be taken, in the child’s best interests, to keep this to the absolute minimum. The misfortunes that have beset this case show that, once the court has received the response, it should strive to treat the information which it receives as determinative. In this case the response that was received from Romania was sufficient to show that the child’s removal was not wrongful within the meaning of article 3. On
25 January 1995
8. In addition to the additional tax, the applicant company was charged interest for late payment and a fine was imposed under Article 1788 ter of the General Tax Code (Article 1770 octies since 1993), equal at that time to 100% of the unpaid tax. On
31 October 2004
41. On 13 August 2006 a group of forensic medical experts gave an opinion on the applicant’s case. They were asked to say whether they thought that the applicant’s second-degree disability (друга група інвалідності) was related to the injuries which he had sustained on
November 1995
9. Following the abolition of the State Security Courts, the Istanbul Court of Assize took over the case. On 18 May 2006 the applicant was released on bail from prison where he had been detained since
26 August 2005
7. On 20 January 2005 a judge of the Valmiera District Court issued a detention order authorising the pre-trial detention of the first applicant for a duration of two months. The applicant was suspected of the sale of narcotics and of providing unauthorised objects to imprisoned prisoners. The decision stated that the first applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, that he had absconded from the pre-trial investigation and that there was a risk that he might abscond even after his whereabouts were established. The order was executed on
7 August 1996
22. An important, albeit not decisive, consideration under section 108 of the Administration of Courts Act was also the fact that both counsel for the defence and the assistant advocate had demanded that J recuse herself. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, “the standpoint of the accused [was] important but not decisive”; in this case the “fear” of lack of impartiality by the applicant had been “objectively justified” (see Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy,
December 2004
7. On 18 December 2007, relying on the provisions of the Anti-discrimination Ordinance (Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on preventing and punishing all forms of discrimination) and of Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicants brought an action in the Mureş County Court seeking compensation equivalent to the “loyalty bonus” (spor de fidelitate) to which they felt they had been entitled in respect of their salary since
between 14 February 1996 and 20 September 2000
7. On 18 August 1995 the applicant and Hipec instituted civil proceedings in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) against five companies who had built the premises where the applicant had his shop and had been responsible for the maintenance of the building. They were seeking damages in the amount of 160.770.941,20 tolars (approximately 670.000 euros) for the destruction caused by the fire. None of the thirteen hearings held
26 December 2006
10. By judgment of 27 February 2007, the District Court found the applicant liable for defamation of the Orel University and its academic senate. According to the judgment, the applicant “publicly accused [them] of a violation of applicable laws [and] commission of a dishonest act”. It also held as follows: “The court cannot agree with the respondent party’s argument that the statements [he had] disseminated at the conference were an expression of an opinion. The statements were made in the affirmative form which is apparent from the minutes of the conference of
a week before
17. On 13 and 19 December 2007 the applicant wrote to the head prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Petroşani District Court, complaining that N.C., who had moved out of their apartment and had taken two of the children with him, had threatened to kill her when they had accidentally met on the street
4 February 1994
4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Skopje. He is the manager and sole owner of a limited liability company, the Tehno‑Interexport company (“T.”), the acquirer and legal successor of the Unimont company (“U.”), which ceased to exist on
11 September 1974
41. Mr Nicos Nicolaou of Strovolos, who was a prisoner at Adana in September 1974, stated that one day he heard a Turk calling the applicant’s name. He also saw the applicant whom he happened to know previously and noticed that he was lame in one leg. On
21 August 2007
29. On 26 July 2007 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested the Embassy to issue the applicant with the documents necessary for his readmission on the basis of the readmission agreement and transmitted a readmission application in respect of him to the Embassy. On
15 June 2011
29. By a letter dated 2 June 2011, the Ministry of the Interior provided information about the applicant’s new status to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Istanbul and Sakarya governors’ offices and the police’s Interpol‑Europol department attached to the General Police Headquarters. The Ministry of the Interior asked the Ministry of Justice to take the necessary measures to prevent possible extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan because he had been granted a permit to reside in Sakarya. On
