target stringlengths 11 70 | prompt stringlengths 200 10k |
|---|---|
22 July 2002 | 13. By a decision of 19 April 2002 the applicant's detention in the EBI was again extended. His appeal to the Appeals Board, in which he again relied on, inter alia, Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, was dismissed on |
25 August 2005 | 38. On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained to the administrative court about the District Inspector’s failure to take any steps to have a proper noise evaluation carried out and to give a decision on the merits of the case. In his reply of |
1 April 2010 | 27. On 5 April 2011 the City Court held another detention hearing. The applicant and his lawyer were absent. According to a medical certificate, the applicant was unable to appear owing to ongoing inpatient treatment. A written statement from the investigator said that the applicant’s counsel had been informed of the ... |
several days | 30. According to the Government, on the same day, the applicant was examined by the head of the SIZO medical unit. He complained of heart pain, which he said was worse when he made turning movements. The applicant was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension, generalised osteoarthritis, and myositis of the left major p... |
19 August 2005 | 27. Asked by the public prosecutor why he had not revealed, during his examination on 19 August 2005, that he had been abducted on 12 August 2005 and about the subsequent sequence of events, the applicant stated:
“I did not tell the investigating judge, because I was told by police officers in Veles that I should not... |
23 October 2008 | 7. On 30 October 2008 the police lodged with an investigating judge a request for a warrant to search the applicant’s apartment. The request was granted; the decision to issue the warrant read as follows:
“The criminal investigation against T. was initiated on |
sixteen days’ | 12. Later in the morning of 1 May 2010 the applicant went to a hospital. The doctor issued a certificate stating that he had some old injuries on his back but also fresh injuries on his back, neck and head, bruises on his wrists and a painful chest. He was given |
21 February 2002 | 17. On 18 June 2003 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The relevant part of that judgment read as follows:
“The Split Regional Finance Department certified the above-mentioned payment lists ... by first checking that the payment and its amount were justified, and then sent it, together with th... |
13 June 2008 | 20. On 16 March 2010 the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the applicant's case as it found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case. More specifically in its letter to the applicant's representative it stated as follows:
... In its decision of |
January 2005 | 60. On 5 March 2008 an investigator of the Tikhoretsk inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee at the regional prosecutor’s office (“the Tikhoretsk investigative committee”) opened a criminal case under Article 112 § 1 of the Criminal Code (harm to health of medium gravity) in relation to the i... |
7 April 2003 | 37. On 29 September 2003 the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office informed the applicants’ representatives that the criminal case had been joined with another criminal case and transferred to the Chechnya Supreme Court on |
15 November 2000 | 22. On 15 April 2003 the District Court gave a supplementary judgment (doplňujúci rozsudok) in which it dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim, a ruling which the District Court had omitted to make in the original judgment of |
2 March 2011 | 13. On 21 January 2011 the Regional Court found that (1) the applicant had not been apprised of his right to take part in the appeal hearing; (2) other parties to the proceedings had not been informed of the appeal lodged; and (3) the decision had not been translated into Uzbek. The Regional Court adjourned the hearin... |
20 February 2014 | 11. In the absence of information concerning the basis for the exclusion and the executive authority responsible therefor, in December 2013 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court of Perm against the Perm Region FMS, alleging that it had taken the decision to exclude the first applicant for... |
10 April 1992 | 28. In a letter of 18 April 1995 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Civil Court that the marriage certificate issued on 13 April 1984 by the Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Iceland and the divorce decree issued on |
31 October 2009 | 83. On 31 May 2012 the investigation was again resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the head of the Argun town administration on his security guards’ participation in the special operation on |
7 July 2008 | 20. The expert report of 19 June 2008, reflecting the results of that examination, stated, in particular, that the applicant had targeted police officers as a “social group” and that his comment had “aimed at inciting hatred and enmity” towards this group and had “called for their physical extermination”.
