target stringlengths 11 70 | prompt stringlengths 200 10k |
|---|---|
27 April 2007 | 60. On 22 February 2007 the first applicant requested the authorities to expedite the search for her missing son. As a result, on 27 March 2007 the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended a month later, on |
five years previously | 9. On 14 July 2005 the Bryanskiye Budni published the full version of the article. It was entitled “Where does the ‘children’s money’ disappear to?” (Куда исчезают «детские деньги») and read as follows:
“The Bryansk Department of Education headed by I. Geraschenkov and his first deputy N. Prokopenko spends more than 1... |
1 July 2005 | 26. On 18 July 2005 they lodged an appeal with the Istanbul Court Administrative requesting the setting aside of the decision not to enrol the applicant. They relied on section 15 of Act No. 5378 of |
Between January 2002 and October 2003 | 14. On 27 December 2002 the title to the four plots of land was entered in the land register, and on 8 and 9 January 2003 the second applicant and the other two claimants sold their respective plots to the fifth applicant, the limited liability company Bulduru Muiža, the owner and director of which at the material tim... |
more than one year’s | 12. On 28 July 2011 the Criminal Court of Appeal dismissed appeals lodged by the first and fourth applicants against the detention orders, finding, inter alia, that as the alleged offence carried a sentence of |
15 December 1998 | 12. Having received the case file, on 11 March 1998 the Nevskiy District Court joined the two sets of the proceedings pertaining to the applicant’s actions and listed a hearing for 3 April 1998. Between April 1998 and March 2000 the District Court fixed fourteen hearings, of which, according to the Government, three h... |
three years | 16. Meanwhile in December 2000, the situation in Afghanistan not having sufficiently improved, the applicant’s conditional residence permit was converted ex lege into an indefinite residence permit after he had held it for a period of |
4 June 2008 | 15. On 17 April 2008 the plaintiff submitted the relevant documents and the applicant’s representative applied to have the hearing postponed to examine them. His application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for |
10 September 2001 | 38. On 8 October 2001 a confrontation took place in which prosecutor J.D. cross-examined the applicant and both traffic police officers; the applicant’s counsel was present. O.Ž maintained statements he had previously made on |
29 August 1990 | 13. A hearing which was scheduled by the Innsbruck Regional Court for 22 March 1990 had to be postponed as the claimant had failed to submit necessary documents and a witness could not be summoned. It was held on |
23 November 2001 | 44. On 25 October 2001 the applicant brought an action before the administrative courts, complaining about the general conditions of detention and his specific treatment by the administration of the Rasų Prison. On |
26 July 2002 | 22. On unspecified date the applicants complained under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the Pension Fund’s failure to enforce the judgment of 26 July 2002 prior to its quashing on 3 March 2006. They sought pension arrears under the judgment of |
23 October 2003 | 37. The warrant of 23 July 2003 (see paragraph 6 above) was issued under section 4 of the Protection of Privacy from Unauthorised Use of Technical Means of Secret Surveillance Act (Law no. 166/2003 Coll. - “the Privacy Protection Act”). It was issued at the request of the criminal police and valid for a period until |
8 February 1995 | 86. On 19 October 1999, upon completion of the preliminary investigation, the competent prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and sent the case to the Magadan City Court for trial. The bill of indictment bore the original case no. 48529 and stated that the proceedings in that case had been initiated on |
December 2002 | 84. On 21 February 2005 the Chechnya military commander forwarded the seventh applicant’s complaint about her brother’s abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The military commander stated that:
“... On |
13 and 14 July 1993 | 23. At the hearing on 17 May 1993 it was established that the Regional Court had intercepted the applicant’s letter to his lawyer and transmitted it to him only on 14 May 1993. The hearing set for 17 until 21 May 1993 was therefore adjourned to |
