At a hearing on 12 March 2004 the applicant requested that new expert witnesses be appointed in his client’s case.

    Resolution of Labour Disputes (Procedure) Act of 3 March 1998 29.

  March 2010.

After that judgment and for the purposes of the present one we feel bound to accept the findings of the majority of the Court, and we have therefore proceeded on this basis.

    On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that the previous findings remained valid. 15.

Judgment of the District Court of 16 March 2012 18.

  55997/14 and   3   others, §§ 84-85, 31 March 2020) and Traina v. Portugal ((dec.), no.   59431/11, §§ 23 and 28-29, 21 March 2017). 18.

  From March 1991 Mr Popov was employed as an adviser in the “local administration and regional policy” department of the Council of Ministers.

to the police station on 14   March 2007 at 7.45 p.m.

    The applicant contested the findings of this medical expert report, submitting that it had played down the negative findings of the report issued by the Iași Dental Hospital following that

On the latter date he argued, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s finding No. I.

    On 12 March 2002 the Labour Court heard the parties.

  On 30 December 1988 he requested an extension of this time-limit until 31 March 1989.

However, between March 1992 and August 1998, she saw her daughters just four times, although she and enforcement officers visited the children’s home around 50 times.

applicant company had not had the benefit of sufficient judicial review in the determination of its civil rights as the District Court had considered itself bound by the administrative authority's finding

On 21 March 2014 the Coroner concluded that on the basis of the evidence before him, but without reaching conclusions or making findings as such, there was evidence which gave rise to suspicion of the

After being told by friends that they had seen him on 9 March 1996 in the trailers, the applicant complained to the Council about the forthcoming programme.

On 3 March 2015 the applicant submitted a request to the District Prosecution Office for release from pre-trial detention. The request was received by the latter on 4 March 2015.

    Furthermore, in its judgment of 18 March 2021 ( Pometon v.