claim).

    On 30 November 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court in Moscow granted the defamation claim in part.

Court could establish that in the proceedings before the Ministry of Justice and the High Administrative Court there were circumstances indicating [his procedural inequality] as a foreign national compared

It noted the applicant's claim that he had been cohabiting with another non-national in a marriage-like manner but found that three further persons had also been living with them.

Therefore, the relevant property could not be compared to other properties in different planning zones. COMPLAINTS 1.

Ont été entendus au cours de l’audience publique : - le rapport de Mme Permingeat, premier conseiller ; - les conclusions de Mme Coutarel, rapporteur public ; - et les observations de Me Balas représentant

Laval, rapporteur public, - les observations de Me Combaret pour la SCI MCS, M. A F et Mme B D et celles de Me Perrier substituant Me Jacques pour la métropole de Lyon.

Bodin-Hullin, rapporteur public, - les observations de Me Combaret, représentant Mme A..., - et celles de Me Trimaille, représentant la commune de Décines-Charpieu.

    The applicants submitted that while their older siblings’ claims for compensation in connection with their sister’s death had been allowed, their similar claims had been dismissed by the

They also alleged that, as a result of the relocation of the courts from Eastern Ukraine, they could not bring any claims before the courts.

This meant that the applicant companies could only claim losses for five years.

be raised by means of a claim for damages; however, if it appeared that it would be difficult to make a claim in respect of pecuniary damage in that way, redress could also be provided by way of just

Firstly, the applicant company claims that the interference was not prescribed by law.

The Government did not comment on the applicant’s claim. 25.

Therefore, since the applicant chose to pursue the claim lodged based on the provisions of the ordinary law her claim should be analysed by the courts accordingly.

  Accordingly, the applicant can still claim to be the “victim” of a breach of her right to a hearing within reasonable time, and the Government's objection must therefore be dismissed. 19.

  Subsequently, she withdrew the claim related to J’s failure to pay the rent. The applicant submits that her withdrawal was conditional on the success of the new claim.

The owner can claim the asset back from the possessor unless the latter is entitled to possess it. 2.

Following that, in written submissions of 13 May 1997 the applicant brought to the attention of the court another argument in support of his claim, namely that the contract by which the defendants had