However, she also stated that he had not forced or coerced her to engage in sex work, but had simply offered the opportunity to do so, and that she had had no choice in the matter. 10 .

He did not submit prior notification for the march, nor did he disclose the route of the march to the police.

The court held that the enforcement legislation applicable in the applicant’s case had not allowed for the change of the method or the object of enforcement.

  in case no.

The applicant finally noted that the court had failed to provide any reasoning in support of its decision not to fine him but to confiscate his car.

The letter of the bank sent to that extent was not provided to the Court; nor, apparently, was it sent to the applicant. 14 .

Consequently, since there had been no ruling on merits in the military jurisdiction, the essential element for declaring that the non bis in idem principle has been affected does not exist. 209.

    Given that no one can be found guilty of an offence which is not provided for by law and that no one can incur a penalty which is not provided for by law, the first consequence is clearly

In the applicants’ submission, it now appeared that the aim really pursued by the dissolution had been to weaken the occupants and to confiscate the resources they had pooled so that they would no longer

I had no intention of not declaring the speargun because I already had it with me when entering Bosnia and Herzegovina ...” 7 .

The decision not to apply such clause to the applicant had not been determined by the legal principle stated in the judgment No. 3 of 15   May 2014 of the Third ‑ Instance Criminal Judge, which

    The boundaries between the State’s positive and negative obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 do not lend themselves to precise definition.

She therefore argued that Article 141 of Law no. 5271 was not applicable in her case. She further noted that the domestic courts had dismissed similar requests in similar cases.

Turkey , no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014), and not necessarily from any entitlement to inherit property (compare Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII).

In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   21.

could not secure compensation. 62.

That period was not extendable.

in case no.