target stringlengths 11 70 | prompt stringlengths 200 10k |
|---|---|
13 May 1996 | 7. Thirteen hearings were held by the trial court between 1 May 1995 and 12 September 1997 in the absence of the applicant. At each of these hearings the trial court noted the authorities’ failure to locate the applicant’s address. According to the applicant, the reason for his absence from those hearings was that he ... |
13 January 2012 | 16. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the two police officers, accusing them of unlawful deprivation of liberty, unlawful investigation and torture, and seeking compensation. The complaint was registered with police station no. 19 on |
3 October 2003 | 34. On 22 April 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk dismissed his claim. It referred, in particular, to the results of the prosecutor’s inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; the investigator K.’s decision of |
29 September 1994 | 9. On 7 September 1994 an inspection of the site was carried out. On 15 September 1994 the Land Office requested the Ministry of Environment to provide access to their archives in order to find a purchase contract of 1970. On |
27 November 1997 | 11. The Karmsund District Court (herredsrett), sitting with 2 professional judges and 3 lay judges, held a hearing from 20 October to 19 November 1997, during which 84 witnesses and 5 experts were heard. On |
17 January 2006 | 17. On 19 October 2005 the Principal Public Prosecutor ordered the occupied buildings to be vacated as work was scheduled to begin on 22 November 2005. An appeal was lodged against the eviction order. In a judgment of |
22 August 2003 | 16. Subsequently, on 7 August 2002 the compensation proceedings began. On 14 February 2003 the Expropriation Committee (lunastustoimikunta, inlösningskommissionen) decided on the amount of compensation. The decision was upheld by the Mikkeli Land Court (maaoikeus, jorddomstolen) on |
the same day | 7. At the material time the applicant and her son Balavdi Ustarkhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. On 31 December 2002 Balavdi Ustarkhanov went to Zakan-Yurt to celebrate the New Year holiday with his friend, Mr Magomed M. On |
11 December 1989 | 12. On 18 July 1989 the applicant applied for discovery by KC. On 5 October 1989 the High Court ordered discovery to be made by KC within six weeks. On 28 November 1989 he applied to strike out the defence of KC as they had not made discovery as ordered. That application was adjourned on |
November 2002 | 95. Resolution 2004/12 of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan expressed its grave concern “at the continuing failure of the Government of Turkmenistan to respond to the criticisms identified in the report of the Rapporteur of the Moscow Mechanism of the OSCE as regards the i... |
11 November 1999 | 93. He added that the section of the report on the Ajarian High Court's judgment of 11 November 1999 declaring the presidential pardon null and void for procedural defects was entirely erroneous. He pointed out that on |
29 November 2012 | 19. In other proceedings concerning an action brought against the applicant company (by a different person) in connection with the purchase of shares in IF, the applicant company filed an extraordinary appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of |
thirty-seven days | 44. The Government disputed the applicant’s version of events. Relying on records of disciplinary offences drawn up in correctional colony no. 5, they noted that during his detention in the colony between January and December 2008 the applicant had violated the regulations fifty-four times and had been ranked a “persi... |
18 February 1999 | 23. On an unidentified date the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Saki Town Court, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by improper enforcement of the judgment of |
26 January 2009 | 22. On 21 January 2009 the applicant complained about his detention to Babushkinskiy District Court in Moscow. The complaint was submitted to the administration of the detention facility for further transmission to the court on |
January 1998 | 10. On an unspecified date the Kyiv Department of Justice (Управління юстиції в м. Києві) initiated an investigation into the absence of the verbatim record of the hearing of 19 September 1997 from the case-file. In |
27 May 1999 | 13. In the meantime, Ms Polikseni Pistika’s legal guardian had commenced two legal challenges against the above decision. In this connection on 10 March 1999 the legal guardian filed an action in the 7th Chamber of the Istanbul Magistrate’s Court for the re-opening of the proceedings. His request was dismissed on |
over a month | 37. In an order of 2 October 2001, an investigating judge at the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance committed the applicant and the two other defendants to stand trial before the Criminal Court on account of the following passages from the impugned article.