24 September 2010 | 28. The Moscow migration authority also stated that, according to the applicant, after the ethnic conflict in June 2010 in Osh, he had been oppressed by Kyrgyz nationals and had had to leave Kyrgyzstan for Russia, where he had been living since |
15 June 2001 | 19. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics, who gave his decision on 11 October 2001. In his decision the Inspector warned the editors of Lietuvos Aidas as follows:
“[The article of |
2 April 2002 | 70. In a final judgment of 11 February 2004, the Ploieşti Court of Appeal declared the CEPSB’s appeal against the judgment of 14 February 2002 void for failure to satisfy procedural requirements. It observed that the centre had omitted to state reasons for its appeal within the statutory period and held in that connec... |
16 or 17 September | 76. As his two closest relatives had also been detained on the same premises, he had endeavoured to keep watch through an aperture in the cell-door window to see what was happening in the corridor. On |
4 August 1991 | 27. On 16 September 2002 the court, having held an oral hearing at which it heard D, among others, ordered the applicant father to pay compensation to D in the amount of 20,182 euros plus interest from |
the same day | 15. On 13 February 2003 the Wołomin District Court decided to apply police supervision in place of pre-trial detention. It also prohibited the applicant from leaving the country. In the reasoned grounds for its decision, it stated that, bearing in mind the progress made in collecting evidence, the risk that the applic... |
six months’ | 10. In August 2009 the applicant tried to leave Bulgaria with false documents. He was arrested by the police at the Bulgarian‑Greek border. On 21 August 2009 the Petrich District Court approved a plea bargain whereby the applicant pleaded guilty to offences of illegally crossing the border and trying to deceive a publ... |
11 July 2010 | 77. During his time in Bruges Prison the applicant was visited on an almost daily basis by his wife and/or his children. The authorities of Merksplas Prison, to which he was subsequently transferred and where he remained until |
26 August 1999 | 16. The District Court noted that the Instruction had been issued after the judgment in the case had become enforceable, that the Pensions Act itself had not changed and that the Instruction had been required because of the “different interpretation of the [Pensions] Act's provisions by claimants, officials and the RF... |
the same day | 18. A decision of 20 January 1995, which was applicable from 15 February to 15 May 1995, cited the same reasons and was approved by the Regional Director’s Office. The applicant refused to sign the notice informing him of the decision. In a medical certificate issued |
16 November 2001 | 16. On 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without undue delay guaranteed by Article 48(2) of the Constitution and by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated. The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the... |
28 July 2010 | 19. In the meantime, on 23 July 2010 a court session was held, at which the detention was again prolonged. Both the applicant and his lawyer appealed, orally, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision.
Moreover, the applicant’s lawyer lodged a written elaboration of the appeal. This submission reached the co... |
9 January 2002 | 19. On 29 May 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal allowed the request submitted by the Regional Court and extended the applicant’s detention until 1 October 2002. The appellate court repeated the grounds for prolonging his detention given in its previous decision of |
30 September | 34. Each detainee was provided with a mattress, a pillow, sheets and a blanket. The sheets were changed on the days the applicant was allowed to take a shower. According to the relevant ledger, the applicant took showers on 9, 21 and 29 July, 4, 14, 24 and 30 August, 7, 13, 27 and |
the following day | 17. On 10 January 2011 the first applicant was invited to give statements at Călăraşi police station regarding her complaints against A. She submitted that she was then pressured by the police into withdrawing her criminal complaint, because if A. had a criminal record and lost his job, this would have a negative impa... |
28 November 2006 | 8. On 15 June 2000 the first-instance court ordered valuation of the property. It was carried out on 10 October 2000. The first-instance court's decision in this respect dated 22 March 2001. It was served on the debtor on |
