s 'attractive little houses' was built next to [the second applicant's] house” and “towered above it”; “in order to extend his assets G.C. destroyed [the second applicant's] shed”; “the fact that [G.C.

The City Court also noted the testimony of AS Giga ’s bookkeeper, A.M., to the effect that she had participated in the examination of the accounting documents on police premises and that she had access

     In the Government's view, the applicant did not have the status of a "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (art. 25-1).

a 1/3 (one third) share at TRL 162,555,120,000. 13.

déférée à la cour : Jugement rendu le 29 Janvier 2021 par le Juge de l'exécution de NANTERRE N° RG : 20/08466 Expéditions exécutoires Expéditions Copies délivrées le : 07.07.2022 à : Me Mélina

The second applicant is the first applicant’s founder and director, and the owner of 99,5 % of its shares. The remaining 0,5 % is owned by the second applicant’s wife. A.

The applicant then swam 100   metres away from the shore with the tyre, dropped the body into the sea and then returned to the shore.

In addition, he was not provided with a blanket and had to share the room with smokers even though he was a non-smoker. 9.

They each own a 14/16 share of the house. The third applicant inherited a   13/180 share of ownership of the house in October 2002. 16.

In 1992 it was restored to the applicant’s mother (a ¾ share) and the applicant (a ¼ share) under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act 1991.

As   a result, the first and second applicants each acquired a 4/12 share of ownership of the house.

    The State owns 32.67% of the shares in the Chuguyevskaya Toplivnaya Apparatura Company (the applicants’ employer, hereafter “the Company”), which is therefore subject to the Law of 29  

According to the documents in the case file, the A. company had purchased N.’s share in the apartment for AZN   2,000 per square metre. 11.

In 2012 and 2013 the third applicant sold its shares to a third party. Criminal proceedings against Mr I. Prokopiev First set of proceedings 7 .

company, shares in two Finnish housing companies and two cars.

She noted that she was in contact with most of them via Facebook, within a dedicated group that she had created.

It held that, in addition to the above-mentioned grounds, her detention was also necessary as she might influence witnesses or otherwise hamper the investigation within the meaning of Article 67 § 1 (b

The applicant accepted E.’s proposal and agreed to arrange a meeting with T. 10.

, he can countersign the charge sheet.