“The judge [M.] is accused by Olivier Morice and Laurent de... |
21 October 2003 | 17. On 6 February 2004 counsel for the applicant asked the director of the remand centre to release the applicant. In her submission, as there had been no arrest warrant issued by a Tajikistani court, the provisions of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure on pre-trial detention were to be applied. Article 109 set th... |
14 December 2004 | 25. The Court of Appeal accordingly noted that the applicant’s most recent illegal activities relating to drugs dated back to more than five years before the preventive measure had been imposed. All that the court could hold against him was an offence of absconding, committed on |
7 June 2014 | 24. According to a document drawn up by the prosecutor on 16 April 2007 setting out the details of the applicant’s prison sentence, the date of the applicant’s release from prison was set as 22 October 2018, with a possibility of release on |
18 April 1999 | 12. The chief prosecutor maintained in his written submissions of 9 April 1999 that HADEP had close ties with the PKK, and alleged that the former was being controlled by the latter. The chief prosecutor also repeated his request for HADEP to be dissolved before the elections which were to be held on |
11 November 2008 | 24. The applicant joined to the case file copies of the complaints lodged with the television channel and the National Audiovisual Council by judge G.E. and the letters she had received in reply.
The relevant part of the letter sent by the National Audiovisual Council read as follows:
“On |
Between 28 and 29 September 2001 | 7. The applicant was suspected of an aggravated drugs offence. On an unspecified date the public prosecutor brought charges against him and two other persons, L.J. and J.J. According to the indictment, the defendants had decided to obtain a large amount of amphetamine from Estonia. |
9 January 1995 | 7. On 12 September 1994, following her former partner's opposition to the court order, she introduced a claim with the Hanover Regional Court against her former partner for payment of a settlement (Abfindung) in the amount of 310,179.51 euros (EUR). On |
29 January 2003 | 11. The applicant appealed and on 2 October 2003 the Cologne Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Köln) dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that, as the applicant and the mother were unmarried, the applicant’s participation in the exercise of custody was only possible in accordance with Article 1626a of the Civil Code. Th... |
22 and 23 March 2008 | 13. The Hakkari public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the applicant’s parents’ allegations of ill-treatment. On 17 April 2008 he decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers who had arrested the applicant. In his decision he explained that he had examined the video-recording of the... |
17 June 2010 | 19. On 21 June 2010 the Malynivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Malynivskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Malynivskyy Court”) for an extension of the applicant’s “extradition detention” pursuant to the legislative amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in force since |
27 May 1997 | 16. In a judgment of 14 December 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by Mr Orban and the applicant company. In response to their ground of appeal based on Article 10 of the Convention, it held:
“... the Court of Appeal held that all the information published had been obtained by Mr Gubler... |
9 October 2004 | 37. On 4 November 2004 the Uzlovaya Town Court heard the prosecutor's application for a further extension of the applicant's detention. The applicant and his co-defendants applied for release, maintaining that the initial six-month period of their detention pending trial had expired on |
Later that year | 12. On 24 March 2010 the Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal in camera. The applicant testified before the court and stated that in 1999 his brother O.Z. had been prosecuted by the United States’ authorities for a computer crime perpetrated in that country; after serving his sentence in the United States, i... |
13 March 1943 | 15. Mr and Mrs Aubrac then set out those of the applicants’ allegations which they considered defamatory and their reasons for so considering them:
“A. The circumstances of Raymond Aubrac’s arrest in March 1943
The first falsehood of which the Aubracs are accused is that Raymond Aubrac was arrested on |
18 November 1986 | 10. On 29 April 1986 the first hearing was held and on 14 July 1986 the second. On 1 August 1986 the file was transmitted to the Lienz District Court (Bezirksgericht) to hear two witnesses and the applicant. On |
4 June 1985 | 27. On 8 July 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court disallowed a constitutional complaint by the applicant (no. 2 BvR 1160/00) on the ground that it had insufficient chances of succeeding. In the Federal Court’s opinion, the decisions appealed against did not raise any constitutional issues in the light of its |
18 July 1997 | 28. Following the prosecutor’s proposal of 10 June 1997, a month later the court appointed the Military Institute to determine and submit a report on whether the cause of the explosion had been of a technical nature or a human mistake. On |