(b) Judgmen... |
27 April 1991 | 10. On 27 December 1990 the applicant requested the Office to review its decision under chapter 20, section 10 a of the 1962 Act. He claimed that he had failed to fully state his need of assistance and his additional costs in the original application. On |
12 October 2009 | 37. On 23 September 2009 the High Court handed down its decision (McCaughey and Quinn’s Application [2009] NIQB 77). Leave to apply for judicial review was granted as regards the delay in holding the inquest but it adjourned that question pending any decision at the coroner’s hearing due on |
15 December 1999 | 34. The Federal Court of Justice stressed that that manner of balancing the various interests at stake corresponded to the requirements of the Court regarding effective protection of the private sphere and the requirements of the freedom of the press, and that it did not conflict with the binding force of the judgment... |
17 October 2000 | 16. The first applicant’s sister-in-law also managed to look through an attendance register (журнал регистрации посетителей) in which she found an entry to the effect that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had entered the building at 11.20 a.m. on |
around three years | 32. By its judgment of 16 September 2009 the Berlin Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of drug trafficking as well as falsification of documents and imposed a cumulative prison sentence (Gesamtfreiheitsstrafe) of six years. In the determination of the applicant’s sentence, the Regional Court had rega... |
12 July 2002 | 11. In the light of the judgments of 11 July 2002 given by the Grand Chamber in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI) and I. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25680/94), in which the Court found that the Government’s continuing failure to take effective steps to effect the legal rec... |
15 October 2007 | 7. After having lived together for seven months in Cyprus, the applicant and M.T.R. decided together that M.T.R. would take their child to Romania for a few months, and would join the applicant in Buenos Aires in October, at the end of his contract in Cyprus. The parents agreed that M.T.R. and the child would return t... |
20 to 27 May 2002 | 36. On 10 October 2003 the Kerch Court considered the administrative complaint brought by the applicant against the Kerch Police Department for being held in their temporary detention centre (“the Kerch ITU”) from |
22 February 1967 | 21. By judgment of 11 September 2001 given in absentia, the applicants were convicted as charged by the High Court of Greenland (Grønlands Landsret). They were each sentenced to a fine of 5,000 Danish kroner (DKK) (approximately 670 euros (EUR)). In handing down the sentence, the court took into account the fact that, ... |
9 February 2006 | 22. On 3 October 2006 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal (contestație ȋn anulare), seeking the quashing of the final judgment of 21 February 2006. He argued that his right of defence had been breached on |
14 December 2012 | 47. By a judgment of 26 June 2013 the Braşov District Court allowed in part an action lodged by the applicant’s wife. It took into account the children’s best interests and relied on the children’s testimonies of |
16 June 2016 | 13. On 16 June 2016 the district court reviewed the administrative removal order of 23 March 2016 and confirmed its validity. The applicant was detained on the same day. On 12 September 2016 the judgment of |
27 April 2007 | 11. Early in the morning of 27 April 2007 the Government decided to move the monument from Tõnismägi, and a few days later it was re-erected in a military cemetery. On the evening of 27 April 2007 protesters returned to Tõnismägi. The police again cordoned off the area and carried out arrests, this time within a wider... |
19 January 2011 | 33. The applicant lodged an objection to the above decision (see paragraph 32 above), stating that the enforcement proceedings instituted by company J. had already been discontinued and that he wished to have A.A.’s claim enforced by the seizure of his monetary assets and repaid in twelve monthly instalments. On |
24 February 2009 | 101. The Regional Court also noted that the detention had further been justified by the need to prevent the jurors’ exposure to possible attempts to exert unlawful influence over them. In balancing the applicant’s right to be released pending trial and the public interest in the proper administration of justice, the R... |
9 January 2012 | 10. The applicant first returned to Italy (without having reached Hungary); he then set off again for Hungary, where (after arriving) K.S. initially denied him access to his daughter. After several days, K.S. allowed the applicant to see the baby and informed him that he could see her again, provided that he agreed to... |
18 September 1995 | 8. On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia. Thereafter, the (renamed) Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru) held four hearings in the case. The hearing held on |
10 November 1999 | 15. On 26 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate reported to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody on 2 November 1999 by police officers from the Diyarbakır Anti‑Terror Branch and that on |
one to three days | 20. On 25 October 2006 two forensic medical experts found after examining the applicant’s medical records that he had haematomas on the left frontal bone and right shin, which had been caused either by hard, blunt objects, or as a result of hitting such objects, |
30 October 2008 | 20. The decision was appealed against to the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret), henceforth the High Court, before which the applicant’s representative in his written submissions stated that the applicant remained in Kenya. On |
