text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
78. The applicant raised numerous complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention about the criminal proceedings against him. He complained that there had been a violation of his defence rights regarding the examination of the undercover witness, that the judges had been biased, had not given reasons for their decis... | 9 |
48. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Commissioner of Public Interest had refused to call advocates of the Koszalin Regional Bar as witnesses for him. Furthermore, the lustration courts had refused to hear a number of the applicant’s witnesses who were to testify that he had not ... | 9 |
24. The Government were of the view that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings concerning the imposition of solitary confinement on the applicant. This provision did not apply to incidental proceedings conducted in the course of criminal proceedings concerning the determination of a criminal... | 9 |
41. The applicants submitted that in the absence of a prosecuting party the trial judges had taken on the role of the prosecution. The court therefore was not “independent and impartial” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant also alleged that the domestic courts had dismissed the ... | 9 |
38. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had not taken into consideration the evidence proving the unlawfulness of the Ministry's refusal to register the association and had failed to properly examine the complaint concerning the Ministry's breach of statutory time-limits for an official response to the s... | 9 |
30. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. He further argued that the Supreme Court had re-established the facts of the case although it had not been vested with such a jurisdiction; that it had not been impartial and independent, as it had... | 9 |
57. The applicant submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against him had been a drastic step. By their very nature and consequences a “right” in the sense of Article <mask> of the Convention had been created. Any public‑law features of a disciplinary nature in the case did not exclude the proceedings from the sco... | 9 |
19. The applicant complained that the manner in which the domestic courts had dismissed his claim had not been in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, he also relied on Article 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints should be examined as an “access to a court” ... | 9 |
135. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that various irregularities in the criminal proceedings against him had rendered them unfair. In his view, his conviction had been based on insufficient and inadmissible evidence. In particular, the courts had taken into account the expert repor... | 9 |
26. The applicants also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 December 2001 delivered by the Ryazan Garnison Military Court. Invoking the same provisions the applicant S. Panchenko also complained of delayed... | 9 |
45. The applicant complained that the prolonged failure to enforce the judgments of 12 May 1999, as clarified on 7 September 1999, 21 July 1999, as upheld on 5 October 1999, 10 May 2000, as upheld on 22 June 2000, and 16 May 2000 violated Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of poss... | 9 |
26. The applicant argued that the dismissal of her “Pinto” compensation claim as being out of time had disregarded the Court’s case-law to the effect that the execution phase is an integral part of the “trial” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Thus, according to the applicant, based on the princi... | 9 |
27. The Government submitted that the proceedings regarding the trial of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the Larnaca District Court and the appeal lodged against the decision of that court in this respect should be excluded from the period concerned in determining the overall period of the proceedings. They r... | 9 |
80. The applicant further complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that the courts had refused to obtain an opinion from an expert in photographic analysis in order to show that the impression created by one of the published photographs, namely that he was exchanging a French kiss with the sem... | 9 |
64. The Government, referring to the complexity of the case, number of participants and conduct of the parties to the proceedings, pleaded that the proceedings had been held within the reasonable time. In particular, they submitted that the authorities had carried out twenty-three forensic examinations and interrogate... | 9 |
32. The Government submitted that the judgments in Phillips v. the United Kingdom (cited above) and in R. v. Benjafield (see paragraph 26 above) had recognised that the 1994 Act was designed to combat the serious problem of drug trafficking, by punishing convicted offenders, deterring other offences and reducing the p... | 9 |
70. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been denied access to court twice (in November 2005 and June 2006) in connection with several charges related to a cover-up, racist behaviour towards him and a breach of his personal rights because of violation of data protection. He also ... | 9 |
60. The applicant also alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that under Moldovan law it was impossible for him to adduce evidence in support of his claim to have his ethnic origin changed from Moldovan to Romanian. Since this complaint relates to the same matters as those consi... | 9 |
16. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right of access to court was violated by the refusal to hold a hearing at which they could challenge the order made by the High Court of Justiciary on 15 February 2005. They further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that this w... | 9 |
