[D.M.] had been [serving in the] military when he had caused the damage, and the reasoning of that decision stated that he had died because of an injury sustained at work; - D.M. had not been on duty.

It had not been possible to summon the senior public prosecutor himself because he had died in 2009.

  This could not be served on the applicant because he was fugitive.   The applicant's lawyer only has a right to be present in court if there is a hearing.

The court pointed out that such avoidance or refusals had violated the rights of the plaintiffs and their fellow believers guaranteed by Article   29 and 30 of the Russian Constitution because the

    The next twelve hearings were adjourned because summonses were not properly served on S.K., who had to be heard as a witness. 10 .

In an earlier application to the European Commission of Human Rights (N˚ 18034/91), the Commission had already found a violation of Article 6 because the applicant had not had his case examined within

The applicants were not elected as members of parliament because the party had failed to reach the 10% threshold nationally.

His subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible as being lodged out of time because the Constitutional Court took the day on which the second-instance judgment had been served on his

33139/13 Oana-Cornelia NAPOTNIK against Romania lodged on 8 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the immediate termination of the applicant’s diplomatic mission in Slovenia because

An internal memorandum of the prison administration dated 30   January 2015 shows that the request had not been approved, because the applicant had insisted on visiting the father unescorted.

He also argues that Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated because only those dismissed from the public sector are subjected to the tax.

He also argues that Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated because only those dismissed from the public sector are subjected to the tax.

Those authorities so decided because the applicant did not submit invoices for the services rendered, even though he submitted other evidence to prove the existence of his claim.

She also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because she was not involved in them.

He also argues that Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated because only those dismissed from the public sector are subjected to the tax.

lodged on 9 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of the pre-trial investigation which in respect of the applicant lasted for nearly eight years and was terminated because

Because of the above alleged unfairness, the applicant claims to have been a victim of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

  Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain that, because they are men,

against the Netherlands lodged on 10 February 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision to withdraw the applicant’s residence permit and to impose a ten-year entry ban on him because