text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
114. The applicant also submitted that his representative had been refused permission to meet with him in the prison. The impossibility of meeting his representative had amounted to an infringement of the effective exercise of his right of individual petition under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also ... | 6 |
70. The applicant claimed 182,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage in relation to the breaches of his rights under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, that is EUR 200 for each day of unlawful detention in inhuman conditions, which had caused him a lot of suffering. He also claimed EUR 10,000 for the brea... | 6 |
19. The Government argued that the applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because the criminal proceedings initiated against him had subsequently been discontinued on the ground that they had become time-barred. Accordingly, they requested that the Court declare the applicati... | 6 |
81. The applicant’s representative argued that his allegations of a risk of ill-treatment had not been examined by the Russian authorities. She relied on several reports by United Nations agencies and international and regional organisations and argued that the applicant had run and continued to run a risk of torture ... | 6 |
21. The Government submitted that the applicant company did not have the capacity to apply to the Court under Article <mask> of the Convention, since the State held 28.56% of its share capital through the Ukrresursy State Enterprise and the State Property Fund. The Government also stated that the applicant company had... | 6 |
206. The applicant submitted that the conduct of the Government during the course of the proceedings, and in particular during the course of the fact‑finding hearings, had been such as to breach their obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. He alleged in this connection that the Government had failed to pro... | 6 |
12. The Government submitted that the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases on the ground that the applicant’s widow and children were not affected by the alleged violation, and thus they could not claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, they claimed that ... | 6 |
99. The Government, referring to the Court's judgment in Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden (20 March 1991, Series A no. 201), considered that the applicant's removal had not interfered with his right under Article <mask> of the Convention to lodge an individual application with the Court without the effective exercise o... | 6 |
79. The Government lastly asked the Court to declare the complaint inadmissible because the applicant had lost his status as a victim as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In its judgment of 20 May 2014 the Supreme Court had reduced the additional disciplinary penalty by half, explicitly mentioning that the... | 6 |
59. The applicant noted that the District Court judgment had been very severe as in such circumstances a suspended sentence was normally imposed. He had thus not been afforded any redress to make good the violation based on the entire length of the proceedings. The remedy used by the District Court had not been such a... | 6 |
30. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court had accepted their constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a hearing within reasonable time and ... | 6 |
68. The Government did not demonstrate any objective impediment preventing compliance with the interim measure (see Paladi, cited above, § 92). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by it in the present case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in bre... | 6 |
31. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as regards the period that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that the Consti... | 6 |
28. The Government do not dispute that the prison administration refused on two occasions to post the applicant’s letter to the Court. Consequently, the lodging of this application has been delayed by more than eight months. The Court concludes that this constituted an interference with the applicant’s right of indivi... | 6 |
91. The Government submitted that the applicant unions could not claim to be victims, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of measures which allegedly infringed their members’ rights under the Convention. They stressed that the recognition that these organisations had standing before the Conseil d’É... | 6 |
39. The Government submitted a preliminary objection to the effect that the applicant had not provided the Court with the relevant evidence, namely, copies of the relevant reports pertaining to his administrative detention and the administrative offence, as well as copies of any interlocutory applications or other doc... | 6 |
81. The applicant argued that his transfer from the RNC, in manifest disregard of the interim measure indicated by the Court, had caused him particular feelings of distress and contributed to a worsening of his health, as proved by subsequent medical evidence. As a result, he had experienced “anxiety and inferiority, ... | 6 |
85. The Government submitted that the complaints of the first applicant under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention should also be found inadmissible since she joined the above mentioned proceedings only in December 2001, and that that part of the proceedings complained about was not unreasonably long. As to her com... | 6 |
24. The applicants submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court's decision of 17 September 2004, they were still “victims” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the Constitutional Court had not responded to their complaint regarding access to a court, but solely to their leng... | 6 |
134. The applicant’s representative submitted that Russia had disregarded the Court’s indication under Rule 39. The applicant had been put on board a plane leaving for Tashkent at 11.50 p.m. on 24 October 2006. Thus, the Russian authorities had been afforded sufficient time to comply with the Court’s indication under ... | 6 |
18. The Government objected that, as a result of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 July 2003, the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicant's constitutional complaint thoroug... | 6 |
50. The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, she could no longer be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further submitted that the applicant could have raised the issu... | 6 |
37. The Government also claimed that the post-sentencing judge’s decisions of 26 January 2011 and 1 April 2011 could not be considered a form of pressure or intimidation directed against the applicant to prevent him from lodging his application with the Court. The post-sentencing judge’s decision of 26 January 2011 ha... | 6 |
32. The Government denied that there had been any breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, calling the applicant’s allegations “erroneous and untrue”. They stated that the applicant had been sanctioned for improper performance of his duties and that the sanctions had been imposed prior to the communication of the c... | 6 |
