under Article 6(1) of the Convention as well as rights arising from Article 5(1) and Article 8 of the Convention were violated by the denial of legal aid for the intended reopening of the Applicant’s lawsuit

“registered in the name of Zurab Lobzhanidze’s mother-in-law [the second applicant] but de facto belonging [ფაქტობრივ მფლობელობაში]” to the first applicant, in order to guarantee a potential civil lawsuit

without delay the Integration Organisation, the Savings Bank and the Mutual Capital Coverage Fund of Cooperative Credit Institutions ( “Szövetkezeti Hitelintézetek Tőkefedezeti Közös Alapja” ) in case a lawsuit

As for the possibility to refute the allegations contained in the article, Mr A could have done so but had opted instead in favour of a civil defamation lawsuit. 45.

The court shall, therefore, see in its line of duties that the parties exercise their rights properly throughout the procedure and meet the obligations they are bound to meet in the lawsuit.

    The Ljubljana District Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that there had been no wrongful conduct or unacceptable omission on the part of the defendants, and that therefore they could not

In particular, the applicant’s civil complaint was rejected by the domestic courts for non-compliance with the procedural requirements relating to lodging a lawsuit.

Thirdly, the mere fact that the applicants did not have to pay court fees for filing a lawsuit did not mean that this in itself was a sufficient effective remedy, or removed their right to conduct the

The newspaper was involved in numerous scandals and lawsuits. In October 2002 its editor in chief was arrested on charges of corruption.

In particular, he had failed to bring a separate civil lawsuit under Articles 199 and 200 of the Obligations Act, and the Court of Serbia and Montenegro had itself yet to consider his complaint filed on

  The defendants argued in particular that although the purpose of the lawsuit in their opinion was to obtain damages, the applicants had not yet presented any specific claim in this respect.

the visa decision of 7 January 2019 of the Immigration Appeals Board, that had not been refused revised in, inter alia , a decision of 29   May 2019 (see paragraph 34 above) by way of a civil lawsuit

According to the applicant, the parliamentarians’ “lawsuit plans were ... temporarily dropped” after the calls for reprisals against the applicant were condemned by one of the Vice ‑ Presidents

In particular, she had failed to bring a separate lawsuit under Articles 172 and 200 of the Obligations Act or Article 25 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 63-67 above).

had availed himself of the only effective remedy capable of providing genuine redress for his grievances in the form of the identification and punishment of those responsible, as opposed to a civil lawsuit

As regards three actual lawsuits, two had been dropped and one settled out of court.

the applicant, the head of a group of private bondholders, accused the Ministry of initiating a vendetta against him and ordering assaults on bondholders to pressurise them into withdrawing their lawsuits

The lawsuits pending at first instance were stayed in the meantime.

property which has nothing to do with the aims of protecting the environment and natural resources which it is said will be achieved by withdrawing the concession, thereby entailing a flood of potential lawsuits