19 April 2000 | 13. As the judgment had not been executed, the applicant brought an application for index-linking of the award in line with an increase in the market prices of immovable property. At a hearing before the Town Court the defendant town council did not object to the applicant’s claim. In a judgment of |
19 October 2007 | 19. On 29 December 2005 M.I. sold the apartment. The applicant and her husband lodged a civil action seeking a declaration that the sale contract was null and void on the ground that M.I. had attempted to become insolvent. On |
November 2000 | 57. It does not appear that the applicant ever applied to the United Kingdom courts in order to obtain a judgment from them giving him access to the child. However, on an unspecified date in 2007 he applied to the High Court in London for the recognition of the Romanian judgment of |
September until late-October 2012 | 126. From September 2011 until September 2012 (presumably with a break when he was detained in Warszawa Służewiec Remand Centre – see paragraph 250 below) the applicant attended vocational high school three days per week. From |
25 January 2008 | 51. On 20 February 2008 the Regional Court again requested the parties to give their consent to the written procedure, as it had overlooked that their consent of 25 October 2007 had only been valid until |
mid-April 2010 | 12. At the questioning, the applicant acknowledged that he knew that the sawmill was attached and that he was not allowed to dispose of it in any way. However, since he considered that the basis for the attachment was wrong, he had decided to hide it. He stated that he took full responsibility for his actions and that... |
14 November 2001 | 30. On 27 October 1998 the Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 11 June 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 27 October 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the final judgment. On |
27 March 1999 | 9. On 20 February 2003, by a final judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the statements complained of by Valeriu Matei were not defamatory of him, inter alia, because Flux had simply reproduced N.A.'s statements. However, it found that the following part of the article's title was defamatory of Valeriu Matei: “N.A.... |
5 November 2001 | 20. On 3 October 2007 the District Court examined the case afresh and allowed the applicant’s action. The court found that the military unit was to pay the applicant RUB 41,528.75 of compensation for inflation losses resulting from the delayed enforcement of the judgment of |
27 April 1998 | 31. Draft extracts of the inquiry's preliminary findings were circulated to those subjected to criticism to allow them the opportunity to comment. A number of witnesses were recalled to give evidence on |
27 September 1977 to 26 February 1992 | 161. Mr Ademi was born on 28 July 1952 in Skopje (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) in a Roma ethnic community. He is now a Macedonian citizen. In 1977 he moved to Slovenia, where he worked until 1992. He had his permanent residence registered there from |
between 2000 and 2006 | 9. The applicant was a minority shareholder in and the CEO of a liquefied gas supply company from southern Moldova in which the State owned 82% of the shares. In July 2006 a criminal investigation was initiated in respect of an alleged unsuccessful attempt by the applicant to commit a fraud in connection with his acti... |
several months | 6. The applicant receives an old-age pension. From April 1998 to April 1999 she received her pension several months in arrears. According to the applicant, inflation during this period meant that the pension paid |
1 December 1986 | 12. On 14 November 1986, on the basis of those documents, the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Privatisation asked the Competition Commission (which became the Competition Council after the entry into force of Ordinance no. 86-1243 of |
twenty-three years' | 9. On 12 October 1999 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of robbery committed with a view to acquiring others' property on a large scale and accompanied by infliction of grievous bodily harm on the victim (Article 162 § (b) and (c)); unlawful detention of a person entailing grave co... |
7 June 2004 | 8. On 3 May 2005 the applicant, through his legal counsel, challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and detention in so far as the arrest warrant had not been issued in accordance with the European Arrest Warrant requirements (in force on |
30 July 2002 | 27. On 2 April 2003 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment, finding that it had been lawful and justified. As to the experts, it held that the judgment had not been based solely on the report of |