37. The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, he could no longer be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the applic... | 6 |
61. The applicant complained that the Government’s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 and had thus violated his right to individual application. He relied on Art... | 6 |
46. The applicants further alleged that their deportation to Iran, despite the interim measure indicated by the President of the Section under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They alleged that their representative had been informed of the interim measure at a... | 6 |
27. The applicant argued that the Government’s failure to have his medical examination performed with a view to answering the three questions asked by the Court had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rule of Court and had thus violated his right to individual application.... | 6 |
60. The Government thus appear to argue that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention as, in the specific circumstances of the case, they were not directly affected by the law complained of. However, the Court notes that the Government ha... | 6 |
128. The Government argued that an applicant ceased to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention if the authorities acknowledged, at least in substance, a violation of a protected right and provided appropriate and sufficient redress. As regards acknowledgment of a violation, the Government ... | 6 |
156. The applicants argued that the Government's failure to submit the documents requested by the Court, namely the entire criminal investigation file, disclosed a failure to comply with their obligations under Articles 34 and 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the present case ... | 6 |
95. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to provide him with copies of the documents from his case file which he had wished to submit to the Court in substantiation of his application. The applicant further complained that the authorities had blocked his correspondence with the Court. He relied on ... | 6 |
33. The Government disputed that the applicant was a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They observed that at the time of her marriage the applicant, who was a trainee lawyer, was not qualified to practise as a lawyer. When she began practising she had already taken her husband’s name. The ... | 6 |
72. The Government submitted that the representative of B.Z. and H.D. had complained to the FMS and a prosecutor about obstacles he had faced in meeting with B.Z. and H.D., but he had lodged the application with the Court before his complaints had been examined by the domestic authorities. Therefore, the complaint und... | 6 |
57. The Government submitted that the applicant could not be considered a “victim” for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention because he had not suffered discrimination on the ground of his sexual orientation. In particular, he had not demonstrated that he had indeed been treated less favourably than other p... | 6 |
123. The applicant complained that the authorities had obstructed his access to the criminal case file and had refused to provide him with copies of the documents he had requested to substantiate his application to the Court. He also complained that the SIZO administration had blocked his correspondence with the Court... | 6 |
68. The applicants' representative complained that by expelling the first applicant on 5 December 2007 despite the measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Russia had failed to comply with its undertaking under Article <mask> of the Convention not to hinder the applicant in the exercise of h... | 6 |
13. The Government objected that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim, for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention, as on 1 September 2004 he withdrew his writ of execution and, consequently, from that time onwards the State was not responsible for the enforcement of the award. The Government ... | 6 |
38. The Government contested Mr Miettinen’s status as a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention for the purposes of the complaint under Article 8. They submitted that he did not at any point in the proceedings admit that the material belonged to him. At any rate, as he did not request in the dome... | 6 |
22. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim”, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, of the facts complained of. They observed that the Constitutional Court had indeed acknowledged a violation of the “reasonable time” principle and granted the applicant Lm 100 in compe... | 6 |
19. The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants’ freedom ... | 6 |
24. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was subjected to pressure from the State authorities in order to oblige him to withdraw the present application from the Court. However, he did not substantiate this complaint and did not provide any evidence in support of it. In such cir... | 6 |
212. The applicant’s representatives alleged that his disappearance and possible unlawful removal from Russia, the failure of the Russian authorities to put in place the necessary protective measures, and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the ... | 6 |
58. The applicant further submitted that he was still a victim of unlawful detention in breach of the Convention within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. The German authorities had neither acknowledged a breach of his Convention rights nor had they afforded him compensation. The fact that following his ... | 6 |
135. The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The Government f... | 6 |
19. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants' constitutional complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and aw... | 6 |
31. The Government argued that the second applicant Mr Ahmet Demir could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had only been elected as HADEP's general secretary a short time before HADEP's dissolution. Furthermore, unlike some other executive members of HADEP, no ban ha... | 6 |
21. The Government argued that the second applicant could not claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because the revision proceedings examined by the Supreme Court of Justice on 27 November 2006 did not concern the issue of transfer of shares between the first and the second applic... | 6 |
57. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost her victim status under Article <mask> of the Convention in view of the positive outcome of the domestic civil proceedings against the hospital. As regards the Supreme Court’s refusal to award non-pecuniary damages, they further argued, without referring to the ... | 6 |
37. The Government, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s judgments of 9 June 2004 and 22 June 2005, argued that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court was not dispr... | 6 |
