He considered that the court of appeal was competent to hear the case because of the nature of the offences.

    The hearing of 10 April 2000 was adjourned until 21 August 2000 because the defendant did not attend. 12.

They nevertheless submitted that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the arbitration clause was not applicable to them. 13.

In addition to shunning and threatening him because of his collaboration with the Serbs, the Albanian militants disliked the applicant because of his background - his father was a chief in Uroševac police

The next hearing, which was due to take place on 25 October 1994, was adjourned because the expert report was not ready.

    On 17 December 1999 the hearing was postponed because the judge was ill. 16 .     On 12 January 2000 the hearing was postponed because of the applicant's absence. 17.

    The hearings fixed for 24 April and 16 June 2003 were adjourned because the case file was with the City Court.

It decided to serve the summons on the applicant via public notification because the applicant had moved abroad.

The applicant’s appeal against that decision was rejected because it was not provided by law.

The applicants submitted that if returned, the family and he would be at risk of persecution in their home country because of his participation in an opposition movement.

On 16 January 2006 the applicant was released from detention because he had served all 30 days of his sentence.

On 7 July 2010 the applicant went for the examination, but after her height was measured the process was terminated and the applicant was told that she was unfit for the position because she was too small

    In March 2014 the investigation was discontinued because of the expiry of the prescription period.

    The Government argued that the applicant had lost his victim status because the enforcement proceedings at issue had been terminated.

    The applicants participated in both the civil and the ensuing enforcement proceedings as interested third parties ( umješač ) on the side of the municipality because the road in question

On 26 May 1999 the case was transferred to another judge because the previous judge had been temporarily placed to another court.

In its assessment of Z’s testimony the Regional Court set out that it took into account that investigations against Z were opened because of statements by the applicant.

At that time, the applicant did not move into her new apartment, because the construction of the building had not been fully completed and the tenants had to complete the repair works in their respective

Despite his efforts, the bailiff was unable to obtain enforcement of the interim order because of the opposition of the owners’ association.