Therefore, it has to be established whether the State had grounds to start the investigation and forfeit the goods in order to ensure the effectiveness thereof.

What is determinant is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (ibid., para. 51).

According to the applicant he could not realise any of his assets while in detention.

    The State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 38.

He had not seen how and what key had been used to open the door of the cellar because he had been, at that time, in the police car.

; a statement by the third applicant dated 5 June 2007; a statement by Ms S.G. dated 6 June 2007; a statement by Ms A.K. dated 6 June 2007; three official medical examination reports in respect of each

On 3 August 2000 he was arrested on a charge of taking a bribe of 4,000 United States dollars (USD) in exchange for a favour concerning a case he was dealing with. 1.

    On 22 July 2011, while in the SIZO, the applicant was diagnosed with a sebaceous cyst.

He stated that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious and very serious crimes while acting in an organised group.

statements made by children.

of the Minister and the State Secretary of Justice.

    However, a distinction must be made between decisions or statements that reflect the opinion that the person concerned is guilty and those which merely describe a state of suspicion.

They pointed to the fact that while a legitimate aim may have existed at the start, none existed twenty years later as shown by the fact that the tenants had abandoned the property.

On 3 March 2000 UV signed a contract with the Civil Aviation State Authority (hereafter “CASA”), under which the State-owned airline company Air Moldova was to be reorganised into a Moldovan-German limited

The State has referred to a number of dismissal decisions that indicate that this lies outside the domain of criminal law.

On the 17 September 1997, the robbery alleged in count 4 occurred, while a further robbery alleged in count 5 took place on 24 October 1997.

She requested that the Board’s decision not be implemented while the review proceedings were pending.

    On 16 May 1995 the Court asked the County of Frederiksborg what was upholding the case, which resulted in the submission of their rejoinder on 8   June 1995. 26.

They opposed a public inquiry and proposed a second internal inquiry to start disciplinary proceedings against some staff.