FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 13545/16 and 13572/16 Dejan NIKOLOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Trajan DJIDJEV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 5 March

italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 6 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16472/20 Peter KODRIČ against Slovenia lodged on 24 March

} .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 15 March

font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13980/19 Katerina TRAJCHESKA against North Macedonia lodged on 6 March

ÚS 3383/23, delivered on 27 March 2025.

The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2018 and subsequently by the Supreme Court on 24   May 2018.

2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49443/17 Kancho Petkov BONEV against Bulgaria lodged on 29 June 2017 communicated on 1 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the failure of

On 15 March 2007 she died. 6.     On 16 March 2007 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Warsaw-Praga Północ District Prosecutor.

On 17 March 2011 the Court informed the Government of its decision. 47.     On 18 March 2011 the applicant was taken by ambulance to hospital no. 8, where he remained until 19 March 2011.

On 19   March 2003 the Khojaly District Court rejected the claim, finding that RMB, and M. personally, could not be held responsible for the loss of the applicant’s money because the contract had

  m which had been acquired by means of a contract for an off-plan purchase (“an off-plan contract”) entered into on 8 March 2005 ( blerë më 8   mars 2005 [me] kontratë sipërmarrje ) and had

    On 4 March 2009 the Regional Court gave a sixth interlocutory judgment finding that the applicant’s failure to wear a seat belt had contributed to his injuries, so that a corresponding part

    Were the findings of the experts properly scrutinized by the domestic courts (see, for instance, Vasileva v.   Bulgaria, no.   23796/10, §   66, 17   March 2016)?

On 5 March 2018 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any prison guards, finding that proportionate force had been used to maintain order during the count in the prison.

The circumstances of the case In administrative-offence proceedings (that were finally discontinued in March 2010 on account of the expiry of the prosecution period) the applicant was accused of hooliganism

sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     Communicated on 16 March

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128 March

page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 27 February 2020 Published on 16 March

2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment,   Recalling that a finding