On 10 March 2020 the enforcement judge rejected the applicant’s objection finding the decision of the prison administration to be in accordance with the law.

In particular, the impugned actions consisted, according to the court’s findings, in the applicants refusing to obey by the patrol police officers’ orders to desist from artificially creating impediments

On 5 March 2002 the Chamber declared the remainder of the application admissible. 7.

    On 15 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk found M. guilty of fraud.

  The applicant filed an appeal, submitting that the findings made in the proceedings were entirely untrue.

On 7   March   2017 the applicant’s lawyer received a copy of this decision. 5 .

The new law providing a four-month limit for a constitutional complaint entered into force on 1 March 2017.

2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings initiated by the Competition Council ( Konkurencijsko vijeće ) against the applicant company, finding a violation of

:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 14 March

UNITE ECONOMIQUE ET SOCIALE ENTRE LA SOCIETE SCETAUROUTE D'UNE PART, LA SOCIETE SAPEG AINSI QUE LES SOCIETES BETURE SER, SEREQUIP, SETAM, SCET INTER, BETERALP, BETEREM, SERALP, TRASROUTE, GIMO, IST ET FININTER

font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18577/21 Andrei ROȘCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 16 March

He challenged the factual findings and alleged a number of procedural defects.

The applicant was held in preventive detention until December 2003 and from March to September 2004. He was subsequently admitted to a psychiatric unit.

On 4 February 2014 the investigator of the Sumy Regional Prosecutor’s Office closed the criminal proceedings finding that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.

On 21 March 2001 the court allowed his complaint finding that the Sumy Regional Prosecutor’s office had acted unlawfully when instituting the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

  On 9 March 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody.

    Application for an interim measure of 6 March 2015 31.

    On 28 February 2013 the Kyiv District Administrative Court prohibited all demonstrations in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office from 1 March to 30 April 2013 citing Article 182 of the