He claimed that he was not aware of the proceedings because he had left the country for Italy before the criminal complaint was lodged against him.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête et un mémoire en réplique enregistrés le 16 juin 2023 et le 4 avril 2024, Mme B A, représentée par Me Bechaux, demande au tribunal : 1°) d'annuler la décision

information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2024)1113 );   Noting with deep regret that no further measures could be taken in these cases because

The applicant appealed against the imputation act, arguing inter alia that he should be exempted from the amount in question because his resignation was due to his mental health condition, which was the

provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document   DH-DD(2025)714 );   Noting with deep regret that no further measures could be taken in this case because

  Complaints   The applicant alleges that, if he were extradited to the United States, he would be imprisoned indefinitely (so-called “limbo incarceration”) because of his Cuban origins.

Because of this, it sentenced the applicant to only two years' imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of five years, and to the confiscation of property in the amount of 150,000 Hungarian forints

In that connection, a wide discretion was granted to the national authorities, not only because, in principle, the two competing rights deserved equal protection that satisfied the obligation of State

The court rejected the applicants’ requests of release pending trial in each hearing because of the serious nature of the alleged offences and the state of the evidence.

The Government firstly contended that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he did not file a constitutional complaint in respect of the length of the proceedings.

  Petersburg City Court replied that hearings were adjourned because of a substantial backlog of cases and because the judge to which the case had been assigned had gone on vacation.

She complained, inter alia, that her enforced attendance as a witness on 1 April 2005 had been unlawful because the investigator had not summoned her previously.

    On 17 March 2010 the bailiff posted the summons for a second time on the applicant’s front door and on Ţăndărei local council noticeboard because again no one could be found at the address

at work and because of her financial commitments towards the employer.

This was because, unlike their female counterparts, male candidates had to complete twenty-six months’ military service prior to applying for registration.

    On 14 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ordered a re ‑ hearing of the case by the Chişinău Court of Appeal because of procedural shortcomings. 14 .

It also held that the principle of ne bis in idem had not been breached because the applicant’s criminal conviction for embezzlement and the revocation of his certificate for failure to fulfil the high

    The following hearing, listed for 8 November 2001, was adjourned because the respondent failed to appear. 13.

The judicial oath had a substantive meaning and should be treated with all solemnity because a judge could be held responsible for acts which were contrary to it.