The first applicant owns one seventh undivided share thereof.

The applicant company had owned the shares of Seroponex Oy and Cenoporex Oy for the requisite period.

    The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

During the process of privatisation of the company, the land was included as part of its share capital.

The Court notes that, in the absence of recognition of the right to compensation by the Commission in respect of that plot, the applicant cannot argue that she has a “claim” within the meaning of Article

As to the applicants’ alleged share in the basement of the building and in the plot of land attached to it, the Court notes that the property in question was a flat situated in an apartment building.

  She is a farmer by profession.   A.

On 31 May 1996 the applicants raised an objection concerning the interim balance sheet.

Those who on account of their ethnic characteristics had engaged in criminal activities or tended their sheep or goats or prayed to their god abandoned their motherland and came here.

She and her parents clearly formed a “family” within the meaning of Article   8 of the Convention at that time. 46.

The Government had confined themselves to emphasising the applicant’s share of responsibility in the matter, in so far as he had failed to register himself in the civil status register until 1986.

of the payments made by then would constitute adequate compensation was based on expert opinion and there is nothing to show that it is arbitrary nor that it deprives the applicant of a considerable share

It declared constitutional the statutory requirement that a party had to obtain a certain percentage of all votes cast if its candidates were to be entitled to a share of the seats, which were allocated

In June 1987 she filed with the Bydgoszcz District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a petition in which she sought the division of the spouses’ property. In 1988 and 1989 the court ordered expert opinions.

enforcement of the judgment of 5   November 2004 could be secured by the return of the supervisory and executive rights to Demirbank’s shareholders, and had not required the restitution of the actual shares

Therefore, she could not have known that there would be any reason to seek exclusion of her individual share from the matrimonial property. 23.

They were counted as separate students in respect of each course – meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the applicant institution’s share of Government funds, a number of individual students were

In their view, the Board is a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, whose proceedings should have been in line with that provision, but were not.

Betito, had been elected and a copy of the attendance sheet initialled by those present. 11.