20 May 1995 | 32. On 9 October 2001 the Van Administrative Court, basing its decision on the doctrine of “social risk” on the same ground as above, awarded the third applicant TRL 305,135,146[5] in respect of pecuniary damage together with legal interest running from |
12 July 2002 | 7. On 12 April 2002 the applicants were charged with aggravated fraud, a serious offence punishable with up to ten years' imprisonment at the material time. On 25 June 2002 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and on |
17 April 1992 | 8. On 28 April 1992 a criminal complaint was filed against Mr Necdet Menzir, the Head of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the time, and the police officers who had been involved in the three operations conducted on |
20 October 2000 | 21. On 16 October 2000 the applicant foundation submitted a request to the Directorate-General of Foundations (the “Directorate”) for the amendment of its constitution. It sought a new constitutive instrument that would grant it the capacity to acquire immovable property. The request was rejected on |
29 July 2016 | 11. On 28 July 2016 the governor of the detention centre asked the Kalininskiy District Court to discontinue the enforcement of the judgment on the ground that the two-year limitation period in respect of the applicant’s offence had expired. On |
28 January 2011 | 64. The medical experts decided that, in view of the instability of the applicant’s condition, it was not necessary to examine him in person. They assessed the applicant’s condition on the basis of his medical file provided by the SIZO. In their report of |
16 September 2003 | 47. The Government further submitted a report of 16 September 2003 by the same officer, who informed that on the same day the applicants had dismissed his offer to drive them to their former place of residence. The documents also contained a copy of a universal power of attorney dated |
21 January 2003 | 20. On 6 January 2003 the Karşıyaka Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection concerning the alleged ill-treatment. In this connection, it held that, apart from the bruises sustained by the applicant while he had been running from the police and had fallen, there was no physical evidence of ill-treatment. On th... |
25 October 1980 | 35. On 18 November 2005 the first applicant received a letter from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs which stated as follows:
“In your interview of 14 October 2005 you expressed your fear that you would not be given leave to enter the United States and thus would not be able to visit your daughter Charlotte, sinc... |
28 April 2009 | 18. On 13 July 2010 the Migration Office informed the applicants that it intended to dismiss their request. It established that the applicants had brought the children to Switzerland illegally despite the negative decision of the Migration Office of |
30 October 2002 | 49. The Government submitted that the applicant had been questioned by the investigators on 27 July and 30 October 2002, 30 May 2003 and 6 April 2005 respectively and had been granted the status of victim on |
18 December 2002 | 9. In its appeal to the High Court the applicant company requested that, as had been done before the City Court, adjudication in the counter-action, notably concerning the amount of the applicant company’s counter-claim and related causation issues, be disjoined in accordance with Article 151 § 2 of the Code of Civil ... |
the summer of 2013 | 59. Fourthly, the Board considered it unlikely (“lite sannsynlig”) that the applicant would be able to protect the children from their father if they were returned to her. When the children were younger, the applicant had repeatedly demonstrated that she was unable to protect herself and the children from C. She had m... |
31 May 2006 | 8. On 10 May 2007 the Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region (“Pension Fund”) lodged with the Moscow Regional Court (“Regional Court”) an application for supervisory review of the judgment of |
26 October 2000 | 43. On 5 September 2000 the District Construction Inspector ordered the applicants to supplement their motion of 10 August 2000 with the decision of 5 September 1986 joined by an enforcement clause. On |
19 December 2012 | 69. On 28 November 2012 the Mayor filed an appeal against the decision of 21 February 2012, invoking the nullity of the entire proceedings on the grounds that it had been impossible to defend his rights.
