The fourth and fifth witnesses, Russian citizens M. and A., were also questioned during the pre-trial investigation and during the trial in 1997.

#Hogere voorziening – Dumping – Verordening (EG) nr. 384/96 – Artikel 3, leden 5, 7 en 9 – Artikel 6, lid 1 – Verordening (EG) nr. 926/2009 – Invoer van bepaalde naadloze buizen en pijpen, van ijzer of

#Dumping - Importazioni di alcuni tubi senza saldatura di ferro o di acciaio dalla Croazia, dalla Romania, dalla Russia e dall’Ucraina - Calcolo del valore normale - Cooperazione dell’industria comunitaria

#Dumping – Importazzjonijiet ta’ ċertu tip ta’ polietilentereftalat (PET) li joriġina mill-Indja, it-Tajlandja u t-Tajwan – Reviżjoni minħabba l-iskadenza tal-miżuri – Proposta tal-Kummissjoni ta’ tiġdid

During this interview he admitted that he was a member of Fianna na h’Eireann, a proscribed Republican organisation, and had acted as a lookout during the two attacks.

    In the specific context of a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which the Court found a violation of that right during a certain period, it is

During this period the applicant refused to make any self-incriminating statements.

André Gérard DURINGER - Rejet

transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, 10/03/2018 - 25/03/2018, 0.6 sq. m. of personal space; insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air

If the person convicted did not reoffend during the supervision period, he was automatically legally rehabilitated.

He maintained that the injuries had been inflicted during the interrogation at the Drug Control office.

  32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Pavlova v.

The article indicated also that this was one of numerous fights which took place in the centre during that period. 15.

On 1 April 2015 the applicant was transported to Grudziądz Prison, which has a facility for detaining women during their pregnancy and afterwards.

The Government alleged that the applicants neither requested legal assistance during their detention in police custody nor made any complaints before the judicial authorities.

    On 31 January 2006 the applicant’s husband sold to B., without her consent, a plot of land acquired during their marriage.

    During the proceedings, the Supreme Military Administrative Court requested an expert report to be issued concerning the applicant’s damages.

He notably complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his questioning as a witness on 22 March 2005. 15.

The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during transport. In applications nos.