Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association), the applicants complained that they had been prevented from meeting in their town centre to share information and ideas about

The applicant did not claim compensation for any purported expropriation since she was still the legal owner of the properties.

The Court finds that in these circumstances the applicant cannot claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of a violation that she alleges.

The Government further submitted that the slogans chanted had incited violence and that the concert had turned into a meeting of a terrorist organisation.

    The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about interference with its property title to some shares in company K. 2.

She was convicted of breaching official secrets and lost her employment in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant was prosecuted for inciting another to disclose official secrets.

On 22 September 2005 the Molėtai District Court established as a legal fact that there used to be some buildings (a cattle-shed and a storehouse) on the 0.48-hectare plot.

Following the unlawful felling of the forest, the applicant had used the land as a sheep-run. On 4 July 1991 Vorarlberg Regional Government ( Landeshauptmann ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

As the economic crisis worsened, the Ecuadorian authorities placed particular stress on bankers' share of responsibility for the country's difficulties and decided to seek the extradition of those who,

In 2008 an unspecified share of it was privatised. In 2001 the applicant brought a tort action against that company, seeking compensation for the damage inflicted on his property.

They also acquired a share in the plot on which the building was constructed and a share in the yard. 8.

In this regard he held that the co-ownership should be terminated in proportion to the shares of the co-owners.

Background to the case It appears that the applicants along with two other persons own one third undivided shares of the property at issue in the present case.

This share constituted a property right that could be described as "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

, or receiving the entire amount in shares.

Besides the photograph, users could also provide a comment, either by choosing a pre-set political message or by adding their own messages.

  m; (b)     Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 39/1, sheet/plan 5/62W1, field, area: 112,149   sq. m; (c)     Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 14, sheet/plan 5/62W2, field, area: 171,549 &

Those meetings had been attended by both the investigating judge B. and the first-instance judge F. 5.

On 7 March 2022, while she was staying at her father’s house in Mariupol, she learnt that her apartment had been destroyed by fire following shelling. On 16 March 2022 she fled to Kyiv.