However, because the applicant did not have a lawyer, the court would not proceed with the case and she was taken back to the police station, where she handed over her passport.

On 15 June 2004 the court refused to accept the action, because the applicants had not complained to a non ‑ judicial institution first, as was obligatory.

He also pointed to testimonies by witnesses in the case which had confirmed that the applicant had been verbally and physically assaulted and threatened by some of his colleagues because of the messages

However, the applicant was not paid because the respondent company had gone bankrupt and had ceased its activities. 5.

In 2012 the applicant became 65 years old.

Subsequently, the applicant's lawyer requested the court not to schedule any hearings until 30 August 1997 because of his holidays.

It held that the extension had been lawful because the application for the extension had been lodged by a competent prosecutor within the established time-limits.

The officers further confirmed that Mr Beker had been unhappy because his mother had allegedly disapproved of him marrying his girlfriend.

On 15 October 1998, ten days later, the tractor hit a police car because the braking system failed.

The applicant indicated that he had undergone nose and throat surgery because of his snoring.

The litigation did determine the applicant’s “civil rights and obligations” because his own pension had been at stake.

That hearing was adjourned until 14 October 1999 because the respondent defaulted.

On 1   October 1999 the Zarechenskiy Town Court discontinued the proceedings because the applicant had defaulted on several occasions.

The judgment became final. COMPLAINTS 1.

The victim stated that he did not remember being ill-treated personally because of his advanced state of intoxication.

Hungary judgment of 11/01/2011     Introductory case summary   The Court found violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention because of the manner in which the question of prolongation of

When questioned, the couple (Mr and Mrs   G.) explained that the mother had signed a consent form entrusting the child to their care because she could not afford to bring her up.

Judge D.C. suggested to X. that he should request custody of the child and that the daughter should not live with the applicant because of her sexual orientation.

It   acknowledged that the applicant had interest in the proceedings; not least because of her inheritance rights.