The appellate hearing, which was scheduled for |
20 February 2002 | 35. On 15 February 2002 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court of Cassation. He filed the appeal with the Plovdiv Regional Court, as required by the relevant rules of civil procedure. On |
23 July 2009 | 19. On 10 September 2009 the military prosecutor’s office, which had been tasked with examining all complaints of ill-treatment during the events of April 2009, decided not to launch a criminal investigation in response to the applicants’ complaint of |
29 September 2009 | 25. The court further relied on various provisions of the old 1982 Housing Code, which had been in effect until 1 October 2009. The court noted that the 1982 Housing Code was still in force at the time when the applicant had been issued with an occupancy voucher on |
29 July 1881 | 14. On 18 March 1994 the association General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for the French and Christian Identity (Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l'identité française et chrétienne (AGRIF)) brought proceedings before the Paris Criminal Court against Mr P. Tesson, publishing director... |
22 December 1998 | 16. On 18 July 1997 the court granted the application of two defendants to order the expert to prepare an opinion on moisture in their houses for the purpose of preserving evidence (Beweissicherungsantrag). On |
2 July 2001 | 51. In a letter of 17 April 2003, the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic informed the first and third applicants “in reply to their numerous queries” that on 14 April 2003 criminal proceedings no. 59114 had been instituted under Article 126 (2) in connection with the abduction of their sons on |
17 December 2008 | 14. Should the developer fail to comply with the requirements of the above provisions, this order may be repealed in accordance with the law.” 9. The applicant’s house was located in one of the neighbourhoods mentioned in point 6 of the order. According to the applicant, he was never informed of this order by the exe... |
27 October 2008 | 15. In May 2008 the investigator heard the experts and a witness. On 27 May 2008 it appointed an institution in the Czech Republic with a view to obtaining a counter-opinion. Upon the investigator’s request a public prosecutor transmitted the relevant documents, on |
February 1999 | 19. The first hearing was rescheduled for September 1998 because the judge was involved in other proceedings. The hearing was subsequently postponed until December 1998 because the co-defendant requested the assistance of defence counsel. The December hearing was rescheduled for |
more than twenty years | 8. In her subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued that she had been a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac, owned by the Karlovac Municipality and had to leave that flat owing to the circumstances not attributable to her. She had moved into the other flat, on the basis of a de... |
3 November 2006 | 8. The Viru County Court convicted the applicant of repeated rape, between 2001 and 2005, of his minor daughter, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. As summary proceedings had been applied, the sentence was reduced by one third. The operative part of the judgment was delivered at a hearing on |
7 April 1987 | 30. The Constitutional Court noted that the proceedings in issue concerned a claim for compensation for serious damage to the health of Ms Ivana Dvořáčková. That claim was based on allegedly incorrect medical diagnoses as a result of which I. Dvořáčková’s lung and heart had been damaged to the extent that she had been... |
24 October 2008 | 27. At the hearing on 14 May 2009 the Kraków Regional Court decided to lift the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court decided that the detention of the applicant and his two co-accused was no longer necessary, particularly since eleven other co-accused had already been released. The court also found that the argu... |
20 August 2005 | 50. During his detention in the SIZO and the Colony the applicant underwent medical checks, including X-ray examinations and blood tests, on 12 September 2001, 11 September 2002, 18 April and 24 October 2003, 17 May, 7 June and |
last five years’ | 67. On 14 March 1995 the Social Welfare Board rejected the applicants’ request of 26 May 1994 that the care order be revoked, stating as follows:
“At the moment the health of the children’s mother, K., is better and the family situation has changed in other respects in comparison with the situation in 1993 when the de... |
30 April 2000 | 18. On 24 May 2004 the proceedings in the case were stayed pending consideration of the applicant company's complaint lodged in 2004 against the tax administration regarding unlawfulness of the latter's decision of |
1 July 1997 | 14. A hearing scheduled for 8 May 1997 was adjourned due to the absence of the co-accused B.C. and the lawyers for the applicant and B.C. The trial court fixed the dates of the subsequent hearings for 17 June and |
at least five years | 41. The applicants submitted a copy of a judgment of the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court delivered in an unrelated civil case on 31 January 2003. It follows from the judgment that Ms G. acted as a lay judge in the proceedings. The applicants also submitted an affidavit by a former employee of the Krasnoarmeyskiy Distri... |
