On 20 March 2010 the applicant complained in writing to a district prosecutor’s office about the above-mentioned events.

Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte Perkins , 13   March 1997). 42.

He was accused of having accepted money from two students for their studies at V. and failing to disclose those payments in the school’s accounts. 7.

It sent the matter back for a new hearing by the head of the Lyublino police station in Moscow on 6   March 2006. 27.

    On 29 January 2018 the Holosiyivsky Court extended the applicant’s detention to 30 March 2018.

This follows from a report dated 1 March 1979, which recognises that sexual identity is a fundamental right of the individual [] .

    E.A. had joined his department in March 2010 as a pharmacy assistant, working as a health manager.

Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Vincent A.

  Gasus appealed to the Hague Court of Appeal, summoning Atlas’s trustee in bankruptcy on 19 March 1984 and the Tax Collector and Van Baarsen on 20 March.

  STRASBOURG 25 March 2025   FINAL   25/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

   The application was introduced on 29 November 1988 and registered on 21 March 1989.   6.

Such involvement, however, would have to be limited due to his situation as a young adult beginning his studies.

On 24 March 1995 the applicant made further representations and on 12 May 1995 he was granted indefinite leave to remain as a foreign spouse. 10.

Suisse , 25 mars 1994, §§ 31-32, série A n o 287). 27.     En l’espèce, la Cour note que M.

MARXER                  M.A.

The same day, the headquarters of his Foundation for Culture and Romanian Studies were searched.

On several occasions in December 2005, January 2006, February, March, April and May 2008 and November 2009 he received vitamins.

    On 1 March 2012 the school management organised a meeting with the pupils’ parents from the first applicant’s class, in order to discuss the second applicant’s presence in the school.

They submitted that a fresh constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court would not have added anything to the issues under examination in the latter’s judgment of 21 March 2001.