In a judgment delivered on 26 April 2016 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects on account of

[Z] et les Sociétés APRIL PARTENAIRES et QBE EUROPE (ès qualité d’assureurs) ainsi que la SAS COFIBAT et les sociétés TETRIS ASSURANCE et ERGO VERSICHERUNG AG (ès qualité d’assureurs), en lieu et place

Between 2 February and 20   April 1998 nineteen witnesses were heard. On 30 April 1998 the investigating judge requested the court appointed expert to supplement his opinion.

14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 26 April

APRIL Grosse délivrée le à Avocats : Me Christèle BADETS-PEAN la SELARL DESCRIAUX AVOCATS LEGAL AECG I CETA TRIBUNAL JUDICIAIRE DE BORDEAUX 6EME CHAMBRE CIVILE ORDONNANCE

[U] Défendeur : la société April Santé Prévoyance et autre Relevé d'office de la péremption n° : 493/25 Ordonnance n° : 88783 du 13 novembre 2025 ORDONNANCE _______________ Carole Caillard

During his detention at the prison, on 13 and 26   April 2011 the applicant was taken to the ITT; on 1, 19 and 20 April 2011 and on 10 and 13 May 2011 he was taken to the UBOZ premises to participate

proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 April

{ width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 33237/04 by Samed Guseyn-Ogly MAMEDOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 April

On 22 April 2014 the first-instance judgment became enforceable. The parties then lodged an appeal on points of law against the second-instance judgment, which is still pending.

On 28 April 2016 the Court allowed the Government’s request to restore the application to its list of cases.

On 24 April 2009 he attended the Newroz celebration.

2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 11 April 2019 the applicants, who are all Venezuelan nationals, were apprehended in the territorial waters of Curaçao.

    On 17 April 2012 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Moscow Regional Court without giving any specific answer to the applicant’s argument about the expiry of the lawful period of

On 1 April 2014, the heirs of Mr Barbu Serban Ionescu, Ms Victoria Elena Ionescu, Ms Anca Brânduşa Ionescu and Mr Dan Alexandru Ionescu informed the Court of the second applicant’s death and expressed

full version of which was prepared on 25 April 2016 – only on 10 May 2016 (whereas the deadline for appeal was ten days counting from the date of the full version of the decision).

On 30 April 1999 the applicant sought an order before the Adana Assize Court for her husband, V. Ü., to be declared presumed dead since he had been missing for more than five years.

Her application was lodged on 25   April   2003. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Irina Cambrea. A.

Having lodged an indictment in April 2018, in April 2022 the public prosecutor changed the legal classification of the charges against the members of the medical commissions to less serious charges (which