A certificate of 26 November 1999 stated that the applicant had recalled many morbid experiences during his many years in the Iraqi army, from 1981 to 1996, and had made detailed accounts of how he and

It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Hauptmann v.

The paper published the interview with him on 15 May 1986.

The time-limit was fixed at 20 May 1996.   21.

Further hearings were listed for 17, 18 and 19   May 1995. The hearing set for 18   May did not take place because one of the co-defendants had not appeared before the court.

The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

    On 19 May 2017 the Cluj Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the County Court.

AND W.A.C.S. v. the Netherlands , nos. 5100/71 et al, Commission decision of 29 May 1973, and O’Reilly v.

. (2) The Civil Court, First Hall, shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by any person in pursuance of sub-article (1) of this article, and may make such orders, issue

The official position is that an amendment may only be made if the error occurred when the birth was registered.

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.

Those acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor (Article 124).

The District Court considered as mitigating factors that the applicant had made a confession and that some of the offences had been committed many years ago. 3.

The specified grounds include those on which a place of safety order may be made (see paragraph 20 above). (ii) Relevant orders 24.

The first of these showings was scheduled for 13 May 1985. All were to take place at 10.00 p.m. except for one matinée performance on 19 May at 4 p.m.

Persons seeking to relocate to other areas in central and southern Iraq may be at risk of facing renewed violence given the high levels of violence prevailing in many areas.

  The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Notably, he was accused of having ordered a large-scale and intentionally violent police dispersal of the protest rally on 26 May 2011 as a result of which many civilians had received serious bodily injuries

It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kubaszewski v.