24. The applicant submitted that the Administrative Court had unlawfully dismissed his request to hold an oral hearing, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to discuss the expert opinions in the context of a public hearing. Since an oral hearing could have elucidated the facts of the case, the Court's refusal to h... | 9 |
25. The applicant submits that the right to a fair trial in which a lawyer can defend the accused in his or her absence – and therefore without fear of arrest – is an integral part of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the Court’s findings in Lala and Pelladoah v. ... | 9 |
103. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account. It reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, he should, as fa... | 9 |
11. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 4 February 2004 and 27 May 2005, as well as, in substance, about the quashing of the judgment of 27 May 2005 and the unfairness of the supervisory-review proceedings. Insofa... | 9 |
37. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the length of other proceedings. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the outcome of the first set of the proceedings and the proceedings instituted by... | 9 |
61. The Government submitted that, considering the limited and technical nature of the issues arising in costs proceedings, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. In any event the applicants had not raised the question of costs before the court or addressed the Supreme Court on this matter, although they... | 9 |
72. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not necessarily require a hearing in all proceedings. They argued in that connection that where no controversy existed over the facts of a case and the legal question was not particularly complex, proceedings could be dealt with on the basis of writte... | 9 |
13. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They further complain that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor... | 9 |
59. The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, under various heads. Firstly, they complained that the 2004 Act had introduced a legislative amendment that interfered with their rights in pending proceedings. Secondly, they complained that the proceedings regarding the compensation du... | 9 |
85. The Government put forward an admissibility objection as regards one specific complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. They contended that the applicants had not contested the decision to disjoin the case against X from the criminal proceedings against them. They claimed, in particular, that the first app... | 9 |
22. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim was of a public-law nature and fell outside the material scope of the application of Article <mask> of the Convention, therefore it was incompatible ratione materiae with its provisions, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a). They stressed that although access... | 9 |
161. The applicant submitted that the civil limb of Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable to each set of domestic proceedings (see paragraphs 31-33 above) aimed at declaring his administrative arrest in breach of domestic law and arbitrary, and at obtaining compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as ... | 9 |
27. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair trial on account of his trial by the Istanbul Security Court whose composition included a military judge, the denial of access to a lawyer during the preliminary investigation, the use of statements taken under duress to convict him, the non-communication of ... | 9 |
30. The Government maintained that the Respondent State’s liability may only be engaged in so far as it relates to the enforcement proceedings against the debtor while the subsequent insolvency proceedings against the debtor should not be assessed in the context of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They... | 9 |
85. The applicant also complained that at the material time the courts were not functioning in the Chechen Republic, and therefore the company had to bring court proceedings in a neighbouring region. It was thus placed at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the other party, as the company had difficulty in securing t... | 9 |
62. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had the opportunity to question witnesses. He further complained, without invoking any Convention provision, that his health had deteriorated in detention and that the medical assistance provided had been inadequate. Finally, the appli... | 9 |
27. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied access to a court since their claim had remained undecided on the merits due to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the national courts to decide the case. They also complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. ... | 9 |
46. The applicant contended that the reports on his background check had been based on unverified and incorrect insinuations made by the police. Although he had asked for disclosure of the information on which the reports had been based, it had never been provided to him. Instead, the Administrative Court had reviewed... | 9 |
34. The Government stated that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the applicant's case. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing on appeal on 17 August 2005 and had been able to request the adjournment of that hearing, that her lawyer had al... | 9 |
23. The applicant further complained under Article 6 that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and that the prosecutor’s office had refused to initiate criminal proceedings against third parties. The Court considers that there is nothing in the material submitted by the applicant to suggest that the cr... | 9 |
70. The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been arbitrary and unfair, in particular on account of the failure to comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms when the evidence and witnesses had been admi... | 9 |
93. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he complained that his inability to take part in the supervisory-review proceedings before the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia had rendered those proceedings unfair. Th... | 9 |