32. The applicant argued that the situation was similar to the case of Amirov v. Russia (no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014), in which the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention following the Government’s failure to comply with an interim measure imposed under Rule 39. As in Amirov (ibid.), the Ru... | 6 |
48. The Government submitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the applicant had requested leave from the Regional Court of The Hague to join a pending civil action in tort brought by another former EBI detainee claiming, inter alia, compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of having ... | 6 |
116. The applicant asserted that between 22 March and 12 April 2004, while in detention, he was not allowed to meet one of his lawyers, Ms Liptser, who represented him before the Court. He alleged that this had constituted an interference with his right of individual petition, guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Conve... | 6 |
71. The applicant complained that the administration of correctional colony no. IK-1 in Tambov, where he had been serving his prison sentence from 12 April 2004 to 29 December 2009, had refused to dispatch his correspondence to the Court in view of his inability to cover the postal costs. The Court decided to examine ... | 6 |
24. The Government contested the applicant’s argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicant did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. They further claimed that there had been no interference with the a... | 6 |
37. The applicant contested that view and submitted that declaring three months as having been served had not constituted sufficient redress for the acknowledged delay in the proceedings. Moreover, there had been further delays in the proceedings, which so far had not been acknowledged by the domestic authorities. Con... | 6 |
19. The Government claimed that the second applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had not been convicted at the end of the proceedings. They also claimed that the second applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, because he had not objected to the... | 6 |
27. The Government maintained that the applicants did not have requisite victim status within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the applicants Arzu Doğan and Sami Evren had been acquitted of the charges by the Ankara Criminal Court and that no proceedings had been brought against the ot... | 6 |
27. The Government objected that, to the extent the proceedings had been reviewed and the applicant granted compensation by the Constitutional Court, she could no longer be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the Constitutional Court had examined the appli... | 6 |
84. The applicant complained that the State had interfered with the effective exercise of his right of application. In particular, the domestic authorities had unreasonably refused his lawyer permission to meet with him. Furthermore, obstacles were placed in the way of the applicant's complaining to the European Court... | 6 |
142. The Government first of all pointed out that according to the Court’s case-law, particularly the Mamatkulov and Askarov judgment (cited above, § 108), the purpose of an interim measure was to facilitate the exercise of the right of individual petition secured under Article <mask> of the Convention, and therefore ... | 6 |
47. The applicant also complained that he had not been properly informed about the nature and cause of the charges against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention. The Court observes, nevertheless, that the applicant was eventually acquitted of all the charges against him. The Court holds that under su... | 6 |
50. The Government submitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the applicant had brought a civil action in tort against the Netherlands State claiming, inter alia, compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered on account of having been subjected to allegedly humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches ... | 6 |
30. The Government maintained that, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, an applicant who has obtained reparation at the national level for an alleged violation of the Convention can no longer be considered a victim for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, Marchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63520/0... | 6 |
143. The Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have access to the file at the place in the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted. The... | 6 |
43. The Government contended that the applicant organisation had acted merely as an intermediary between the users of artistic works and the authors, who had transferred only the implementation of part of their pecuniary rights to the applicant organisation. The Government argued that the applicant organisation had no... | 6 |
60. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had granted the applicant's constitutional complaint, found a violation of her constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarde... | 6 |
89. The applicant’s representatives alleged that his disappearance and possible unlawful removal from Russia, the failure of the Russian authorities to put in place the necessary protective measures, and a lack of an effective investigation into the matter had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Cou... | 6 |
34. The Government further submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since on 11 March 2004 she had concluded an in-court settlement whereby the State had obliged itself not only to return the vehicle but also to compensate her for the loss... | 6 |
116. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the delays in handing over the Court's letters to him, preventing him from complying with the time-limits set by the Court; the prison staff's refusals to dispatch his letters to the Court; the non-delivery of one letter in 2009 and pressu... | 6 |
13. The Government contested his argument. They claimed at the outset that he did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. The Government further submitted that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of exp... | 6 |
113. The Government pointed out that, under the Court’s case-law, where the national authorities had found a violation and their decision constituted appropriate and sufficient redress for it, the party concerned could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention (they referred... | 6 |
62. The Government opened their line of argument with the assertion that the legally binding force of the interim measure issued under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may not be drawn from Article <mask> of the Convention or “from any other source”. They further stressed that the Rules of Court and accordingly the inter... | 6 |
13. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention since the Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant’s constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awar... | 6 |
18. The Government noted that the Constitutional Court had awarded the applicant a certain amount of money as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. They also implicitly indorsed the Constitutional Court’s arguments in respect of the rejection of the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages. The applicant ... | 6 |