23 and 24 May 2000 | 9. Two days after the murder, the police collected the applicant from his workplace and brought him to the police station. The police interrogated him for 10 hours until 00.30 am on 24 May 2000, and then brought him to his home. The interrogation became known to the press and was presented in the national media on |
four days later | 11. Directly after birth on 25 August 1999, Ms M. gave Christofer for adoption. The Wittenberg Youth Office (Jugendamt), as Christofer's curator (Amtsvormund), immediately informed Mr and Ms B., who were registered as prospective adoptive parents and who had previously adopted a child, that Christofer had been given f... |
22 October 1992 | 12. By a letter dated 8 April 1992, the Magistrates' Court informed Customs that a distress warrant could not be issued. In another letter, dated 12 August 1992, the magistrates sought information from Customs about the appointing of a receiver. Customs replied on |
three or four months | 80. At the relevant time, the applicant’s son Ferhat lived with him and helped him at his building site. Ferhat also worked for Özgür Gündem as a provincial reporter. He was not politically active. However, he had been taken into custody on two occasions before his disappearance. His first detention, on charges of aid... |
17 November and 15 December 2004 | 37. On 7 and 30 November 2004 the criminal proceedings against the police officers were discontinued, with the finding that there was no case of ill-treatment. Both decisions were quashed by higher-ranking prosecutors on |
21 February 2008 | 24. On 21 February 2008 the district public prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 24 September 2008 the Plovdiv regional public prosecutor’s office quashed the decree of |
between March and June 1994 | 12. Related criminal charges had been brought against the applicant and three other defendants in the Blackspur proceedings on 1 July 1992. In May 1993 the applicant and other defendants had applied to stay the disqualification proceedings pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The criminal trial took pla... |
21 October 1999 | 70. At a hearing held on 16 September 1999 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. At a hearing held on 13 October 1999 the applicant again unsuccessfully applied for release. The court requested the Medical Panel of the Opole Detention Centre to submit information regarding his health. At a hearing h... |
19 November 2002 | 39. On 1 August 2003 the UGA military prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20116 had examined her complaint about Musa Ilyasov's abduction but had failed to establish his whereabouts or the identity of his abductors. The first applicant was directe... |
9 October 2012 | 35. At its first hearing following the termination of the criminal proceedings, which was held on 3 May 2011, the labour court ordered the appointment of an expert to determine the applicant’s pecuniary damage as a result of her daughter’s death. However, the expert was not officially appointed until |
seven months later | 17. At the hearing held on 9 October 1998 the court heard the parties and decided to obtain an opinion from an expert in psychiatry with a view to deciding on custody and access rights. However, since the applicant and Z.J. did not advance the costs of the expert opinion until |
22 March 2001 | 5. In 2000 the applicant sued the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Finance for an unfounded criminal prosecution. On 15 December 2000 the Yelizovskiy District Court of the Kamchatka Regional Court awarded the applicant damages. This judgment became binding on |
August 2004 | 30. The visits by the applicant’s family, his common-law wife and daughter, were subject to restrictions, but he had been able to receive them regularly. The first visit from his common law wife took place in |
23 March 2005 | 25. On 5 September 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Seymskiy District of Kursk again refused to institute criminal proceedings. According to the findings of the inspection, the officials of colony OX-30/3 had not abused their official authority and did not use physical force against the applicant. The use of a rubb... |
more than two years ago | 31. On 17 May 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor's office describing in detail the circumstances of Isa Aytamirov's abduction by Russian servicemen. They pointed out that the investigation into Isa Aytamirov's abduction had been initiated |
30 June 2004 | 18. On 8 March 2004 the Governing Council of Iraq promulgated the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period (known as the “Transitional Administrative Law”). This provided a temporary legal framework for the administration of Iraq for the transitional period which was due to commence by |
5 July 2010 | 22. On 7 June 2010, the applicant, having received no reply from the State Attorney, requested that his compensation claim be extended to cover the damage resulting from the alleged excessive length of the enforcement proceedings. On |
