The presiding judge enquired from the applicant’s representative whether she would like to have the case adjourned because of the applicant’s absence.

    The action was dismissed on 21 February 2006 by the Sofia District Court, which found that the applicants had not proven that they had sustained damage, in particular because they had been

However, it was adjourned until 6 October 1998 because the respondent did not attend. 9.

The court held a new hearing on 4 December 1997 which was adjourned until 27 January 1998 because OZTN failed to attend. On the latter date the heading was cancelled.

Article 6 had not applied to the applicant’s litigation, because he had been a serviceman and his case had been examined by military courts.

The mistake arose because the applicant's clerk, since deceased, erroneously treated the price at which the applicant company had bought f.o.b. New Zealand as the sales price.

He stated that it would not be helpful to engage with the head of department because she had been responsible for the undesirable developments to be discussed.

In its reasons it stated, in substance, that the case was not yet ready for decision, inter alia , because a further examination of the exact nature of the applicants’ claims was required.

    On 26 May 1999 the case was transferred to another judge because the previous judge had been temporarily transferred to another court. 17.

Submissions of the parties The applicant’s main complaint was that his CO could not constitute a suitable judge or other officer because he is part of the prosecution machinery, because his power to decide

According to the statement submitted on behalf of the applicant estate, the buyer withdrew from the deal because of the building prohibition and because the municipal authorities were not favourable to

Their earlier letter should not have been taken into consideration, because it had been unsigned.

    The applicant complains that his detention did not fall within the exception in Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention because he was not being detained “with a view to deportation” as there

The Court of Appeal also found that the request for a retraction of the statement and its publication in several newspapers had to be dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to specify the addressees

  Between 5   October 2004 and 11   October 2005 Mr   Paladi made a total of 10   requests to be released, which were all refused, notably because the courts considered that he

His claim for widows’ benefits was made in April 1997 and was rejected in May 1997 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.

          It appears that the applicant brought his son to the Netherlands on 14 September 1985 because his mother was not capable of raising the children any longer

    The trial was repeated, because of lapse of time, on 26 January 1996.

The trial continued but many hearings were cancelled because the applicant’s co-defendants repeatedly failed to appear before the court.