The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.

On 18 March 2002 S.Ž. submitted to the court a written request for the postponement of the eviction. On 25 March 2002 the court asked the applicant to reply to that request.

Since 17 March 2014 he has been detained in Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89 (“Prison no. 89”). He is represented before the Court by Ms   A.L.   Yushchenko and Mr D.I.

Marius Y..., propriétaire, demeurant Le Landenais, chemin Saint-Marc, La Cadière d'Azur (Var), en cassation d'un arrêt rendu le 25 janvier 1989 par la cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence (10e chambre civile

In the case of Musina and Others v.

In the case of Abukauskai v.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

    The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.

    In March 2003 the SFO carried out a third raid, following which both applicants were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt. They were again granted bail. 8.

In cases where demonstrators tried to prevent or alter the exercise of an activity carried out by others, the Court had concluded that the inflicting of sanctions had been a reaction proportionate to the

    The applicant, Mr Ioan Mureşan, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Baia Mare. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.

could have carried out the procedure.

40 March 2002 Sabuktekin v.

It appears from the case file that during the administrative arrest the police carried out certain investigatory actions with the applicant in connection with the incriminated murder without participation

The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

    The applicants in the present case complained exclusively of the adverse psychological effects of the police operation carried out at their home on the morning of 31 March 2010.

    On 23 March 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint after it had established that a new criminal investigation into the case had been opened on 11 March 2005 and

    The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant’s daughter was born on 29 July 2005. She was involved in a traffic accident in March 2010.

In the case of Posevini v.