In October 1990 the investigation was stayed, apparently because the applicant could not be summoned at his address, and then resumed in 1993.

She had been interrogated because of his claim that she was a girl of bad morals. He had not been able to take her from the university because she had already paid the entrance fee.

She had no grounds to doubt the accuracy of Mr E.’s allegations, because he had worked in the Far East Regional Customs Office and knew all the aspects of its work.

On an unspecified date his application was rejected because he was assessed as likely to commit further offences if released. 2.

, président - Françoise CLEMENT, conseiller - Vincent NICOLAS, conseiller assistés pendant les débats de Joëlle POITOUX, greffier A l'audience, Jean-Louis BERNAUD a fait le rapport, conformément

The Government considered that the applicant’s detention had not been too long and argued that the investigation of his case took time because of its complexity and large volume.

He submits that the United Kingdom Government are responsible because they claimed immunity while they could have waived it.

He could not put additional questions to experts because the investigator pressured him to sign the decisions on their appointment.

It was prevented from doing so because of a law, enacted in July 2005, which suspended execution of court judgments against energy companies.

She had been killed solely because of her Croat ethnicity.

Two hearings were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, three because of the absence of a co-defendant and five – because of the absence of witnesses. 12.

It found that the applicant’s right to family life had been violated because of the way the V.

On 1 June 2009 the inquiry was suspended again because the main case file had been lost. 22.

It dismissed it and upheld the decision to hand over the vehicle to Mr H.Ts. as it considered him to be the “initial owner” of the vehicle because he had purchased and imported it from Austria.

It opted for service by public notification because postal service was disadvantageous to the applicant.

Her husband cannot receive a tourist visa to visit her, because she has asked for political asylum.

The proceedings were joined because they concerned the same offence (decision no. 1407/1999). 12.

On 13 April 1992 the applicants and their ancestors petitioned the Sofia mayor to restitute the entire Property because neither of the public works' projects had commenced and the expropriated house was

    The Government submitted that the applicant company did enjoy access to court because it had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Zagreb Municipal Court.