March 2014, according to which he was suffering from: chronic cholecystitis, fatty liver disease, chronic venal insufficiency of the legs, type-II diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, gastroduodenitis, lumbar

no. 1482 of 14 September 2009, the applicant had received the following injuries on 12 August 2009: abrasions on his left and right wrists and left forearm, and bruises on his face, back and in the lumbar

forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the one in application no. 48669/20, a lump

    The applicants claimed a lump sum of PLN 84,412.29 in respect of   pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 48.     The Government contested the claim. 49.

They also offered to pay a lump sum covering any and all damage sustained by the applicant and invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. 5.

nos. 48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, §§ 10 and 47, 24 April 2008, and Peshevi , cited above, § 32) and in view of the nature of the violation found, the Court finds it appropriate to fix a lump

His award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 80,112.26 roubles (RUR) and monthly payments of RUR 2,225.35, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate.

legal costs she had incurred concerned the domestic proceedings on the merits or the costs of the enforcement proceedings, the Court agrees with the Government on this matter and decides to award a lump

    In 1991 the applicant noticed a lump on her neck and went to the Lublin Hospital. After a general examination she was diagnosed with a non ‑ cancerous salivary gland tumor.

    The applicant claimed a lump sum of 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 44.     The Government failed to express an opinion on the matter. 45.

    On 12   February   1999 the Yenakiyeve Court ( Єнакіївський міський суд ) ordered the mine “Poltavska” to pay the applicant a lump sum of 10,922.79 hryvnyas (UAH) [1] .

District Court (see paragraphs 19–21 of the principal judgment) enforced had started in 2004, the Court finds that the applicant should be awarded as compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained, a lump

In particular, they contain only lump-sum figures charged by the applicant’s representative for specific procedural steps without any details as to the number of hours worked, the applicable hourly rate

In the event of dismissal or non-renewal of their contracts, they were entitled to a lump sum gratuity.

    The applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and a lump sum of EUR 10,000 in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts

    For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants a lump sum of 5,000

and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for those in applications nos. 27336/17 and 42704/19, a lump

[Z] se base sur un document intitulé 'interior systems 2019 base salary and/or lump sum merit statement paying for performance [E] [I]'.

forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 107), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the one in application no. 2541/20, a lump