On 4 May 1984 the Prenzlauer Berg District Court ( Stadtbezirksgericht Berlin, Prenzlauer Berg ) withdrew parental custody.

A... le 5 juin 2013 des parts de la SCI Steniso, dont les sociétés Bern Finances et Sapafang sont associées.

  1 had thus been violated.

    The Court notes that this complaint is admissible, as no ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. 22.

He noted that the applicants’ case (the assessment of damages element) had been listed for hearing in the High Court on 13 October 1998.

’ representative during the hearing which had been held on 18 March 1998.

Moreover, the appeal proceedings in the applicant’s case had still been pending. 32.

It was unclear to what extent the terms used had been imprecise, and indeed, the objections raised by the plaintiffs had a priori been completely unfounded.

  The applicants argue that the courts failed to consider their arguments that their military service had been effected in conditions which made it tantamount to slavery and had been applied to persons

Nor had the applicants’ right to property been violated.

He argued that no careful assessment had been made and that the balancing of interests had been unfair.

font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 68496/10 Mehmet BERK

It could have been caused by the fact that the teeth hit each other.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. 2.     Article 13 20.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   4.