The court rejected the NLS’s argument that the State was the owner of the road, as there had been no agreement between the State and the applicant to that effect.

  Akhtyamov did not have a formal status of parties to the proceedings from the start, the Court finds that their own “civil rights and obligations” were at issue in those proceedings (contrast with

The court further informed the applicant that the thirty-day time ‑ limit for lodging a cassation appeal would start to ran anew on the day on which the applicant was served with that letter. 13

The Secretary of State did not set a tariff.

The applicant made statements in respect of the ill-treatment that he had allegedly endured in the police car, including multiple blows and an attempt to strangle him.

The decisions of the domestic courts were virtually silent concerning the applicant’s direct personal involvement in what happened in Mazie Bati.

The charges concerned white-collar crimes which were complex to examine and necessitated many expert opinions. The size of the case file increased to 145 volumes.

The road has a horizontal sign - a full white line... ...”

The applicant was ordered to start such treatment immediately.

    States can entitle prosecutors to defend the interest of the State (principle of protection of State interest). 5.

It remains the greatest disaster to have occurred in the history of the State. 4.

    The demonstration was to start at 6 p.m. on 9 September 2006.

Adult patients who have the capacity to make their own decision can express their wishes about future treatment in an advance statement.”

While [B.] bought crops from the State at 3,600 Korunas per ton, others on the free market paid 5,000.

In this connection it referred to a judgment of 30 December 1993 by the Court of Appeal concerning what it considered as the same property (see above).

From 1995-2001 he had been the director-general of a State ‑ owned joint-stock company.

At a hearing held on 17 September 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to release the applicant pending trial. On 2 June 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the applicant.

These considerations weighed in favour of allowing States a wide margin of appreciation.

You must, however, specify what kind of legal assistance you seek (private or legal aid or non-governmental organisation lawyer).

    On 22 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the new interim access order, while on 9 January 2007 she informed the court that she had not been and would not be going to Belgrade to