While in the kitchen, Mr Shchiborshch called an ambulance and said that he needed help because he had been wounded.

He also committed the applicant to prison for three months because he had breached the undertaking and the order and was therefore in contempt of court. 14 .

The defendant Seton says he named him because he believed Pearman killed Jon Bartlett.” 35.

Application no. 78375/17 Vida POSHTEH against the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27   November 2018 as a Chamber composed of:   Linos-Alexandre

However, the applicants cannot fully enjoy their property, because part of their land was already occupied by third parties at the moment when they took over the property and a superficies right over their

Here it has been taken into account that [A] has not been found guilty of the conduct nor has he been under investigation because of it.

In the case of Žáková v. the Czech Republic, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,   Kristina Pardalos

The applicant company became the claimant after it was registered in 2007.

In any event, the applicant had not been deprived of his possessions because of the Turkish intervention of 1974.

Firstly, because there was no certainty that the property would have been leased throughout the entire period of time.

    Application No. 23450/94                       by Nicoletta POLACCO and Alessandro

The order was issued because it was impossible to confiscate the further amount of money considered to have been laundered as it had been returned to company C. 6.

In December 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that the family should vacate the flat but, because they did not have anywhere else to live, it postponed the execution of the judgment until such time as the Agdam

:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 50272/99 by Alexander

On 23 May 2007 the Supreme Court refused because no acceptable reasons had been put forward. 18 .

The relevant part of the decision reads: “The investigation will not be completed before the detention order expires ... because it is necessary to hear evidence from at least thirty witnesses, to carry

The applicant became irritable, aggressive and once in 1996 tried to strangulate her. As a result, they divorced.

    The applicant was placed alone in a cell in February 2008, because he did not get on with other prison inmates and always attracted dislike.

Also, the applicant was responsible for causing the accident because he had been driving under the influence of alcohol and had failed to adapt his speed to the traffic conditions.