On 19 September 2012 the administrative court rejected this request, finding that his claim had no reasonable prospects of success, and required him to pay the court fees in full.

The Gostivar Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court confirmed the applicant’s conviction and endorsed the trial courts’ findings.

Dismissing the applicant’s opposition, on 3 September 2018 the District Court confirmed the confiscation, finding that it had been sufficiently established that the applicant had used the assets for the

The effect is to be as if those findings, or potential findings, had never been made in any form by the judge.” THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION 21 .

2015, and upheld the judgment of the first ‑ instance court of 31   January 2014 finding against the applicant.

He was transferred to the Lepoglava State Prison in March 2000 and has been serving his sentence there since. He complains of the allegedly appalling conditions of his detention in that prison.

PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the finding

page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 22 February 2021 Published on 15 March

36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 March

He contested the findings of the Health Insurance Board and appealed to the Federal Administrative Court ( Bundesverwaltungsgericht ), requesting an oral hearing to be held.

branche : Vu les articles 2016 et 1326 du Code civil ; Attendu, selon l'arrêt attaqué, que la société Service industrie a conclu, le 29 octobre 1991, un contrat de crédit-bail avec la société Fininter

18 October 1994, 6 December 1994, 8 March 1995, 6 June 1995, 4 September 1995, 6 December 1995, 6 March 1996, 6 June 1996, 4 September 1996, 5   December 1996, 6 March 1997, 5 June 1997, 2 September

Romania (no. 63252/00), judgment (friendly settlement ) of 15 March 2007.   Andrey Frolov v. Russia (no. 205/02), judgment of 29 March 2007. Baysayeva v.

On 20 March 2009 an incident took place in the applicants’ house. All the family was at home and the children were playing.

The appeal court considered that the court’s findings and its decision to remand the applicant in custody had been “premature”. The applicant was released on 10   March 2004. 10.

    On 22 March 2007 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 20 November 2006. 14.

In appeal proceedings, on 16 December 1996 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case, finding that a more thorough examination of the case was required.

On 23 December 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was lawful. B.

On 1 March 2007 he was officially recognised as the victim of the alleged crime. 7.