15 November 2001
8. On 16 October 2001 the Berlin Regional Court ordered an urological expert report on the question whether the defendant, due to alleged insufficient post-operative treatment, had discovered the applicant’s urinary leak too late. On
2 November 2009
31. The applicant lodged an application with the High Court of Cassation and Justice for the removal of the file to another court on the grounds that the Cluj Court of Appeal was not impartial. His application was granted on
the next day
27. The medical records show that on admission to institution no. LIU‑15 the applicant had undergone a general medical examination, a chest X-ray examination and a clinical blood test. A sputum culture test was performed
13 November 2014
38. At a hearing held on 7 October 2015 the civil court of first instance decided to appoint an expert to calculate the applicant’s pecuniary damage, on the basis of the findings of the third report of
22 April 1998
18. On 21 December 2000 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development (Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi), who had assumed the competencies of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy, upheld the decision of
31 May 2001
21. By a decision of 10 February 1998 the labour disputes commission awarded Mr Tofik Kadyr Ogly Ibragimov UAH 667.37 in salary arrears from the KLZ subsidiary enterprise “Lyvarne vyrobnytstvo”. By a judgment of
24 June 1999
19. On 4 March 2002 the President of the Bucharest Court of Appeal replied to the bailiff's letter and informed him that his concerns had been looked into by an inspecting judge, whose report he forwarded to the bailiff. The report indicated that under the Vienna Convention of 18 April 1961 the property of diplomatic missions was inviolable. As the immunity from jurisdiction extended to enforcement procedures, the inspecting judge concluded that the applicant could not regain possession of his building, and asked the bailiff to advise him to apply for compensation corresponding to the value of the building on the ground that it was not possible to have the judgment of
6 April 1998
22. On 2 March 1998 the Plovdiv District Court, in camera, appointed a DNA specialist, apparently to conduct the DNA test, and instructed the parties to present themselves for such an examination on
29 March 2006
13. On 23 May 2006 the public prosecutor of Diyarbakır dealing with the case, following the decision to decline jurisdiction on 3 May 2006, sent a letter to the Diyarbakır police headquarters. He asked for information on the police units which had been equipped with tear-gas grenade launchers during the incident of
24 August 2004
8. On 24 December 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed. On 5 May 2004 the court allowed both appeals in part. The judgment was served on the applicant on
almost two years
9. The applicant alleges that in 1983 the Chairman of the Bank, in the course of a private meeting, stated that the reason for not promoting him to the post agreed on in 1964 was that the Board of Directors had received from a group of shareholders a number of anonymous letters criticising the Board for bad administration. The Board suspected that these letters had been sent by the applicant. The applicant further alleges that, following this information, he tried hard for
4 June 2004
18. On 11 October 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision. The Court did not rely on any new arguments; it admitted that the applicant's detention had been very lengthy, because it had been imposed on him on
4 November 2002
8. Meanwhile, in 1998, the applicant had started a relationship with a Ms A.A., a settled immigrant of Somali origin. The couple had two children, born on 11 November 1999 and 27 February 2002 respectively. The applicant and Ms A.A. were married on
26 February 2004
21. With regard to Article 8 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal observed that there had never been a family bond between the applicant and the twins. It also distinguished the present case from the case of Görgülü v. Germany (no. 74969/01,
30 April 2003
6. On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yansk District Court of Yakutia gave two judgments and awarded the first applicant 90,610.72 Russian roubles (“RUB”), and the second applicant RUB 108,654.15. These judgments became binding on
15 February 2001
76. The investigation of the disappearance of Islam Dubayev had commenced on 25 November 2000. The case file was assigned the number 24071. The investigation into Roman Bersnukayev's disappearance was opened on
14 October 2005
10. On 27 April 2005 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the defendant to restore the electricity supply. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. According to the applicant it was enforced on
15 June 1998
13. By a ruling of 26 January 2011 the Velikiye Luki Town Court explained that Mrs Gorfunkel’s pension was to be calculated according to a method that would take into account all recalculations and adjustments that had taken place after
28 July 2004
