ResDH(2020)245 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Yordanova and others against Bulgaria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2020 at the 1390 th meeting

The relevant land registry refused his application on the ground that persons entitled to restitution (oprávněné osoby) , within the meaning of the Act, did not include those who, although they satisfied

  G170, Sheet / Plan: XXI 43.W.I, Plot no.   189, Description: Plot of Land, Use: development, Share:   1/2.

A meeting was held between the Gaming Board and the non executive directors of LCL and their legal advisors on 26 March 1992.

H had informed the Social Welfare Authority that she had no intention of bringing I to the meeting-place, the reason being that she feared that the child might be subjected to “something harmful”.

She stated: “That morning, the 2 nd of April 1995, I set out with my husband and the other shepherds and women to tend to the sheep. There were seven shepherds and four women including myself.

  In the course of the struggle for power between the applicant, who was supported by a part of the share holders, and the new majority of share holders, the applicant had not distinguished his own

Following the unlawful felling of the woods, the applicant had used the land as a sheep-run.

She further claimed restitution in natura of these premises.

This ideology is expressed through the holding of meetings and the posting of messages on Troisième Voie’s websites.

It held that an appeal against the mayor’s order had to be brought first before the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, as provided in section 12(4) of the Meetings and Marches Act.

those flats within the meaning of relevant legislation. 6.

of the income of the firm despite the arrangements. (3) If the partner’s share of the income of the firm consists of or includes a share in a qualifying distribution— (a) made by a UK resident company

(c)     Alleged unlawfulness of deprivation of the applicants' share in the attic 46.

The fourth applicant further contends that the total seizure of her share was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

& Sohn of Tuttlingen, under contract No. 3452, five hundred dozen New Zealand pickled sheep pelts at a price of 7 DM per piece.

The Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 6.

H had informed the Authority that she had no intention of bringing I to the meeting-place, the reason being that she feared that I might be subjected to "something harmful".

  On 11 May 1995 Erkan, then aged nine, was grazing his sheep.