The domestic courts, as detailed in the annex, granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the authorities to provide them with monetary compensation.

However, his motion was denied on 5   April 2012 by the Moscow Regional Court ( Московский областной суд ), which stated that (1) the statement of appeal was detailed and sufficiently clear; (2) &

The domestic courts had examined that question at length and given detailed reasons for their decisions.

Law : Article   3 (ill-treatment by the police) – Having regard to the applicant’s detailed allegations, corroborated by the forensic report, and in view of the absence of any other plausible explanation

règlement du lotissement prévoient une infiltration à la parcelle alors que les sols sont imperméables et que la déclaration d'utilité publique du captage de 2013 impose l'installation d'un débourbeur-déshuileur

Moldova - 41827/02 Judgment 9.1.2007 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Newspaper closure without detailed reason or identification of which published phrases threatened national

The impugned injunction had quite far-reaching consequences as the applicant company would have to publish detailed information on the different reporting styles of the respective newspapers when publishing

The articles were published during the latter’s criminal trial and gave a detailed description of the circumstances of the case, revealing C’s identity, her father’s and stepmother’s full names and their

On 9 July 2012 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaint detailed above.

On 16 November 2011 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, which included detailed medical information on the applicant’s state of health.

It contained detailed description of the event as well as a taunting critique of Mr Yalynnyy.

The applicant had presented a detailed account, supported by numerous documents. However, that material had been dismissed by the authorities with brief reasoning.

On 8 December 2011 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints detailed above. On 18 January 2012 the applicant sought legal aid from the Court.

On 31 August 2011 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints detailed above.

The Acting President further decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaint detailed above (Rule 54 § 2 (b)).

On 25 March 2011 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, which included detailed medical information on the applicant’s state of health.

On 8 March 2010 the Court decided to give notice to both respondent Governments of the applicant's complaints detailed above.

    On 20 April 2016 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints detailed above. 5.

    The parties are requested to provide a detailed chronological factual account of the circumstances in which the manuscript was confiscated and destroyed.   7.