On 13   February and 6 March 1996 the public prosecutor seized the applicant’s property, inter alia , the shares held by him.

its shares. 7 .

The officers took note of the chassis series of two cars found in the applicant’s shed. They also looked in several boxes which contained spare parts for cars. 7.

This part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.   3.

    On 31 August 2004 he had been transferred to a cell which his fellow inmates had refused to share with him. They had asked him to leave.

Other prisoners sentenced to death and detained in the same prison as the applicant were allowed to share a cell between 1990 and June   1995.

  30750/11, were invited to the ConEC meetings where decisions to refuse their requests for registration were taken.

The applicant was informed of the child welfare services’ conclusion at a meeting in April 2017 and when she gave birth to a boy, in May 2017, a formal emergency placement decision was made in respect

They contested the validity of the procedures which had established the formula for assigning taxes at the AFR bureau’s meetings on 19 October 1995, 30 November 1995 and 9 October 1996, and requested that

On 23 October 1980 a meeting took place at the office of Atlas' conservator between Atlas, Van Baarsen Wandplaten B.V.

She stated that she had the impression that the men were older than teenagers but could not be sure.

    On 17 September 2003 ANRTI held a meeting.

The first and second applicants had to leave early to tend to their younger children and thus missed the meeting. 9.

She testified as to the meeting of 2 November 1995 with the Educational Inspector and stated that, faced with the claim of being a follower of Word of Life, she had denied it.

During this meeting the commanders said that the soldiers had not fought well.

He submitted that such measures, taken in order to penalise his political activities, were not “necessary” within the meaning of the second paragraphs of those provisions. 8.

  In such a case, there would be no question of an interference with the applicant's property rights, as the courts merely declared the true meaning of the agreements entered into.

He had thereafter disposed of the company shares without considering the interests of the creditors. The Supreme Court also concluded that these actions entailed misconduct.

The applicant had not demonstrated that it met the conditions for being considered a “tolerable construction” within the meaning of the law.