The same considerations apply to a request for a pardon.

After their return, they placed F. in the same compartment as the applicant’s son and moved off to the Kotovskiy District Department of the Interior of the Volgograd Region.

Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention.

This judgment was later quashed, but after a reconsideration of the case the applicant was again convicted in May 1997 and given the same sentence.

Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

On the same date the District Court issued a judgment by consent ordering the applicant to pay the plaintiffs the agreed amount.

Despite this, the administrative court dismissed his application the same day. In March 2012 the Administrative Appeal Court reversed the administrative court’s decision.

Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

The whole event lasted about one minute. The applicant lodged an appeal against the Speaker’s decision on his exclusion to the Presidium of the Sejm .

A complaint based on the same facts was also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention.

regard to the partial decision adopted on 28 September 2004, Having regard to its decision, under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same

The applicant’s detention was extended several times mainly on the same reasons as those indicated in the court’s initial detention order.

Following a questioning, on the same day, the Foreigners Police decided to detain him.

Inadmissible under Article 8 and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7: The applicant’s complaint relating to the 1996 decision of the social services was substantially the same as that already examined by the Commission

THE LAW The applicant complained that both sets of proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.

On the same day, the District Court dismissed, in a partial decision, the applicant’s counter-claim for invalidation of the marriage.

The trial before the Regional Court lasted 3 years and some 8 months.

They alleged that the length of the enforcement proceedings – which lasted until 31 July 2003 – was unreasonable and that the sums due to them were never paid in full.

The first period thus lasted over ten years for all the applicants. 19.

    The applicants argued that the proceedings had lasted unreasonably long at all stages.