the same day | 28. The charges against the applicant were slightly amended on 16 February 1999 but remained libel of a public official during or in connection with the exercise of his duties or functions through dissemination of disreputable facts in print by another public official [Article 148 § 2 in connection with § 1 (2)‑(4) an... |
almost one year | 28. On 10 June 2011 the police stated their view that the investigation should come to an end and asked the prosecutor’s office not to institute criminal proceedings in the case. The police gave the following explanation for their request:
“... the investigation was rendered difficult by the fact that the file arrived... |
2 February 2005 | 69. According to the report on the enforcement proceedings (акт проверки исполнения исполнительного документа) dated 4 February 2005, the foster home’s management refused the applicant access to A. on the ground that an influenza quarantine had been introduced on |
two years and six months' | 13. On 10 July 1997 the trial court found the second applicant guilty of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to eight years and four months' imprisonment. The remaining two applicants were found guilty of the offence of aiding and abetting an ... |
10 April 2000 | 9. At the next hearing on 2 February 2000 the court heard yet another witness and concluded the main hearing. On the same day, it gave judgment dismissing the applicant's claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on |
17 March 2012 | 7. The applicant has a wife and three children who live in Uzbekistan. He is a practising Muslim. Since 1996 he had regularly gone to Russia for seasonal jobs. In 2010 the applicant again went to Russia and remained in the Moscow region until his arrest on |
20 October 2012 | 49. The first applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing in each case before the Baku Court of Appeal. The second applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing during the appellate-court proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of |
30 December 2007 | 77. The dormitory has no heating or permanent water supply, and no natural gas supply. In winter the temperature inside dropped below freezing. In this connection, in response to a request from the applicant’s lawyer, the head of the Azerbaijani Committee against Torture (a non-governmental organisation) informed the ... |
5 September 2013 | 15. According to the information provided by the National Administration of Prisons the applicant made no complaints concerning his medical treatment. On 10 August 2012 the applicant’s lawyer was informed that the complaint against the applicant’s placement in the closed prison regime had been rejected. On |
29 April 2003 | 14. On 21 January 2003 the bailiffs’ service recovered RUB 1,642.64 from the District Department. The payment order erroneously defined the purpose of the payment as “reimbursement of the transportation expenses”. The District Department challenged the recovery as unlawful, referring to the error in the documents. On |
16 February 1999 | 15. On 4 September and 18 December 1998 the Labour Court held hearings. On the latter occasion the Labour Court ordered the parties to discuss the possibility of settling the case. The parties did so on |
6 January 1999 | 35. On 22 December 1998 the registry of the Supreme Court sent a fax to the remand centre where the applicant was detained with the information that it would deal with the Regional Court’s request on |
24 December 2012 | 30. On 20 December 2012 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow nine lawyers from the human rights organisation United Mobile Group (“the UMG”) to represent her in the criminal case. On |
10 and 21 April 1997 | 59. On 5 February 1998 the court cancelled a hearing. On 23 February 1998 it decided to conduct the trial again from the beginning and to rehear all evidence that had so far been obtained. The presiding judge read out the records of the evidence heard from the applicant on |
7 January 2003 | 18. The disciplinary investigation was carried out by two inspectors who took statements from X.’s father, from M.K., the manager of the Public Education Centre, from B.A., a teacher at the primary school, from A.T., the principal of the primary school, and from the applicant, who was being held in detention in relati... |
20 July 1999 | 19. As the applicants had reserved their right to additional compensation, they initiated subsequent claims to recover the difference between the amounts awarded and the values assessed by the experts and recognised by the court. In this respect, Mrs Agbayır applied, with a co‑claimant, to the Şanlıurfa Civil Court on... |
23 July 2004 | 8. By an immediately enforceable interim injunction dated 28 December 2009, taken in accordance with Article 276 § 1 of the Act on Enforcement and Injunction Proceedings (see paragraph 36 below), the Regional Court granted F.H.’s request to prohibit the Real Property and Commercial Registry to register certain changes... |
8 December 1999 | 45. On 22 September 1999 the Fourth Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court heard the applicant and other accused, who challenged the accuracy of the house search, arrest and seizure report. The court decided to secure the testimony of those police officers who had effected the arrest and the house search, and po... |
14 January 2008 | 18. The applicant also submitted that on several occasions he had been transported to court hearings and to penal medical institution no. LIU-15 in Volgograd (“institution no. LIU-15”) and that he had spent very short periods, in transit, in temporary detention facility no. IZ-34/1 of the town of Volgograd. In particu... |
