Having regard to the report drawn up on 6 September 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 4 April

;    Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 10 April

On 27 May 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 28 April 2011.

Croatia , no. 51198/08, 25   April 2013; Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; and compare Dominka v. Slovakia , (dec.) no. 14630/12, §§ 28-36, 3   April 2018).

In particular, on 3 December 2010 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal extended it to seven months and twenty-five days (until 1 April 2011).

She was then detained again on 9   April 2009 when she was re-tried by judge G. and convicted of (i) “organising contraband of strong substances (not amounting to narcotic or psychotropic drugs)”

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2001)141 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 April

Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).

On 14 April 2010 the applicants accordingly lodged a civil claim.

font-style:italic } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2001)122 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 April

2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the detention of the applicant, suffering from a psychiatric disorder, in the Mammagialla prison in Viterbo (from 10   March 2023 to 15 April

proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 April

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Pakelli case, delivered on 25 April

proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 April

proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 April

with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 30 May 1986 by Mr Rolf Wollart against Sweden (Application No. 12318/86);        Whereas on 4 April

before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;        Whereas in their application, declared admissible by the Commission on 1 April

to the report drawn up on 6 September 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the applications lodged on 20 May 1992 and 18 April

proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 April