On 23 August 1996 the court held a hearing which had to be adjourned because of the absence of the defendant’s representative. 13.

The Court also declared that the applicant was eligible for the additional compensation because of the multiple illnesses following the compulsory inoculation but did not fix the amount because the Ministry

The Constitutional Court found his complaint inadmissible because it had no jurisdiction to review the decisions. 9.

On 4 March 1999 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant's lawyer. 13.

    A hearing fixed for 8 April 2002 was also adjourned because the applicant was not present. 31.

The bailiff thus considered that the enforcement of the contact order had become impossible because of the children’s opposition. 10 .

A hearing scheduled for 30 May 1996 was adjourned because the expert had failed to prepare his report.

  The lawyer, however, was unable to act because of a conflict of interest, and on 31 March 1987 the Bar Association appointed a second lawyer.

    The hearing of 24 June 1993 was postponed until 2 June 1994 because of a lawyers’ strike of indefinite duration. On the latter date one witness was heard. 11.

However, the applicant was acquitted of a public insult of a State official because, in the court's opinion, the publication did not contain cynical or obscene language in respect of the governor.

She also contended that because of her state of health it was impossible for her to find a job. In any event, she was unable to work. She submitted all her medical records.

He refused to do so, firstly, because he had already given these data when he was admitted to the penal institution and, secondly, because he opposed the fact that his data would be stored in a national

It held that “advertising must be tasteful and correspond to the highest moral standards” and that “advertising which might humiliate or degrade people because of their faith, convictions or opinions must

As to her statements made during the first round of questioning at the Prosecutor's Office, she maintained that they were also false because her lawyer had advised her to lie.

The applicant had refused to request the institution of proceedings under Article 125 because he did not consider it to be an effective remedy.

In particular, the investigators’ decisions were quashed:   - on 03/12/2007 because experts had not established whether B. could have avoided collision by following certain manoeuvres, provided for

The psychologists recommended that the boys should not take part in further investigative actions and in court proceedings because it was too stressful for them.

G. was a police officer and because there could be reasons for blood tests other than intoxication testing.

, any judges shall be ineligible ( kizárt ) who participated in the adoption of the decision to quash or in the adoption of the decision which has been quashed because of ill-foundedness.”