23. The Government submitted that the seventh applicant could not claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because she had never participated in the restitution process and the decisions to annul the restoration of property rights had not directly affected her. They submitted that ... | 6 |
49. The Government pointed out that the Sofia District Court, whose judgment had been upheld by the Sofia City Court, had set the applicant's dismissal aside. As a result of these judgments the applicant had had to be reinstated in his post. However, as in 2003 the Criminological Studies Council at the Supreme Cassati... | 6 |
24. The Government acknowledged that the nine 1982 State premium bonds may be considered as a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. At the same time they contended that the interference with the applicant’s property rights had been lawful since the necessary domestic legal framework had been pu... | 6 |
88. The applicant also alleged that the authorities' failure to assist him in gathering evidence in support of his complaint before the Court concerning the conditions of detention amounted to a violation of the respondent State's obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he alleged that a letter... | 6 |
3. The applicant was transferred from the neurological centre to a prison hospital on Friday 11 November 2005. On Monday 14 November 2005, the next working day, he was transferred back to the neurological centre. It follows that compliance with the interim measure was merely delayed for three days. On the particular fa... | 6 |
83. The Government added that they had had no intention of disregarding the interim measure, and had indeed taken all the necessary steps to ensure compliance as a matter of urgency. Moreover, the short delay in complying with the interim measure had not in any way impeded the applicant in pursuing his application bef... | 6 |
243. The Government submitted that the six applicants (Mr Kurić, Ms Mezga, Mr Ristanović, Mr Berisha, Mr Ademi and Mr Minić) who had been granted both ex nunc and ex tunc permanent residence permits after the 2010 Chamber judgment (see paragraphs 95, 123, 133, 158, 173 and 194 above) could no longer claim to be “victi... | 6 |
22. The applicants submitted that, in spite of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 7 July 2004, they were still “victims” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases (s... | 6 |
52. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence. In their view there was no indication that the correspondence had been censored or that the contents of the letter had been checked. The applicant's letter to the Court bore a stamp “censored”... | 6 |
17. The Government further appeared to link the issue of victim status of the first applicant to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Furthermore, they explicitly claimed non-exhaustion in respect of the third applicant. In this connection the Court recalls that the exhaustion requirement in respect of the... | 6 |
29. The Government requested the Court to declare the application inadmissible in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention as the applicant had not lodged a request for retrial under Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to redress the alleged breach. Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings... | 7 |
17. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicants’ complaints in respect of the independence and impartiality of the İzmir State Security Court must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this regard, they maintained ... | 7 |
17. The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for t... | 7 |
53. The applicant contested that view. He argued that he had exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention in relation to the initial order for his retrospective preventive detention on 13 March 2008 here at issue prior to lodging his application with the Court. Furthermore, the Federal C... | 7 |
15. The Government argued under Article <mask> of the Convention that the applicant's complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month rule. They maintained that since the applicant complained of the lack of indep... | 7 |
83. The applicants disputed the respondent Government’s submissions and claimed that there had been no failure on their part to comply with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the “TRNC” courts were not properly established under the law applicable in northern Cyprus, but by the “T... | 7 |
41. The Government contended that the application was inadmissible, having been lodged out of time. As the Constitutional Court had declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible on 26 April 2002, the final decision for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention was in fact the Supreme Court’s decision of 20 June ... | 7 |
45. The applicants filed their complaint about the length of the other sets of proceedings set out in paragraphs 23-25 above on 28 November 2002. At that time the proceedings at issue were pending before the courts of first instance. Having regard to the practice of the Constitutional Court and its decision in the cas... | 7 |
14. The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article <mask> of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 20 April 1999. However, the applicant had not lodged his application with Co... | 7 |
11. The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as they had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to them under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, they would have been eligible for compensation... | 7 |
12. The Government maintained that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as he had failed to make proper use of the remedy available to him under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations. Under that provision, he would have been eligible for compensation for t... | 7 |
41. The Government contended that the Constitutional Court decision of 3 July 2002 declaring the applicants’ appeal inadmissible as being “outside its jurisdiction” could not be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted. Therefore, the final effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention ... | 7 |
21. The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article <mask> of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 20 December 2001. However, the applicant had not lodged his application with... | 7 |
45. The Government argued, as they had done before the Chamber, that the second and fourth applicants, the husbands of the first and third applicants respectively, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention because they had failed to lodge an application themselves with the... | 7 |
21. The Government alleged that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that in the present case the final domestic decision was taken on 29 November 2001 by the Court of Cassation; however the application was introduced on 26 September 2002 that is... | 7 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.