In this connection, it notes that the Taksim Square, where the applicants had intended to hold their demonstration, is in the heart of the city, and a large-scale demonstration could indeed cause disruption

In response to their requests to the authorities asking to confirm this information, the applicant received negative replies.

On 9 July 2009 the court rejected the Ministry’s claim. On 19 November 2009 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court’s task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is

their inability to use their plot of land and the restrictions imposed on the use of their property by the annotation in the land registry log book.

of the time ‑ limit for their storage. 23.

Neither had the evidence adduced in the proceedings before the Sisak County Court indicated their involvement in the killing and wounding of the victims.

The personal contact with the child [A.] ... – too. This contact has to be realized exactly in Bulgaria.

Although the first applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings, this was for the reasons stated below not solely his responsibility. 55.

In this regard, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings by his own failure to appear before the court and that delay could not be attributable

For this reason, the lawyer’s complaint in this respect to the court was not examined and the court did not produce any document in this connection.

On 10 November 2006 the District Court allowed this claim. The judgment remains unenforced. 4.

Article 146 § 1 of this Act, however, provides that in respect of all defendants who had already lodged their appeals on points of law before the entry into force of these amendments it is the “repealed

the possibility of complying with it by renouncing their other nationalities.

Subsequently Mrs V.G. became party to this contract as the second investor. Neither the applicants nor the other apartment owners were asked for their consent to the project.

    The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

disclosed the content of their statements.

Specifically, the parties were referred to the Sesvete Social Welfare Centre. for the institution of this procedure. 10.

The Varna Regional Court upheld this judgment on 7   July 2001.