22 March 1990 | 10. On 21 February 1990 the defendant was served with a notice by the Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting him to pay the due fee for the preparation of the record of the first instance proceedings. The court’s record was sent by the Larnaca District Court to the Supreme Court on |
27 July 2007 | 118. After carrying out an additional investigation in line with the instructions set out in the judgment of 30 June 2003, the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice committed the former Minister of the Interior, his deputy and two other senior army officers for trial in... |
the night of 19 March 2004 | 42. The prosecutor and the victim’s relatives appealed against the judgment, claiming, inter alia, that the sentences were unduly mild. The applicant also appealed, claiming that his confession had been obtained by way of ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer. He argued that on |
8 November 2004 | 79. On 19 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the Rostov court of the following. On 30 September 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic had quashed the decision of 18 June 2002. On |
8 April 1998 | 18. On 5 February 1998 the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance jurisdiction, held a hearing. On 13 February 1998 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court's decision. The decision was served on the applicants on |
13 February 1997 | 7. On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,935,306 tolars (approximately 20,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On |
5. 11. 1990 | 17. By judgment du 13 July 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 21 April 2004, stating that the violations found by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 17 July 2001 had not been remedied. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“III. The procedural phase following the reope... |
16 February 2000 | 7. On 17 December 1998 the Aliağa Criminal Court found the employer of Ercan Dikici and the other employee who had been working with him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced them to six months' imprisonment. Their sentence was converted into a fine. On |
19 October 2010 | 19. On 25 January 2011 the Kielce Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention for further five months. Apart from the grounds previously relied on, the court noted that the applicant had requested that several new witnesses be heard and considered that he might influence their testimony if released. The co... |
9 April 2004 | 53. According to the register of administrative detention, the second applicant was released from detention at 5 p.m. on 9 April 2004 upon expiry of his sentence. According to the record of the second applicant’s arrest, he was “brought to the police station on |
30 June 2003 | 20. On 26 June 2003 the Van prosecutor’s office decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione loci to investigate the incident and forwarded the applicants’ letter (mentioned in the preceding paragraph) to the office of the prosecutor in Tatvan. On |
23 March 2005 | 12. On 19 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). S.H. cross-appealed.
On 9 March 2005 the court dismissed both appeals, but changed the part of the first –instance judgment concerning legal costs.
The judgment was served on the applicant on |
between 18 July and 1 August 2009 | 33. On 17 July 2009 the Head of Lublin Remand Centre ordered that the applicant be placed in solitary confinement for a period of 14 days as a disciplinary punishment, after he had refused to undergo a strip-search. The applicant asked the Head of Lublin Remand Centre to reconsider his decision. The penalty was implem... |
25 February 2002 | 60. The applicant claimed that during the whole period of the application of the “dangerous detainee” regime he had been held in a solitary cell.
The Government submitted that on the basis of available documents it was impossible to establish whether during his detention in the Radom Remand Centre the applicant was pl... |
28 October 1994 | 24. On 9 May 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on account of an insufficient investigation into the events in question. In this connection, it considered that the first-instance court should have heard Mr Yüce and the witnesses mentioned in the applicants’ petition of |
10 August 2000 | 12. Between 26 October 1999 and 3 May 2000 the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to locate and obtain the case file which had been sent to the expert. On 16 June 2000 it requested the parties to submit all relevant documents to it as the file had been lost with the expert. The court reiterated its request on |
the two years | 15. On 22 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu). He argued that the car had been returned to him in a state of disrepair because it had not been stored properly and, in any event, it had fallen in value during |
3 December 1993 | 8. The applicant company claimed that its own property had been seized on 3 December 1993 together with the property that had formerly belonged to the Association and had been assigned to it in 1992. It also claimed that it had paid for the property assigned to it in 1992 and that therefore the seizure of |
29 January 1997 | 31. In his report, police officer Pervin Gürler stated that the applicant had constantly insulted Turkey and used to bring a Greek flag to school lessons. She was a fanatical nationalist who behaved strangely, pretended to have received death threats and was asocial. She had wanted to enter the territory of “TRNC” wit... |
19 April 1999 | 14. On 15 March 1999 the applicant’s complaint was transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office for Places of Detention. On 30 March 1999 a prosecutor from that office dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed to a hierarchically superior prosecutor. However, the appeal was examined by t... |
