sq. m had been restored to them by way of a final court decision in 1996. 24.

The applicant was therefore ordered to return 430,000 Slovakia korunas (SKK) of the subsidy and to pay SKK 860,000 by way of a financial penalty. 8.

    When the applicant refused to comply with that request and told the police officers that it was not his wall and therefore he had no obligation to clean it up, the police officers started

  His activities in Iran had consisted of writing “code-like slogans” ( code-achtige leuzen ) on walls, on the instructions of one H. who was his contact with the party.

cette qualité audit siège [Adresse 8] [Adresse 8] [Localité 1] Représentée et plaidant par Mme [H] [B] dûment mandatée DEBATS : A l'audience publique du 24 Mars 2022 devant Mme Elisabeth WABLE

GREFFIER LORS DES DEBATS : Mme Marie-Estelle CHAPON COMPOSITION DE LA COUR LORS DU DELIBERE : Mme Elisabeth WABLE en a rendu compte à la Cour composée en outre de: Mme Elisabeth WABLE, Président

In reply to the Investigator’s question as to how he had sustained the injury, the applicant stated that four days earlier, during a fit of anger, he had punched a wall. Nobody had witnessed this.

GREFFIER LORS DES DEBATS : Mme Marie-Estelle CHAPON COMPOSITION DE LA COUR LORS DU DELIBERE : Mme Elisabeth WABLE en a rendu compte à la Cour composée en outre de: Mme Elisabeth WABLE, Président

Sur l'interdiction du recours aux " cookie walls " : 8.

The applicant stated that he had sustained it by punching a wall in a fit of anger several days prior to his arrest.

It was very clear during the two interviews with the children that they both wanted to change their way of life.

    The applicant averred that the judgment of 10 March 1999 had been unlawfully quashed by way of a supervisory review and that it had not been enforced. B.

Indeed, on the contrary, had I been in his place, I would have exercised the discretion in precisely the same way and for the same reason. ” 10.

On 16 July 2003 that judgment was quashed by way of a supervisory review and the re-examination of the case was ordered.

In late 1999 or early 2000 the Council resolved to take enforcement action by way of injunction or prosecution; at about the same time, the occupiers, styling themselves “the owners of Woodside Caravan

But he didn’t and he kept telling me, ‘This way is better. They gave you a truncated form of your rights.’

In their view the way in which the courts interpreted and applied section 179(3) did not give rise to any violation of Article 8.

    On 11 February 2010 the applicants, referring to Article 18 § 2 of Law no. 146/1997, challenged the way in which the appellate court had calculated the stamp duty.

    According to the applicant, the cells had damp on the walls and wet floors, leaking ceilings and no ventilation. They were also infested with cockroaches and bedbugs.