72. The Government, agreeing that the delays in the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s rape had been excessive, argued that the situation had been appropriately redressed by the competent domestic authorities, which had awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as ... | 9 |
38. The Government contested these claims stating, firstly, that there was no causal link between the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and any pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered the applicant’s claim exorbitant as to quantum. In the eve... | 9 |
42. The applicant further claimed that both Article 70 § 3 of the CCP and Article 22 of the Law on State Fees contradicted the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. These provisions created inequality between physical and legal persons, the former being able to obtain an exemption from payment of the court f... | 9 |
33. The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the circumstances of the present case concerning the proceedings relating to the applicant’s family disability benefit request. Those proceedings had not involved any contentious issue between two parties. They had been principall... | 9 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the fairness of the domestic proceedings, the assessment of the evidence by the domestic courts and their alleged failure to examine all his arguments. In particular, he complained, inter alia, that the domestic courts had committed errors of fac... | 9 |
15. The applicant complained that judge N.H. had been a member of both Supreme Court panels that had examined his two successive appeals on points of law. He noted that the participation of the judge in the examination of the same case for the second time had been in breach of the requirements of the domestic procedur... | 9 |
38. The Government argued that it could not be inferred from this Court’s case-law that Article <mask> of the Convention requires domestic courts to refer a case to the CJEU or to provide specific reasons for refusing such a referral, irrespective of the content or grounds of that request. According to the Government,... | 9 |
37. The Government submitted that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular having regard to the time elapsed after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia. They submitted further that the subject matter of the applicant's cas... | 9 |
94. The applicant further complained about the outcome and conduct of the custody proceedings (5 F 283/98 and 5 F 18/99); he alleged in particular that the District Court had been obliged to take one single definitive decision on the attribution of custody when the spouses separated, that the attribution of sole custo... | 9 |
92. The Government noted that, in Morris, the Court had rejected the applicant's general argument (as had the House of Lords) that service tribunals could not try service personnel on criminal charges consistently with Article <mask> of the Convention. The core question in Morris and the present case was not whether m... | 9 |
111. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the investigator’s decisions to recommence the investigation of his case and the allegedly unsafe sentence that was based on contradictory witness statements and misrepresentations in the trial court records. In his application form of 25 April... | 9 |
123. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the administrative offence proceedings against him had been unfair and unreasonably long. He also complained, relying on Article 7, that he had been forced to undergo a psychiatric examination applicable only to criminal proceedings. The applica... | 9 |
37. The Government considered that the applicant’s statement had not been the sole basis for his conviction and that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer throughout the domestic proceedings and had enjoyed the rights guaranteed under domestic law. For the Government, a single shortcoming had not violated the... | 9 |
60. The applicant asserted that the thirty-two hours (four days) allocated to him for familiarising himself with the case file had been insufficient to allow the preparation of his cassation appeal, regard particularly being had to the fact that the case file had contained twenty-eight volumes (some 7,000 pages). His ... | 9 |
38. The Government first submitted that the proceedings in question did not concern the applicants’ civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. This was so because the applicants had not shown that their legal predecessor W.U. had been the owner of the property concerned in 194... | 9 |
25. The applicants complained that the appeal and supervisory review proceedings had fallen short of the requirements of fairness. In particular, they alleged that the legal assistance provided by State-appointed counsel had not been effective and that the video links provided had been of poor quality. The first appli... | 9 |
100. The applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court changed its interpretation of the Salduz judgment in 2012 and 2013 (see relevant domestic law) and different conclusions were then arrived at. He noted that these conflicting judgments ran counter to the principle of legal certainty. It was the Constitutional ... | 9 |
39. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of unfairness of the proceedings in her case. She also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of lack of access to a court on account of the outcome of the second, third and fourth sets of proceedings. The applicant finally alleged that ... | 9 |
62. The applicant companies relied on the Court’s principles regarding access to court and legislative intervention under Article <mask> of the Convention, and referred in particular to the Court’s judgment in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006‑V). They considered that there existed no legitimate... | 9 |
