-           The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on private life grounds because AA has made commendable efforts to

  The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on private life grounds because AA has made commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself over a seven year period and that,

September 2013 the applicant initiated court proceedings against Sh., his daughter, seeking a declaration that she had lost her right to live as a co-tenant in a flat owned by a local municipal company because

His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 8 October 2000 and was rejected on 28 November 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman.

Following those judgments, the applicants initiated new domestic proceedings claiming that they were still unable to find employment in the private sector because the KGB Act had not been amended.

She became depressed as a result of the substantial pecuniary loss she suffered because of the transaction, which she considered fraudulent. In June 2007 she attempted to commit suicide.

    The applicant was then summoned to the court hearing on three occasions, but none of the summonses have ever been served on him, allegedly because service had been attempted to his presumed

Bulgaria - 46343/99 Judgment 23.5.2006 [Section V] Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 Freedom to leave a country Travel ban because of unpaid taxes: violation   Article

On 11 May 2016 the District Court declared that the second applicant lacked legal capacity because of her illness.

Accordingly, the arbitrators imposed on the applicant would have indirectly determined the scope of jurisdiction of the ordinary courts because, if they had made an arbitration award on the merits of the

The judge considered that the application of a fixed penalty to the applicant was "most unfair", because if he had not alerted the authorities to the fact that someone had tampered with the cord which

Upon her discharge from the hospital, the guardianship authority advised her against returning to the flat where E. had abused her because of a risk of recurrent violence on his part.

It was held inter alia that because of the nature and seriousness of his convictions, the applicant constituted a danger to public order.

  The hearing was adjourned because certain authorities had failed to provide the court with documents relating to the financial situation of the defendants.

    Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article   6, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because appeal hearings had

was still an interest in keeping information confidential when it had already been at least partly made public and was likely to be widely known, having regard to the media coverage of the case, both because

The Court of Appeal also considered that, in reality, the police had not been actively searching for A.G., because during the relevant time A.G. had taken part in an unrelated court hearing in Lithuania

He asked for an extension of the time-limit for appeal, claiming that it had been missed because the applicant had not been represented at the time and had insufficient command of Russian to understand

On 21 October 2014 a new criminal case, no. 90154014, was opened because the person responsible for the applicant’s frontal injury had not been identified.