On 2 March 1994 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, upholding the cogency of the State Security Court’s assessment of evidence.

d’appréciation ( Zehnalová et Zehnal c.

The security forces announced that the march was illegal and requested the participants to disperse. The group started shouting slogans and continued to march.

EL ZEINA and A.

    Following the applicant’s repeated complaints to various authorities about the failure to take adequate action to enforce his rights, on 30   March   2004 the Budapest XI District

K., had submitted his opinion on 26 March 1997 and the first applicant had been given an opportunity to comment.

Between January and March 1999 all these organisations replied that they had no record of S.C. on their files.

  36216/13, § 144, 14 March 2017).

Trois mois plus tard, la requérante quitta son mari et partit avec sa fille à Vladivostok. 7.

    De la relation du requérant avec A.D. naquit un enfant, S., le 31   mars   2001.

According to a written reply from the police dated 10 March 2003 (which was apparently based on information provided by the parents of Ms E.P.) the applicant’s son lived with his mother at an address on

    The order was served on the applicant in person on 18 March 1998 at 8.30 a.m. The notice accompanying the order listed the possibilities of appeal.

Since March 2012 he had been visiting his daughters every Saturday for 4 hours at their home.

The first applicant filed a cross-appeal on 2 March 2005 to which the Central Authority replied on 6 April 2005.

    Le 20 mars 1998, la cour d'appel ( Oberlandesgericht ) d'Oldenbourg débouta les requérants faute de violation de la loi.

The first statement, dated 6 March 2002, related how a relative of the author was executed in April 1999, following this relative’s voluntary return to the army after attending his brother’s funeral without

    On 31 March 2004 the applicant left the household, the children remaining with their mother. 8.

    Par deux ordonnances de référé du 8 mars et du 4 juin 1996, le juge de la mise en état modifia partiellement les modalités du droit de visite du requérant.

Lettonie (n o 55933/00, 25 mars 2004).