20. On 7 October 2004 the applicant appealed to the Rîşcani District Court against the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office of 28 September 2004. She stated, inter alia, that the prosecutor had omitted to examine the witnesses’ statements which had been enclosed with the case file and the medical report of
28 June 2001
6. On 28 June 2001 (in the documents submitted the date also referred to as 29 June 2001) Mr Vakhit Gambulatov left home and did not return. The next day the applicant and her relatives learned that on
26 April 2004
131. In March and April 2007 the investigators questioned a number of persons, including investigators A.H. and S.T. and military police officers V.K., A.B. and M., the commander of the applicants’ military unit, M.A., three military police officers of the Stepanakert Military Police Department and one officer of the Nagorno Karabakh Defence Army who had transported the applicants from Stepanakert to Yerevan, lawyers M.A. and V.Y., and the third applicant’s cousin’s husband, H.M., who had visited him in detention together with his father on
December 1989
13. On 20 February 1998 and 16 February 1999 the military prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against some of the defendants as the applicant’s complaint had become partly statute-barred. The investigation into crimes allegedly committed by three of the defendants was severed and jurisdiction was relinquished to the prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice in order to be joined to the main criminal investigation into the events of
at least between 16 June and 30 July 1998
70. In response to her request for adjournment, the Supreme Court ruled that both the defence in general and Mrs Moskalenko in particular had had sufficient time to examine the trial records, study the first instance judgment and prepare for the case
several days
116. Four police officers and her husband arrived between 11-11.30 a.m. and she was told that she was also to be taken into custody. A search of about 40 to 45 minutes was made of the house and a report drawn up which they did not sign there. Nothing was seized. She asked a neighbour to look after their two children, as she was expecting to be away for
9 November 2000
26. It was later found by the High Court (as it was disputed) that it was more likely than not that Giles Van Colle made mobile telephone contact with DC Ridley before 17 November 2000 as regards the telephone call of
the year 2001
99. On 30 December 2011 the investigators questioned a former head of the Alkhan-Yurt municipal administration, who stated that Mr Timur Tsakayev had been involved in an illegal armed group. At that time (
22 June 2015
12. On 22 June 2009, after seventeen years of service (1991-2008) as a judge at the European Court of Human Rights and, subsequently, more than one year’s service as a member of the Budapest Court of Appeal, the applicant was elected by the Parliament of Hungary, by decision no. 55/2009 (VI.24) OGY, as President of the Supreme Court for a six-year term, until
between 13 and 19 July 1963
31. Following a meeting between them, on 2 December 1997 the Minister of State for Defence wrote to the applicant. He referred to the concerns of the applicant (and other test participants) that information about the tests was being withheld. He confirmed that this was not the case but rather reflected “less than thorough” record-keeping than would be currently expected. Henceforth all volunteers would be able to obtain access to all the information held on them at Porton Down and steps would be taken to declassify reports so as to make that information more accessible. Certain copies of test documents were enclosed: (a) the alphabetical record book which recorded the applicant's attendance at Porton Down
23 September 2002
45. On 9 September 2002 the prosecutor at the Bucharest County Court also decided not to prosecute the applicant and made reference to the military prosecutor’s decision of 7 December 1999 concerning the same facts. However, on
August 2001
12. The applicants and Mr E.K. owned a Gibraltar-registered company Estora Investment Ltd. (“Estora”). Mr T.F. and Mr G.A. owned the Samoa/Luxembourg-registered company Strategic Investment AS (“Strategic”). In June 2001 Estora acquired 24% of the shares in Wnet AS. Strategic acquired 46% of the shares in Wnet AS. In
13 to 15 June 1990
142. The decision of 29 April 2008 contained a list of more than a thousand victims who had been held and subjected to ill-treatment, notably on the premises of the Băneasa Officers’ School and the Măgurele military unit. Mr Stoica was included in this list of victims. The decision also contained a list of the legal entities which had sustained damage during the crackdown of
October 2005 until October 2007
89. In his statement to the IAIACAP on 22 September 2009, the officer in charge of the archives at Nicosia Police Headquarters informed the investigator that on 28 April 1999, the Minister of Justice had declared Block 10 at Nicosia Central Prisons a police detention establishment. He further informed the investigator that for safety purposes Block 10 had been under renovation from
18 December 1996
10. On 19 July 1989, the applicant joined an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia in which the applicants in the Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey (see below) and Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits),