131. The Government submitted that the lustration proceedings in the applicant’s case had been in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant had been represented during the proceedings, had the right to appeal, and the Commission and the courts had given reasons for their decisions. ... | 9 |
83. The Government reiterated their submission (see paragraphs 40 to 46 above) to the effect that there was no obligation under Article 3 or any other Article of the Convention to reopen domestic proceedings in every instance where a violation of the Convention had been established. The individual facts of each case a... | 9 |
19. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the reasons given by the Indictment Division of the Samos Criminal Court presented him as the perpetrator of a crime with which he had not been charged and for which he was not standing trial. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6... | 9 |
45. The Government, referring to the relationship between Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention and, in particular, to the case of Reinprecht v. Austria (no. 67175/01, ECHR 2005‑XII), submitted that Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to the present case. However, even if Article 6 of the Conve... | 9 |
38. The applicant replied that she had in fact exhausted domestic remedies. She submitted that at the outset she could choose between appealing against the CDEC's decision or directly filing an action for damages against her employer. However, in 1996, when she had to make that choice, neither alternative seemed more ... | 9 |
63. The Government did not contest the applicability of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted, however, that, although criminal sanctions could follow a finding of contempt, it was essential when considering the requirements of Article 6 to recognise that contempt proceedings were not akin to ordinary criminal ... | 9 |
54. The Government submitted that the fact that the applicant had had no possibility to participate in ex post factum review proceedings legalising his personal search had had no bearing on his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Referring to the relevant procedure as provided for in Article 290 of the CCP... | 9 |
27. The applicants complained that no prosecuting party had been present at the court hearings in the administrative proceedings against them, and that the trial judges had acted in breach of the impartiality requirement. The applicants also alleged that they had not been afforded adequate time and facilities to prepa... | 9 |
15. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair and that his defence rights had been breached. In particular, he complained that he had not been afforded access to a lawyer during the police questioning, that he had not been allowed time t... | 9 |
40. The applicant disagreed and maintained that the domestic remedies had been exhausted. When she had requested an oral hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal, the court’s obligation had been to examine her request according to Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the court for some reason had failed... | 9 |
43. The Government took issue with the Chamber’s judgment. They considered, in the first place, that the matter should be determined by reference to Article <mask> of the Convention and not Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Unlike in previous cases, the Government in this case had not appropriated property to its own use, ... | 9 |
13. The Government contended that the complaint is inadmissible on three grounds. They claimed, first, that the applicant is not a “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because, in consequence of his reliance on the provision before the Court of Appeal, he obtained a substantial reduction in his ... | 9 |
40. The Government considered that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the instant case, as neither the interim proceedings nor the main proceedings concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Relying on the Court's judgment in the Pellegrin case (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541... | 9 |
118. The applicant submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable under both its civil and its criminal head. With particular reference to the latter, she reiterated the arguments she had submitted before the Chamber, arguing that the penalties liable to be imposed on her were of a criminal nature on a... | 9 |
36. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the final judgment of 24 March 2000 had been annulled by way of the supervisory review on 5 February 2001. In this respect the Court notes that the applicant lodged his complaint in this regard on 25 March 2005, which was more than six month... | 9 |
102. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the defamation proceedings against her had been unfair. Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the complaint falls within the Court’s competence, it finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of t... | 9 |
55. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had not been allowed to see a lawyer during their initial detention at the police stations in Chişinău and Ialoveni, and that this had prevented them from challenging the court order for their detention pending trial. However, the Court not... | 9 |
13. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003, and the judgments of 5 January, 16 February, 15 April, 6 and 30 September 2004 were not enforced in good time. The relevant parts of these provisions read... | 9 |
138. The applicant complained that the proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of the Florence District Court’s judgment of 18 September 2012 had been unfair, in that he had not been informed of the date of the appeal hearing on 12 March 2013, and had therefore been absent from that hearing. He relied o... | 9 |
17. The applicant company complained of a violation of its right to a fair trial, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, it complained that the courts had failed to apply the statute of limitations and that it had not been summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice. The relevant ... | 9 |
105. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained of a violation of Article 13, arguing that the rules on the basis of which he had been convicted had been ambiguous. Lastly, he considered that the alleged violations also amounted to... | 9 |
4. The applicants were found guilty of the administrative offence of market manipulation, provided for by Article 187 ter of the TUF and punished under a procedure set out in Article 187 septis of the TUF in conjunction with section 23 of Law no. 689 of 24 November 1981. The procedure before the CONSOB is not fair in ... | 9 |
36. The Government argued that the mere fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law as inadmissible did not constitute a denial of access to court, in particular given that it had been the applicants’ omission and lack of care which had led the Supreme Court to reach such a decisi... | 9 |
18. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. They further submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor a... | 9 |
111. The applicant alleged a violation of her right to an independent and impartial tribunal with full jurisdiction and of her right to a public hearing. She further alleged that, following the reclassification of the facts by the CSM, she had not been informed in detail of the accusation against her and had therefore... | 9 |
44. The applicant maintained that any waiver by him of a trial by court-martial could not be considered to be valid. The Government observed that the applicant declined to elect trial by court-martial and submitted that there were no important public interest considerations which might suggest that the matter should h... | 9 |
79. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied a fair hearing because (i) the trial judge had been manifestly biased against them and had overtly favoured the defendants; (ii) they had not benefited from the equality-of-arms principle; and (iii) the court had refused to ... | 9 |
25. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, he complained that the decision of the Supreme Court of 19 November 2002 had prevented him from exercising his defence rights properly and thus rendered the supervisory review procee... | 9 |
23. The applicant averred that compliance of the domestic court with the reasonable-time requirement in examining her case against the company could only have been established by the proceedings against the Ministry of Finance which she had sought to initiate. However, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, th... | 9 |
22. The applicants complained that their right to a fair trial under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as the Appeal Court had convicted the first applicant and ordered the forfeiture of the profit gained by the applicant company without holding an oral hearing and the Supreme Court had upheld this ju... | 9 |
161. The applicant Mr Rakov complained that his claim for compensation had been adjudicated in his absence and the absence of his chosen representative by both the first-instance and appellate courts. The Court reiterates that the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, as worded at the material time, provided for oral heari... | 9 |
20. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of the binding and enforceable judgment in her favour. She further complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the same facts. Both provi... | 9 |
51. The Government conceded that the courts had not examined the video cassette recording of the applicant's interviews on 4 and 5 June 1997. However, that did not raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention, since there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had not been ill-treated. The courts found th... | 9 |
23. The applicant complained of an unjustified delay in the execution of the judgment of 23 December 2003 and a violation of his property rights as a result of non-enforcement of this judgment. Although the applicant did not specifically rely on any Convention provisions, the Court considers that the substance of this... | 9 |
51. The Government noted that the Court had repeatedly found that the Contracting States enjoyed wide discretion as regards the choice of the means to ensure that their legal systems are in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government’s view the flaws in the District Court’s ... | 9 |
44. The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had been partial, that they had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the domestic law. However, in the light of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its compete... | 9 |
42. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the outcome of the criminal proceedings and alleged violations of the presumption of innocence and of his right to adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. Also, he complained under Article 13 of a lack of effective domestic remedies... | 9 |
23. The Government concluded that they enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in respect of the rules they introduced for the exercise of the right of access to a court and in this case, the rule that the reasons for appeal should have been included in the report by which the legal remedy was lodged did not violate Art... | 9 |
18. The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Neryungri Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) of 16 March 2001, as upheld on 11 July 2001. She relied on Articles 1, 3 and 6 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention an... | 9 |
137. The applicant complained that the domestic criminal investigation had been ineffective and that the civil proceedings instituted by her had been unfair. She submitted that the courts had not been objective in their assessment of the facts and had failed to redress the grievance which she bore as a result of the b... | 9 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.