On 8 February 1985 the case was taken over by a new judge who decided to start the case anew.

It was not the role of the IPU Committee to adjudicate on disputes between an individual and a State.

While the Government accepted these findings, the applicant did not.

All that the court could hold against him was an offence of absconding, committed on 14   December 2004 (while he had been subject to a compulsory residence order). 26.

While the mechanical restraint measure was in place [the applicant’s] mental state was described as highly unstable and labile and with pronounced psychotic symptoms, in which state he believed that he

    On 24 June 2014 the Lugoj Police Department took the victim’s mother’s statement.

If the damage stems from unlawful decisions, actions or omissions of State authorities or officials, section 74(2) of the PADA stipulates that the claim must be brought under the State and Municipalities

States it is a union privilege.

    As alleged by the applicant, he was systematically ill-treated and humiliated from the very start. Initially, the applicant’s cellmates forced him to wash the floor.

In particular, as indicated by her son’s personal account and the audio recording of the interview on his mobile telephone, L.G. had frequently interrupted him while he was talking about what he remembered

    In the present case, while the “Pinto” courts expressly acknowledged that a violation had occurred, the redress obtained by the applicants at the domestic level was insufficient in the light

Medical reports by the prison doctor concerning the state of health of three of the injured applicants following the events state that : - the state of health of the applicant, Akın Durmaz, gave rise to

Already in her statement of claim the plaintiff states that she only knows that her sons were taken to [the improvised prison] and that she knows nothing as to what happened to them afterwards, from which

On 6 March 1990 twenty-seven written statements about the events were gathered. Mr.

It noted that the Dublin Regulation did not grant the right to choose in which state to lodge an asylum application.

margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }   Communicated on 27 April 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33586/15 Stoyan Lyubenov AYDAROV and others against Bulgaria lodged on 10 July 2015 STATEMENT

What is the current situation with respect to enforcement of the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd of 22 June 1999? 2.

She was told that she could not start at the clinic unless she agreed to perform abortions.

was provided in the respective State General Budget Act.