Communicated on 3 December 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 66209/10 HUNGUEST ZRT against Hungary lodged on 4 November 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Hunguest Zrt, is a company limited by shares

responsibility under Article   3 of the Convention existed when the domestic authorities refused the applicant’s asylum requests or when the Chamber adopted its judgment as these historical facts did not shed

The applicant A.P. further complains under the same provision: -     that she was not allowed to share the common household with A.M. -     that the courts did not make any arrangement

He has to share his cell, which is measured 11 sq.m, with two cellmates. Moreover, he is subjected to routine handcuffing.

The Government could therefore achieve the main purpose of the Act, namely to bring the company into public ownership merely by the acquisition of the shares.

  He also owned 50% of the shares of this company, the remaining shares being divided equally between other members of his family.

property being privatised: violation Facts – The applicant company entered an agreement with the National Property Fund of Slovakia (“NPF”), the country’s privatisation agency, for purchasing a majority share

In December 1994 the applicant joined the GSK and paid his share for a garage (6,500 United States dollars at the material time) [1] .

The second applicant, “Finlease”, is a closed joint-stock company which holds a number of shares of Roseltrans.

    The applicant alleged that the proceedings in his case exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4.

    On 5 and 6 June 1992 the applicant participated in a meeting organised by the Tunceli Human Rights Association.

It ordered the applicant to hand over a specified number of bearer shares in EMK and in EMK Engineering to F.H. and declared that the applicant did not hold and had never held shares in those companies

    On 4   June 1999 the LLC A sold seven undivided shares in the attic premises to the third applicant for 2,000 United States dollars (USD). 9.

  They submit, however, that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.

Brought to France by a relative of her father, she had not chosen to work for Mr and Mrs B.

On 28 December 1989 the Mayor of Röthis dismissed the applicant’s request of 28   August   1989 for a building permit in respect of a shed to be constructed on two plots of land marked as a free

GREFFE du JUGE des LIBERTÉS et de la DÉTENTION ORDONNANCE DE MAINTIEN D'UNE HOSPITALISATION COMPLETE (Art L. 3211-12-1 code de la santé publique) Dossier N° RG 24/01732 - N° Portalis DB22-W-B7I-SHEA

In that connection, the Court reiterates that a share in a company is a complex object. It certifies that the holder possesses a share in a company together with the corresponding rights.

    The applicant and another individual were co-owners of a share in a   private limited company.