The applicant in her defence contended inter alia that she was entitled to claim a share of the estate.

She had kept her share in the limited partnership for purely practical reasons, as otherwise her brother would have had to re-register as a one-man firm and, consequently, all previous trade agreements

    Between 1993 and 1997 the applicant company held 49% of the shares in Sovtransavto-Lugansk, a Ukrainian public limited company. A.

He held 3,800   shares in Azintrans (which constituted 4.64% of the total number of shares).

account was frozen – and in relation to the same set of criminal proceedings against him – the domestic courts allegedly also ordered the seizure of his remaining property (including his real estates and shares

Following an inheritance dispute between 1982 and 1994, in May 1997 the applicant filed an action seeking his statutory share of the estate.

He remained shareholder of the company until 6 February 2014 when he sold the shares.

degrading treatment owing to poor hygiene conditions, pest infestations (cockroaches and bed bugs), poor food quality, a lack of access to water for more than thirty minutes a week, the obligation to share

It concluded that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment, as the investigation had failed to shed light on the cause of the applicant’s injuries

The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

In particular, her case concerned a “dispute” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, as with her claim she challenged the legality of the decisions and actions of the public authority.

    On 26 October 1997 the applicants, together with seven, eight or nine other persons, held a meeting in Petrich. There are two versions of the minutes of this meeting.

All contributors therefore had a sufficiently tangible entitlement to their share of the fund for it to qualify as a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Charge Sheet contained 48 charges but 28 were withdrawn at the close of the prosecution case.

The applicant company declined the offer in view of the excessive share of the cost that it would have to bear.

Apparently, Mr   V. had not been paying his share of the regular operating costs of the property. 5.

    The examination of the explosion established that the shell hole at the site of the Damayevs’ house had emerged as the result of an explosion of an artillery shrapnel fougasse shell («артиллерийский

She had later written the impugned article. 33.

  373, sheet/plan   XXI/38.3.III, registration no. B433; building site; share: ½. 9.