1 to the Convention because the debt was not “provided for by the law” under the domestic law of Ukraine. 35.

court until after the issuing of the decree nisi, her submissions were inadmissible because they had not been raised in the administrative proceedings.

in their previous jobs and, secondly, because the compensation awarded to them was too small and inadequate.

The statement read as follows: “I ask you to terminate the proceedings concerning my claim for [reinstatement] because I withdraw the claim.”

s office had been unlawful because it disregarded A.'s right to professional secrecy, which he enjoyed as the applicant's lawyer.

  On 11 March 1999 the applicant did not attend court in Dingwall because he refused to pay the toll on the Skye Bridge.

She [argued that she had] refused medical help only because her trust in doctors had been shattered.

According to the official records, he was arrested because he disobeyed lawful order of the police officer to stop making noise in the street (Article 535 of the CAO).

    On 12 June 2001 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint because it lacked any prospect of success.

approach) or – in certain cases – because of the consequences for private life (in that event the Court employs the consequence-based approach).

  The hearing set down for 26 November 1986 could not take place because the judge had been transferred.   10.

A Hearing on 26 June was also cancelled because the agent dealing with the case had been ill and the work had not been carried out.

[or] because the respondent authority lacked jurisdiction, 3.

By an interim decision, the court refused the applicant’s request for leave to appear at the appeal hearing because the appeal was conducted without a prosecutor and because the applicant’s arguments had

She was alleged to have known that her husband had not been able to defend himself because he had been sleeping.

The DAA also ordered that an appeal had no suspensive effect because it was necessary to avoid the risk that a person lacking trustworthiness for road traffic might drive.

Subsequently the applicant was offered to temporarily move with his family into a room in a former military hospital, because it allegedly had a better functioning heating system, but he refused because

The Government contended that this was, however, immaterial in the present case because the interpretation and application of a law was not at issue.

On 14 July 1995 the Ministry of Defence informed the applicant that he could not leave the country because he had not submitted himself to the draft.