10 October 2002
12. On 12 September 2002 the first expert, who was appointed by the court on 3 September 2002, declined the request due to other commitments. The subsequently appointed expert was rejected by the defendant on
29 April 2004
11. In the resumed proceedings, on 2 June 2002 the Regional Court appointed as expert the Department of Road Construction at Budapest Technical University. The latter presented an opinion on 20 January 2004 which was discussed at the hearing of
6 August 2003
9. M.A. was tried in another set of criminal proceedings concerning the same organisation. On 17 February 2004 M.A. lodged an application to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into Society Act (Law no. 4959), which had come into force on
three years
29. On 28 July 2003 the Golovinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of smuggling and unlawfully trading in diamonds. The applicant was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment, suspended for
20 June 2001
116. On unspecified dates after February 2006 the investigators questioned Mr F.S. and Mr A.P. of the national anti-terrorist squad. They also questioned five other officers of the same service who had participated in Mr Kolev's arrest on
27 January 2001
8. On 11 May 2001 the Municipal Court in Niš (“Municipal Court”) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent “socially-owned” company (see paragraph 46 below), “Vagonka” (“the debtor”), to pay him: i. salary arrears in the amount of 98,001 Dinars (“RSD”, approximately 1,661 euros, “EUR”) plus statutory interest as of
15 June 2009
44. On 7 May 2009 the Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security asked the applicant for additional information concerning the proceedings for the return of the child on grounds of wrongful removal and retention. On
between one week and one month
30. The applicants also complained about the fact that diagnoses were conducted automatically and that the doctors always prescribed the same medicines without individually examining each patient. Any requisite transfers to outside hospitals were always carried out after long delays. Distribution of medication prescribed for some of the applicants was often interrupted without explanation for periods of
nine years’
20. On 6 August 2008 the District Court of Volgograd found the applicant guilty of complicity in large-scale fraud and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The final sentence under both verdicts was set at
29 October 2009
31. On 31 August 2009 the mother lodged an application with the Warsaw‑Mokotów District Court for the applicant to be deprived of his parental authority (pozbawienie władzy rodzicielskiej) and his right to contact. She argued that his conduct was to the children’s detriment; that they had become hostile towards him and that this had been because he had tried to have her punished. During the proceedings, on
11 May 2015
8. On 3 October 2014 the bailiff and the applicant lodged an action with the Oradea District Court, seeking an order that I.T. pay her 1,000 Romanian lei (RON – approximately 225 euros (EUR)) for each day of non-enforcement of the custody order. On
7 September 2007
20. On 26 July 2007 the District Court requested the expert to terminate the examination. On 7 September 2007 the expert submitted her report, in which she noted that the parents were unable to cooperate and recommended the continuation of supervised visits. On
thirteen months
39. No mention was made in the Assize Court’s decision about the applicants’ complaints concerning the failure to obtain swabs from the hands of the deceased or the failure to question the soldiers until
25 June 2007
6. On an unspecified date the regional police department for combating organised crime opened a criminal investigation into the activities of an organised group involved in a series of residential burglaries and car thefts in Pskov Region. The applicant was suspected of acting as a coordinator and go-between for the group. In the course of the investigation of the group’s activities, on
years on end
59. On 4 September 2006 a member of Ilinden’s managing council once again notified the Mayor of Blagoevgrad of the organisation’s intention to hold the rally, to commemorate “the victims of the Macedonian nation following the Bulgarian governments’ acts of State terrorism and genocide”. He added that for
28 June 1996
6. The applicant paid ROL 10,000 in court fees but was asked by the court to make a supplementary payment to cover a percentage of the total claim. On 31 May 1996 the court calculated the fee at ROL 270,162,136. On
the next day
16. On 18 June 2009 the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge. The applicant notified the court that he was withdrawing his submission of 27 October 2008. The court invited the applicant to specify his claim, which the applicant did
21 December 2006
11. The legal aid application came before the court on 17 November 2006 as scheduled. The applicant attended court. However, because no one from the Welfare Office was present, the court adjourned its examination of the application to
15 December 1999
