On 1   April   2014 the Vilnius City District Court rejected the applicant’s claim because she had not provided any evidence about unlawful actions of the domestic courts, nor had she justified

On 15 December 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision because the court failed to decide on cost and expenses of the proceedings.

The Government indicated that it was unreliable because “the applicant’s calculations of the indebtedness [had] had no legal effect”. 14.

The Regional Court held that the applicant had acted deliberately and that he was aware of his guilt because he had constantly attempted, by means of threats, to enjoin his daughter to say nothing.

Of the five hearings fixed between 8 May and 2 July 2002, two were adjourned because witnesses failed to appear and two hearings were postponed because a new prosecutor had been assigned to the case and

    On 2 April 2013, the DIICOT issued a press release stating that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant for the above-mentioned offences because she had aided a witness

The hospital responded that on 7 May 2003 the applicant had been hospitalised since she posed a danger to herself and others because of her confused state of mind.

    The applicant amended his claims seeking reinstatement because he had been meanwhile dismissed. 8.

He had been obliged to spend significant sums of money for the maintenance and improvement of the premises, because the competent public authorities had shown no interest.

    The Government further asserted that the applicant was not a victim of any violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention because he was not a party to the proceedings in question.

Finally, according to the Council of State, dismissal was the appropriate penalty in the particular circumstances of the case because the statements with which the applicant had associated the failure

The court considered that Article 9 of the Convention was engaged because the McArthurs held a Christian belief which was genuinely and sincerely held.

There had been no violation of the applicant’s rights because the application for supervisory review had been preceded by an ordinary appeal and because the supervisory review judgment had been issued

Mr R. stated that because of the improvement of his state of health the applicant had not been operated on but had been recommended not to lift weights of over 12   kilograms.

Ten other hearings were adjourned because the court had failed to properly summon the other parties in the proceedings. 11.

Some of the hearings were adjourned because the defendants failed to appear. 11.

However, the allegation was untrue because M.G. had never been a member of the government.

However, the interview had ultimately not materialised because the applicant was apparently unwilling to talk to her. 9.

His request was refused because parental leave could be granted only to male personnel whose children were left without maternal care.