27 September 1990 | 13. On 12 December 2003 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows:
“The administrative proceedings that resulted in the impugned decision were exclusively concerned with the issue of the legitimacy of the marriage. Accordin... |
26 October 2001 | 44. The hearing started later than scheduled, due to the commotion caused by the applicant’s fainting and the arrival of the ambulance. The presiding judge enquired about the applicant’s health by calling the Mokotów Detention Centre and the Anin Institute of Cardiology. From the latter the judge learned that the appl... |
23 September 2009 | 22. On 22 September 2009 the applicant was imprisoned until the outstanding confiscation figure was paid. Following large contributions from family and friends, the outstanding balance was paid in its entirety on |
4 June 2015 | 15. On 7 March 2014 the applicant appealed to the Higher Administrative Court. He reiterated the complaints raised in his action in the Administrative Court and submitted that the latter court had not provided any reasoning regarding his complaint that the publication of the Commission’s decision on its website had vi... |
8 November 2010 | 21. In a final judgment of 15 March 2010 the applicant was sentenced by an Austrian court to life imprisonment. He was transferred from Austria to Bulgaria on 15 July 2010 in order to serve his sentence. On |
three years | 19. On 13 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court postponed the criminal proceedings against the applicant pursuant to Article 1 § 3 of Law no. 4304 of 14 July 1997. The court also decided, under Article 2 of the same Law, that the criminal proceedings would be set aside provided that the applicant did not inte... |
6 April 2015 | 16. On 13 November 2015 the applicant submitted audio recordings and a transcript of taped telephone conversations which allegedly involved the then chairman of the Lustration Commission and a member of parliament from the ruling political party. The material concerned conversations in which that member of parliament ... |
13 March 1995 | 97. On 29 April 1998 Mr O.V. Reatsky, a prosecutor from the Prosecutor General’s Office, visited the applicant who then made a written statement. The applicant confirmed, inter alia, that he had been detained in Khmelnitskiy Prison since |
26 May 2008 | 5. On 24 May 2000 the applicant sued a company before the Bratislava I District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to comply with its contractual obligations and to compensate damage caused to the applicant. Courts at two levels of jurisdiction dealt with mainly procedural issues (such as payment o... |
20 July 2004 | 60. On 8 May 2003 the court appointed a liquidator and confirmed the liquidation of Marini-Albplastik. The District Court’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in a decision of 20 November 2003. The Supreme Court, on |
4 July 2008 | 17. On 25 June 2008 the Special Court examined the grounds for the applicant’s detention and ruled that he should remain in detention. It pointed out that, according to the indictment, he was allegedly the leader of a criminal group, a group which had been conducting criminal activities for six years against people wh... |
the Easter weekend | 36. It would appear that the union proceeded with industrial action on 6 April 1998. Supportive industrial action was also taken by other trade unions. On 8 April the applicant company joined the Swedish Textile and Clothing Industries' Association and thus became bound by a collective agreement. The union's own indus... |
27 April 2007 | 15. On 20 April 2007 the police investigator, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, watched a videotape and noted in a report that the tape showed the applicant selling drugs to P. as part of the test purchase. The applicant’s lawyer asked to watch the tape. On |
23 January 2003 | 33. The Government submitted that on 21 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office had opened criminal case no. 44011 into the abduction of Balavdi Ustarkhanov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The applicant was informed of this on |
5 July 1988 | 11. On 30 May 1988 the applicants requested the Governor of Koszalin to offer them an alternative plot of land on which they could construct a house. On 15 June 1988 the Koszalin Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments requested the Mayor of Darłowo to grant the applicants’ request. On |
1 and 12 August 2012 | 32. In a letter dated 17 January 2013 the head of the Municipal Children’s Centre stated that the Ciocana Child Protection Service had placed A. in the care of the centre on 30 September 2011 and had prohibited any visits by the applicant until the end of the court proceedings. The letter confirmed that the applicant ... |
13 June 2003 | 22. The applicant challenged the request for the protection of legality, arguing that it could not be used as a remedy and that it substantially contradicted the general position on the matter adopted at the meeting of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court on |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.