32. The prosecutor also obtained a written statement from the applicant alleging that during his transfer to the Unit on 9 December 1999 he had a canvas bag on his head; in the Unit he had cables attached to his fingers and that electric shocks had been administered. The applicant alleged that on
three years’
23. Having heard the witnesses and looked through the evidence before it, the court delivered its judgment on 10 February 2006. The court rejected V.R’s claim that he had not known the applicant’s age on the basis of the evidence given regarding his knowledge of her age. However, the court also rejected the applicant’s claim that she had been so intoxicated as to have been unable to control her actions, reasoning that according to one of the witnesses she had not consumed more than 50 ml of vodka and that she had described the incident in detail. The court concluded that the sexual intercourse had been mutually consensual on the basis of the fact that there had been no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body, as confirmed by the forensic expert reports. The court therefore amended the criminal charges against V.R. on its own motion, finding him criminally liable for sexual intercourse with a person under the age of sixteen committed under the influence of alcohol, in contravention of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. The charge of rape against V.R. was dismissed by the court. V.R. was given a suspended sentence of
10 November 2004
13. In several cases the respondent authority introduced the grounds of appeal with the Town Court. However, on various dates in 2004 the respondent authority revoked their applications. For example, in case of Mr Turutin (no. 18952/06) the grounds for appeal were revoked on
1 December 2000
136. On 8 January 2001 Mr Rauf Denktaş sent the following letter to the UN Secretary General regarding the alleged abductions of the first applicant and of Mr Tekoğul. “I understand that letters of protest about the arrest by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus police of one Panicos Tsakourmas [sic], aged 39, while in possession of drugs is being circulated in all directions by the Greek Cypriot leadership. It is alleged that the said Tsakourmas was abducted by Turkish Cypriots in retaliation to “the arrest” by the Greek Cypriot police of Turkish Cypriot Ömer Gazi Tekoğul at Pyla, a mixed village. Both Tsakourmas and the Turkish Cypriot Ömer Gazi Tekoğul, aged 42, are in custody pending their trial in respective courts, one in the Greek side and the other before the Assize Court to be held in February in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Both sides allege that they were kidnapped by the police of the other side. Naturally, it is the relevant courts which will have to decide these issues. The allegation that Tsakourmas was arrested in retaliation to the unlawful arrest of Tekoğul is strenuously denied by the three policemen involved. But the case of Tekoğul is a clear case of abduction by Greek Cypriot policemen who, concealing their identity, pretended to be a good friend of Tekoğul until the day he was abducted by them. ... On
1 July 2009
59. On 4 March 2009 a hearing was held at which the first applicant submitted a request for a new interim contact order. The court issued a new order slightly modifying the provisional contact arrangements until the next main hearing, fixed for
8 September 2004
32. On 14 October 2004 the applicants lodged a fresh constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings in their action before the District Court. They submitted that on 4 October 2004, that is to say after the above partial inadmissibility decision of
between 11 April 2000 and 23 January 2001
9. Between 10 January 2001 and 27 February 2001 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions. During this time he also made two requests that a date be set for a hearing. Of the three hearings held
October 2005
27. In the meantime, in June 2007, the applicant was officially recognised as having a second-degree disability. In the medical documents issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Family Matters it was recommended that he should not work. The reasons given for declaring him disabled were “the after-effects of severe head trauma dating from
13 March 1996
19. By a decision of 30 May 1995 the County Court dismissed both his requests. The decision was confirmed by the Tartu Court of Appeal (Tartu Ringkonnakohus) on 27 December 1995. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) was refused on
forty years
14. On 28 February 2005 the Piraeus Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal (judgment no. 213/2005). In particular, it held that according to a rule of Byzantine-Roman law (vetustas), which had been applied in Greece before the introduction of the Civil Code in 1946, a property could be considered to be “for public use” (κοινόχρηστο) if it had been in common use for “an indefinite number of years in human memory” (αμνημονεύτου χρόνου αρχαιότητα). It further explained that, for this rule to be applied, two generations of people, each one spanning
24 July 2003
12. On 2 May 2003 the applicants’ neighbours lodged a complaint to the Administrative Court. The Appeals Commission submitted its observations on 3 July and the applicants submitted their observations in reply on