Le 19 septembre 2005, ce document fut mis à la disposition du requérant, lequel renvoya cette copie au tribunal de Lisbonne.

During its next hearing, on 17 April 2002, the court decided to join the 1+1 Channel as co-defendant. That hearing was adjourned until 8   May   2002.

Rather, it covers all material in the possession of the authorities with potential relevance, also if not at all considered, or not considered as relevant (compare Edwards , cited above, § 36; Bendenoun

  The applicant claimed to bear several scars from this treatment.   When the fire faded the prisoners were forced to kneel on the roasting ground where the fire was dying.

Edwards, lawyers practising in London. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

In its decision the Board held that the assets of Demirbank were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial

The report also stated that the cartridge did not bear any characteristic markings from which the firearm in question could have been identified. B.

The applicant requested copies of E.’s examination reports. 10.     No meeting between the applicant and E. was arranged. 11.

    A copy of the NMI report (see paragraph 9 above), which had not previously been provided to the families of the Trident’s crew, was sent to the applicants’ solicitor on 13 May 2004.

Their co-operation had begun on 28   September 2001, at the latest, when the applicant had made a trip to Estonia with J.J.

On 10 March 2005 the applicant provided the Court with copies of the two court decisions requested by it on 16   December 2004. II.

He refused to place copies of Mr Stevens’ three reports in the House of Commons library, claiming that police reports were confidential.

    The applicants also wrote numerous letters to various State officials, copies of which, together with the replies from official bodies, have been provided to the Court.

One week later, the applicant company’s chairman, Mr Eduard Muşuc, was arrested for peacefully demonstrating against his company’s closure. 32 .

That hearing did not bear on the merits of the case, but concerned the extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention. 28.

In accordance with the County Court’s decision copies of the decision were to be sent to V. and the applicant for information.

It provided, in so far as relevant, as follows: “10.2 The responsibility for initiating the co-ordination process rests with the States whose military forces are engaged in the conflict.