against Ukraine lodged on 1 July 2013 communicated on 23 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he missed the time-limit for lodging his appeal because

  Because of his intoxication he was transferred to a medical clinic in Munich.

  This, because the Supreme Court did quash the decision of the President because he had insufficiently motivated why he had not heard the person concerned.

The enforcement had lasted two years and 11 months because quality repairs had been possible only in spring or summer, because expert opinions had been needed, because the applicant had avoided participating

représentée par Maître [J] [S], es-qualité d'administrateur judiciaire de Monsieur [W] [D] Sise [Adresse 5] Représentée par Me Anne-Sophie DE BUCY de la SELARL AITALI -GROS-CARPI-LE DENMAT-DE BUCY-BECHARI

    The applicants claimed that they should have been awarded compensation for unlawful prosecution because they had not been found guilty by any court. 15.

He was beaten up by cellmates because of his alleged collaboration with the prison administration.

He had been hospitalised on 1   April 2000 because he had attempted to commit suicide.

Because at the relevant time he lacked identity documents, he could not prove his citizenship. 6 .

Lord Justice Clarke considered that the District Judge and the Recorder had failed to apply the relevant legal principles correctly, and that permission to appeal should be granted, because otherwise no

It reiterated that the applicants could not be considered as having suffered pecuniary damage because they still had the right to receive new plots of land from the State.

It was, however, postponed until the following day because of the presiding judge’s mission to another town.

The court stated that, according to the police officers, the applicant had been totally aware of the situation, because he had been changing his version of the events, and that his statements had been

THE LAW The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because they were men, they were not entitled to the equivalent of widow’s benefits.

The expert examination was never performed because V. refused to show N. to the experts.

chasse des espèces pigeon à cou rouge, moqueur corossol, pluvier bronzé, pluvier argenté, petit chevalier à pattes jaunes, chevalier semi-palmé, bécasseau à poitrine cendrée, bécasseau à échasses, bécassine

He wrote to the Benefits Agency again on 8 May 2000 and was rejected on 15 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.

The applicant's lawyer did not object because he stated that he had other court commitments. 27.

The court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid at this stage of the proceedings, because “the domestic law did not provide for the right to free legal representation before appeal courts”.