the afternoon of 1 July 1999 | 33. Drawing on the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation and at the trial, the Regional Court established the facts as follows: the applicant’s former partner, D.K., had started work as a cashier in the bureau de change in question in 1997 when she was still living with him. While working there she ha... |
19 January 2000 | 41. In the context of the proceedings in Khashiyev and Akayeva (cited above, §§ 46-68), the Government submitted a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 12038, opened on 3 May 2000 by the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office into the “mass murder by the '205th brigade' of civilians in the Novaya Katayama sett... |
17 July 2008 | 29. The investigating authorities collected extracts from the applicant’s medical records and written explanations from a guard who had been allegedly involved in the beatings. The colony officers denied using force against the applicant, supporting their arguments with the applicant’s written statements of |
three years and nine months' | 12. On 7 November 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court heard the applicants' defence submissions. The applicants pleaded not guilty and argued that in the book they had merely criticised fascist policies in Turkey and, particularly, had expressed their opinion about the prison system. They claimed further that their... |
25 March 1996 | 20. On 7 June 2000 the Supreme Court found that the courts’ failure to hold a public hearing and to pronounce their decisions publicly violated section 6 §§ 3 and 4 of the 1969 Act taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It, therefore, quashed the Vienna Regional Criminal Court’s decision of |
18 May 2001 | 19. On 18 May 2001 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. On 28 June 2001 the District Court appointed a guardian to the defendant as his whereabouts were unknown. The District Court’s decision of |
early March 2003 | 17. During his first medical examination in the colony on 13 January 2003 the applicant complained of fatigue and headache. A chest fluorography exam performed on 5 February 2003 revealed singular small residual patches in the upper lobe of the applicant’s left lung. In |
20 November 2006 | 10. The following account of events is based on the information contained in the application form; a written statement made by the first applicant on 22 November 2006; a written statement made by the third applicant on |
25 May 2005 | 16. In 2002 R., a public limited company which had in the meantime become the owner of the apartment, agreed to sell the apartment to a third party. On 26 November 2002 the applicant exercised a right of pre-emption in her favour and bought the property for EEK 700,000. The purchase was financed by the applicant’s dau... |
26 December 2001 | 7. By letters of 10 and 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on |
twenty-four hours | 25. On the same day the investigator of the District Prosecutor’s Office questioned I. P., head of the artillery armament service of military unit no. 6780 based in Vedeno, who stated as follows:
“The following procedure is in place for deploying mortar batteries. Once the command has been received, the mortar battery... |
2 July 2004 | 12. The Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office appealed. In addition to reiterating the reasons given in the ruling of 17 February 2006, it submitted that no injuries to the applicant’s fingers and testicles had been discovered. As regards the injuries documented on |
Friday 7 September 2007 | 46. The case was heard by the Warsaw Regional Court which established the following facts. The applicant was remanded in custody on 9 January 2007. In August 2007 he was admitted to the Warsaw‑Mokotów Detention Centre in order to undergo a psychiatric examination (obserwacja psychiatryczna). After a certain delay, the... |
6 February 2006 | 19. On 2 March 2006, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the DCS officers who had allegedly beaten the applicant on |
31 August 2012 | 75. On 26 June 2012 the second applicants challenged the investigators’ decision of 22 August 2009 to suspend the investigation before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny. On 8 August 2012 the complaint was transferred to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. On |
between 25 July 2012 and 26 December 2017 | 14. The third applicant stated that, in the absence of the right to long visits until 2014, his right to found a family had been more declaratory than effective as, in particular, he had not been able to have any physical contact in order to conceive children. The Government submitted that while serving his sentence t... |
14 November 1995 | 16. The first applicant's lawyer submitted the written grounds for appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal on 22 September 1995. On 2 October 1995 the Central Appeals Tribunal confirmed receipt of the appeal and, on |
1 November 2007 | 18. In 2003 the applicants issued proceedings for damages against the State under the State Responsibility for Damage Act, arguing that the State administration had been responsible for the omission that had led to the nullification of their title. In accordance with their practice in similar cases, the courts rejecte... |
