On 13 August 2014 the Feldkirch Regional Court granted the claim and held that the hospital was to pay the applicant the full sum claimed in damages, namely 58,500 euros (EUR), the costs of the proceedings

On 13 October 1999 it held a hearing and decided to appoint a medical expert. On 27 September 2000 the court held a hearing and appointed a medical expert.

  Having regard to those findings, the Court held that it was not necessary to consider the applicants’ allegations of breaches of other provisions of the Convention.

    From 1973 the second applicant held the post of head doctor in hospitals situated in the Abkhazian AR.

This time it concluded that the applicants had had sufficient income from lawful sources to acquire the assets they had held at the end of the period.

It examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible.

Officer DD held his hand on the holster and shouted to the driver to stop the engine.

  This decision was upheld on 18 June 2019 by the Head of the Office of Aliens.

2, of the Convention; - held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of article 3 of the Convention; - held, by seven votes to two, that there had been no violation of article 8 of the Convention

Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.

It held that there was a considerable risk that A, a three-and-a-half-month-old infant, would suffer serious harm if she were returned to the applicants. 13.

The court held as follows: “...

  On 26 November 1998 she obtained a judgment ordering her bank to release all sums on her accounts plus default interest and legal costs.

    When the authorities finally succeeded in ascertaining where the applicant was being held, the trial court held its first hearing in the presence of the applicant on 31 October 2000.

The Intendancy ... which, among many other functions related to the maintenance of the monarch as Head of State, managed his Civil List, should be distinguished from the Civil List itself – the sum paid

that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), as regards the right to a fair trial;     - held that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1),

On 9 December 1993, in proceedings brought by the applicant, the Bucharest Court of First Instance held that the nationalisation had been unlawful.

that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 11 July 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 29 November 1991 the Court:        - held

;   - held that the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention gave rise to no separate issue;     - held that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention; &