He stated that he had discussed with the applicant the shares in which he should invest and she knew he was looking at the building industry.

The applicant inherited his father’s share of the property. The applicant’s acceptance of the inheritance was not registered.

of another limited liability company and asked the court to issue an interim measure to order the defendant company not to sell the shares at stake pending the outcome of the proceedings.

The courts upheld the plaintiff’s action and ordered the applicant’s exclusion from the list of company’s shareholders without ordering any kind of compensation for his shares.

participating in demonstrations and other public gatherings in line with the will and the activities of TKİP, disseminating propaganda in favour the TKİP by way of selling newspapers and periodicals which share

She made a handwritten note on the form, stating that she had been coerced into signing the form and that she had not been given access to the documents in case file no. 18/43266-07.

The applicant held 90% of the company's shares and his wife the remaining 10%.

Confirming that the applicants’ share was 2/6 it considered that they were due compensation in the amount of EUR 56,172, plus interest until date of payment.

The new shares were issued in the name of State-controlled bodies or companies (68.01 % of the new shares in the name of the Business Revival Agency) and used for paying off Heracles’ debts).

    Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention?

  The IDC requested the applicant to cease using his shed as a dwelling within 3 months.   Due to his financial position the applicant stayed in his shed.

    In June and September 2009, the applicant company acquired 85.5% of the shares of P.O., a company which also belonged to the Oliveira family, for the sum of 91,892,075   euros (EUR).

was to “assess the functioning of the municipality”, invited those present to openly share their views.

that number of shares in the bank’s register of shareholders.

Before that she owned a quarter undivided share as of 1982, and three quarters undivided share as of 2013, resulting from parts which she inherited following her parents’ respective demise.

From that date, all shares held by the bank’s shareholders were revoked and cancelled.

The applicant inherited his father’s share of the property. He too did not register acceptance of the inheritance and did not have an ownership certificate in relation to it.

Thus, at the only meeting between representatives of the two denominations it had asked to share the use, for religious services, of the church building it had owned before 1948 but its request had been

They claimed that they had previously held a considerable amount of shares in private companies and had been coerced by third parties into alienating those shares in favour of the applicant in April 2011

    The applicants received cash compensation based on the value of their shares on 1 January 2004.