6 July 2002 | 6. On 6 June 2002, the applicant was apprehended by the police.
On 7 June 2002 the prosecutor attached to the Prahova County Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant for thirty days, until |
28 February 2005 | 16. On 27 October 2004 they suspended the investigation for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 11 January 2005, 27 October 2006, 4 May 2007, and an unspecified date in 2008. It was suspended on |
22 November 1991 | 22. On 8 March 1991 the defendant appealed. She alleged that she no longer owned the car in question. On 30 August 1991 the appellate court upheld the District Court’s decision on enforcement of the judgment in question. On |
3 July 2007 | 43. By decision of 20 March 2007 the Court of Appeal amended its decision of 20 April 2006 and appointed a new guardian for the child. An attempt by the newly appointed guardian to call for the child on |
14 September 2000 | 12. Then the second applicant went to the fourth applicant's house and told her Anvar Shaipov had been arrested. The second and the fourth applicants immediately went to the town centre, where they met the first applicant. In the late afternoon all of them managed to speak to the deputy head of the Urus-Martan distric... |
19 February 1997 | 18. Meanwhile, on 11 April 1996, also the applicants appealed against the Provincial Government’s decision, arguing that a member of the Health Board (“M”) had been disqualified from deciding their case. They also requested that the neighbours be ordered to move the dog yard to the other side of their house. On |
4 July 2003 | 37. On 29 July 2003 the applicant was discharged from the hospital and transferred back to the detention facility. According to the relevant discharge certificate (էպիկրիզ) issued by the Chief of the Hospital, M.G., and the Head of the Surgical Unit, A.D.:
“Following the relevant examination and consultations carried ... |
11 May 2000 | 10. According to the Government, on 11 July 2000 the pre-trial investigation was closed and three days later the applicant began studying the case file. However, as appears from a report issued on 5 July 2000 by a senior investigator from the Omsk Regional Police Department, the applicant was provided with the case f... |
27 February 2000 | 85. On 10 October 2006 the investigators refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicants' complaints of ill-treatment by the abductors. The text of the decision included the following:
“... the investigators questioned Aminat Gelayeva [the second applicant], who stated that ... when she had attempted ... |
1 November 2004 | 49. In a letter dated 28 January 2005 the Ministry of the Interior, in reply to a query from the Public Defender's Office, provided its version of the incident of 1 November 2004. Acknowledging that the cottage had been transferred to the first applicant's possession in 1994 by a decision of the then Minister of the I... |
17 August 2012 | 60. The US applicants, who have two biological children and one adopted child, initiated the procedure to adopt another child in March 2012. Having completed the necessary steps for intercountry adoption within the United States, they were registered in the Russian State databank as prospective adoptive parents on |
from 21 October to 17 December 2007 | 21. On 19 April 2010 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 29 September and 19 November 2008 by way of supervisory review and granted the applicant’s claims in part. Referring to the Convention and the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code, the court confirmed that, having been detained ... |
eight years | 43. V.A stated:
“I am living with my father. He takes care of my sister and me. I do not agree to seeing my mother because I do not want to see her. I do not sympathise with my mother because she did not show any interest or concern during my childhood. I am studying at a private school. I do not want to disclose its ... |
28 June 2006 | 18. In spite of the applicant’s request to stay the disciplinary proceedings (see paragraph 16 above), the Disciplinary Council held oral hearings on 27, 28 and 31 March, 5 April, 2, 3, 22, 23 and 24 May and |
12 January 1999 | 13. In a judgment of 30 May 2001 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the action. It observed that in 1992, by a government decision, ownership of the building had been transferred from the Bucharest mayor's office to the company managing the buildings used by diplomatic missions in Romania. That company had been le... |
two months and fifteen days | 13. On 18 March 2004 the daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija reporting from the Government’s meeting of 17 March 2004, reported on the applicant’s removal from office. A small article entitled “Removals and appointments [Razrješenja i imenovanja]” in its relevant part read as follows:
“In Dubrovnik-Neretva County the G... |
11 March 2001 | 36. The Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“The Court of Appeal finds, on the basis of the evidence in the criminal case, that the items found at [R.’s] home and workplace that were declared physical evidence constitute property obtained through crime, and that the identity of the lawful owner thereof has not been est... |
29 March 2007 | 9. On 29 March 2007 two prison guards, Z.V. and F.K., each drew up a report on the use of force on the applicant.
