The applicant appealed against both judgments to the Administrative Court of Appeal ( kammarrätten ) in Gothenburg.

Seamarks, both tier two negotiators, on route to GPS.’ The Information Room Inspector states that an attempt was made to contact D.I. McCart both on his home number and on his pager. D.I.

Relying on several statements given by both undercover and regular witnesses, the court considered that the evidence adduced was not sufficiently decisive to rebut the presumption of innocence operating

The DSAPF noted that both parents were able and willing to bring up their children. The children loved both parents equally and wanted to be close to both of them. 20 .

They recommended that both parents undergo a psychiatric evaluation. 13.

Court 16/06/2017 and St   Petersburg City Court 30/06/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both

Both applicants were granted bail. 9.

The court found that both parents had taken an equal share in A.’s upbringing. They both had sufficient financial means and their standard of living was equally satisfactory.

Both applicants complained under Article 12 that to force them to divorce would be to make their right to marry enshrined in the Article devoid of content.

Both parties appealed. 28.

Both daughters sought contact with their father and wished to visit him in his home. The experts recommended therapy involving both parents and children. 19.

  1, where the doctor diagnosed him with a possible contusion of both kidneys, with a question mark next to the diagnosis.

The Court further notes that both the District Court and the Federal Constitutional Court conducted the proceedings before them speedily.

In order to gain legal force, the Commission's decisions are to be confirmed by both Governments (Article   6).

It was submitted that the lack of legal representation of both parties contributed to the delay in the proceedings. 58.

The parties have reached a friendly settlement providing for payment to the applicant of 7 million lire (ITL) to cover both non-pecuniary damage and costs incurred by him.

Russia   (no. 14902/04) initially scheduled for 14 January 2010 has been adjourned until 4 March 2010 due to the unavailability of both the ad hoc judge, Mr Andrei Bushev,   and the Government

The applicants’ administrative appeal and application for judicial review, both concerning the service itself were dismissed, on 22 August 2012 and 15 February 2013 (service: 26 February 2013), respectively

including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, documentary evidence against the applicant and the reasoned judgment of the trial court, the applicant’s and his lawyer’s written submissions both