.s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14951/12 Aristide RĂDUICĂ against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting

159.34pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 53877/10 OTTO WOLFF HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT MBH against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting

In July 2012, the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague, sitting in Zwolle, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, considering that, although the situation in South-Kivu fell within the scope of Article

228.11pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40423/04 by Konstantin Ivanov ATANASOV and Others against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting

s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 51669/99 by Renata PAŁYS against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights, sitting

By a decision of 21 November 2007 the Iaşi County Court, sitting as a bench of two judges, allowed the third party’s appeal on the merits, quashed the judgment of 25 January 2007 and dismissed the applicant

width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 49538/12 GLOTAR ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHERS against Liechtenstein The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting

They argued that, according to domestic case-law (in particular, judgment no. 18480 of 2010 of the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court), all qualifying beneficiaries placed on the list had a right

His case was sent to the regional court for trial by a professional judge sitting with two lay judges.

width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19406/15 Žydrūnas GROTUZAS against Lithuania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting

inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 5559/17 Valică DRĂGAN against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting

After the remittal, the SJC found that the second applicant had failed to withdraw from sitting in a case in which a party to the proceedings was represented by a law firm in which her son worked, notwithstanding

inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40226/16 Gheorghe BÎLEA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting

uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29193/09 Aurel MIRON against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting

The Chief Justice suspended the sitting and went to his chambers. A few minutes later the lawyers of both parties were called into the president’s chambers.

font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 8110/08 Ahmet OĞUZHAN and Meliha OĞUZHAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting

inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13259/09 Dragoljub KOSTIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting

On 7 June 2000 the Graz Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht ), sitting in camera, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Regional Court’s decision.

       On 2 May 1989 the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), sitting as a Disciplinary Court, suspended the applicant from office.