On 22 December 2008 a meeting was held with the applicant’s son. The report prepared by the head of Block 2 following the meeting does not reveal anything untoward. 19.

At their meeting Peter was also present and discussed the price of the grenades with them. Afterwards, Peter called the applicant regularly, asking him to procure the 50 grenades.

The applicants received cash settlement for their shares based on an expert opinion. 6.

had developed a certain bond with the Netherlands, in which country she also attended school and where she was settling in well.

In the indictment, the applicants were charged with membership of an illegal organisation under Articles 220(6) and 314 of the Criminal Code, violating the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law n

The applicant was also to invest part of his land as an equity share.

The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v.

  The Social Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had failed to show that he had suffered from an industrial accident within the meaning of the Reich Insurance Code, in particular that on

The court noted that she lived abroad and had not lodged such a claim.        On 31 January 1995 the applicant appealed.

       On 14 October 1988 the applicant started civil proceedings against Fatum for his share in the insurance claim.

The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

According to the Court’s case-law, the word “charge” in Article 6 § 1 must be interpreted as having an autonomous meaning in the context of the Convention and not on the basis of its meaning in domestic

No sheets or blankets were provided and he was not allowed to retrieve his own sheets from his personal belongings. He stated that he used a towel as a cover.   c.

    The State owns 75% of the shares in the Pivdenelektromash Company (hereafter “the Company), which is therefore subject to the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State-owned entities

suffering sustained by a person as a result of an accident caused by chance or negligent conduct could not be considered as the result of “treatment” to which someone had been “subjected”, within the meaning

As such, she had the exclusive right to use a   one ‑ room flat which was owned by the cooperative. She was living in this flat with her husband.

It recommended that she have no contact with her abusive father. 15.

She also told the person who collected the note that there were over 1,000 hostages inside the building. 55.

  She lives in Prague.   Before the Commission, she is represented by Mr F. Nevrela, a lawyer practising in Prague 1.