The report drawn up by Z.V. reads:
“On 29 March 2007 at 8.20 a.m. when I was doing my round of the prisoners’ cell no. 29 I heard four or five strong blows of a bench against the door of cell no. 44. After... |
13 November 1995 | 12. On an unspecified date the case against the applicant and Mr N.L. was referred for trial to the Donetsk Regional Court. According to the prosecution, the applicant was guilty of murder for profit, unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful transactions in foreign currency. According to the prosecution’s version ... |
7 July 1998 | 14. On 18 September 1998 the police investigator decided not to pursue the case concerning the above offences which, as the decision stated, had been committed by unknown perpetrators. Reference was made to the decision on presidential amnesty of |
30 September 1994 | 16. On 29 September 1994, the applicant was summoned to the Silvan Gendarmerie where he allegedly counter-signed a report by sergeant Ömer Temel and gendarme private Ibrahim Bilgin. This was sent to the Silvan chief public prosecutor by Captain Aksel. On |
15 May 1990 | 5. On 16 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody for his suspected involvement in terrorist activities. Subsequently, he was remanded in custody until 6 April 1984, when, in the course of the criminal proceedings brought against him, he was released. On |
31 July 2003 | 28. By a decision of 24 April 2003, the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation on the ground that the accident had been caused through the applicant’s own fault. That decision was upheld by the chief prosecutor on |
30 November 2007 | 52. The applicant furnished the Court with a letter from the head of the Chechnya Bar Association of 14 December 2007, which read as follows:
“... the investigator [in charge of the criminal case against the applicant] did not request the Nisam Bar Association to assign lawyer G. Ber. as legal counsel for A. Mukayev.
... |
16 June 2004 | 13. According to the policemen, Mr Adam Medov was questioned and explained that on 15 June 2004 he had been apprehended near the Sunzha restaurant in Sleptsovskaya along with a man to whom he had been giving a lift in his car, and whose name he did not know. He said he had been apprehended by eight men, four of them o... |
ten days later | 8. On 10 April 2006 a justice of the peace of the 11th Court Circuit of Petrozavodsk ordered the company to pay the applicant RUB 614 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The award became final |
14 October 1992 | 25. The Constitutional Court moreover pointed out that in the case of Rasmussen v. Denmark (judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87) the Court had considered that the introduction of time-limits for the institution of paternity proceedings was justified by the desire to ensure legal certainty and to protect the ... |
more than five years | 9. On 1 July 2009, following the applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolanie), the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the decisions of 10 August 2006 and 25 January 2007 (see the preceding paragraph). It found that the lower courts had failed adequately to inform the applicant on the shortcomings of his submissio... |
16 February 1996 | 24. On 10 October 1995 the Bielsko-Biała District Court gave a judgment by which it found that one of the claimants was the owner of the land in question. On 27 December 1995 the applicant appealed to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. On |
18 February 2005 | 26. On 11 October 2004 the applicants appointed a different advocate to represent them in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. In a submission of 21 October 2004 the advocate asked the Constitutional Court to have regard to all earlier submissions in the case and to consider the scope of the breach of the ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.