She then offered to collect the camera later, but the [applicant] told her that she should not do so.

The plaintiff is compared to a wolf which perched in a sheep barn.

  2006/2343)   12318/06   Turan Kaya (1952)   23.10.2001 (2001/69-178)   29,045,130,150 (applicant’s share was only 1/6 of the total amount)   25.01.2001   18.03.2002

During this period there was little discussion at ministerial meetings of the imminent danger; there was no formal discussion of it at ministerial meetings, and nothing was recorded about these matters

    Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

    Did the applicants’ stay in the CCAC of Samos amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

The Bankruptcy Court approved this recommendation and scheduled a meeting of creditors.

    On 2 April 1998 the applicant again requested a permit for the tool shed which he had in the meanwhile built.

“the CDA”) in Podgorica and the number of shares, so that they corresponded to the number of shares specified in the contracts of pledge. 12.

Following her mother’s death in November 1999, the first applicant inherited that share and obtained a certificate confirming that she had become its new owner on 25 May 2000.

He or she can either divide the property into equal shares or give a larger share to one of his or her children, provided that this does not reduce the portion statutorily reserved to the heirs.

In 2008 she was also gifted an additional share of one of the plots of land by her mother.

She pointed to the fact that she was not a party to the criminal proceedings against her late husband.

    The proceedings regarding the licence of compliance with environmental standards (second shed) 6.

She submitted that she was an employee of E.S. and that it had not paid her wages, taxes and contributions for more than three months.

of the proceeds of the offence could be identified – confiscation should be limited to the amount of the individuals’ shares.

In 2009 she instituted civil proceedings against her former husband, arguing that the flat was their common marital property and that she was entitled to half of the flat. 15.

He invited the Commissioner into the meeting hall and offered her a chair; she refused and said that the police were about to arrive. 23.

justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)138 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Grafov against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 1 July 2020 at the 1380 th meeting