13 November 2012 | 57. The charges brought against the applicant by the public prosecutor may be summarised as follows.
(i) In a speech he had given in Batman on 27 October 2012 in the offices of the Peace and Democracy Party (“the BDP”, a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party), the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of the... |
8 August 1995 | 10. On 23 March 2004 the Gvozd police again interviewed Dragica Zdjelar. She said that of her family members, only she and her father had remained in Crni Potok after the beginning of Operation Storm. On |
10 April 2006 | 42. In November 2005 the first applicant lodged a further application for review before the President of the Regional Court. On 22 November 2005 the application was examined and rejected by another judge of the Regional Court. In March 2006 the first applicant again applied for review before the President of the Regio... |
9 January 2004 | 21. On 6 May 2004 the applicant requested the continuation of the inheritance proceedings in respect of the property which was reinstated by the Ljubljana Administration Unit's denationalisation decision of |
August 2011 | 8. On 1 December 2011 she received a reply that according to the relevant domestic legislation health professionals, including midwives, were unable to assist with home births. In particular, although the Act on Midwifery allowed the setting up of private practices by midwives, the Healthcare Act, as the general Act i... |
30 March 2001 | 38. Due to declining profitability, the applicant company went into voluntary liquidation in June 1998. By a decision of 17 June the District Court of Nacka declared the applicant company insolvent. On |
22 August 2000 | 61. On 21 May 2004 the first applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor's Office to bring criminal charges against Colonel Sh., against the head of the detention facility of the Urus-Martan VOVD and against all the servicemen of that department involved in the arrest of Kazbek Vakhayev, his remanding in c... |
30 January 2002 | 48. On an unspecified date the investigator commissioned a graphological forensic examination of the applicant's handwritten confession. The expert report stated as follows:
“[The applicant] wrote the confession on |
twelve years’ | 38. On 15 February 2006 the Crimea Court of Appeal, sitting in first instance, found the applicant guilty of violent robbery, murder for profit, and storage and distribution of drugs, and sentenced him to |
Between 5 March and 23 May 2002 | 41. On 5 March 2002 the Ankara State Security Court decided to ask the Diyarbakır courts for another judgment rendered by the Diyarbakır Military Court in the 1980’s, convicting the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. |
12 November 2005 | 59. On 13 January 2006 the Government submitted their reply. They acknowledged that on 30 November and 1 December 2005, further to a request by the Government's Representative before the European Court dated |
23 August 2004 | 38. On 6 June 2005 the District Court, acting as a first-instance court, upheld the decision of 15 February 2005. The court decided that the investigation had been lawful and sufficiently complete to exclude the criminal responsibility of the police officers in question. The court noted, in particular:
“... During the... |
18 December 2001 | 38. On 15 August 2005 the applicant received a decision on his appeal against the reply he had received on 22 July. The reply was signed by a hierarchically superior prosecutor. In contrast with the previous response, this time a distinction was made between the conversations that had been recorded before and after th... |
1 April 2008 | 13. According to the applicant, the hospital dismissed her requests to be discharged, and she was not allowed to use a mobile phone, send correspondence or receive visitors. When the applicant contacted her lawyer allegedly seeking to update her application before the Court and to challenge her involuntary confinement... |
7 October 2006 | 29. On 11 December 2006 an investigator of the Moskovskiy district prosecutor’s office ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. The investigator stated that at about 5 a.m. on 7 October 2006 the applicant had fallen from office no. 217 on the first floor of the police station and received injuries to b... |
4 November 1993 | 28. The District Court then made an inquiry with the Liptovský Mikuláš Post Office about the service of the judgment of 7 October 1993 to the State company and obtained the information that service had been effected on |
29 June 2006 | 46. Further to the first applicant's request to fine O.Č., the court requested the Celje Social Work Centre to draw up a report concerning the execution of the first applicant's contact rights. The report was submitted on |
25 January 2012 | 10. The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial. The courts extended his detention, using the above formula. The courts referred also to the applicant’s family status, personality, state of health, possibility to put pressure on witnesses and interfere with the investigation, absence of job. In... |
9 July 2002 | 71. The investigation of the kidnappings of Apti and Musa Elmurzayev did not establish the identities of the perpetrators. The implication of special units of State agencies and federal forces in those crimes was not proven. Neither was it proven that the perpetrators had been driving APCs and UAZ vehicles. According ... |
15 February 2002 | 23. On 10 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the appellate court. In reply to the complaints of the applicant and his lawyer of a violation of the right to defence, the court stated:
“The arguments of the appeals as to the violation of the right to defence of D. Shabelnik during his quest... |
22 December 1995 | 74. Mustafa Kalfa and Kazım Çelik were gendarme officers. In their separate statements, they asserted that all gendarme operations had been recorded in a book on a daily basis but that there was no record of any operation on |
the period between September and December 2004 | 12. On 31 January 2005 Mr V.E., a manager of a company that distributed computer games, lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor in Pazardzhik. Mr V.E. stated that he had visited the applicants’ computer club on several occasions in |
27 March 2007 | 33. Following the remittal by the Sofia Military Court, on 16 March 2007 the investigator arranged for an inspection of the knife, but this failed to determine whether the blade had been open or closed at the time of the shooting. A further medical-ballistics report, dated |
27 June to 5 September 2007 | 21. The time frame of the applicant’s detention in correctional colonies nos. IK-5 and IK-16 in the Nizhniy Novgorod region where the applicant served a prison sentence can be presented as follows:
Period
Detention facility
From |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.