in Midyat. ...

Conseil de la concurrence, en date du 26 juillet 2000 à laquelle sont joints (cote 1) : la délibération de la commission permanente du Conseil de la concurrence, en date du 21 juin 2000 (cote 8) (p. 2 in

In the case of Tarnowski v.

That list placed the claims concerning the four applicants in application no. 26878/07 and the applicant in application no. 32446/07, in the fourth and lowest rank, which were to be satisfied after the

This stated, inter alia , that the Board had decided that “the appropriate retributive period in this instance would fall at around 11 years in line with the tariff set by the Home Office”.

    The applicants are sisters, who were born in 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Vilnius and Varėna. 6 .

In the case of Zavou and Others v.

The examination of the trends in rent increases was made on the basis of the Consumer Price Index 1960-1998 in respect of Rents and Housing, issued by the Department of Statistics and Research of the Government

In the case of Reynolds v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   David Thór Björgvinsson, &#

    In the cases listed in the relevant case-law column in the appendix, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those raised in the applicants’ cases. 9.

    The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Taganrog, the Rostov Region. 5.

In the case of Berliński v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   L.

in question.

In the case of Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P.

    The first, third and fourth paragraphs shall apply by analogy to a decision extending a measure entailing deprivation of liberty as referred to in section 59(6). ...” Section 95 “1.

In the case of Rock Ruby Hotels Ltd v.

In the case of Evagorou Christou v.

In that decision, which was later criticised but confirmed by the House of Lords in the case of R. v.

In the case of Christodoulidou v.