The applicant is a disabled person (lost both of his legs in 1959) who has practiced shooting for a number of years, won medals in different competitions, led the national shooting team of persons with

No details as to these allegations, however, are available since the applicant has not been in the position to submit any document or judicial decisions in that respect; he alleges that he has lost them

On 24 July 2017 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that he had lost contact with the applicants.

It was established that while driving at about ninety ‑ two kilometres per hour (when the speed limit was 50   kilometres per hour) she lost control of her car and entered the pavement where

The relevant law unequivocally empowered the Council to strike an individual off the register upon the establishment of statutory grounds on which a notary lost the right to practice.

On 16   December 2018 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had been released from detention and that he had lost contact with the applicant.

The applicant did not bring any court action to retrieve the lost possession.

As a consequence the applicant lost his tobacco retail licence. He was unable to obtain a new licence under the new rules. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No.

Following a legislative amendment, the applicant lost the entitlement to the allowance as from 30   June 2013.

By her observations submitted in respect of applications nos. 39926/20 and 40725/20 dated 16 October 2024, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that she had lost contact with the applicant

May 2017 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that, since her client had not been answering her telephone calls nor willing to communicate with her in any other manner, he had apparently lost

In reply, the applicant’s representative informed the Registry on 23   February 2024 that he had lost contact with his client.

German authorities could not be taken to have provided the applicant with adequate redress for the breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time and, consequently, the applicant had not lost

applicant’s failure to inform the Registry about the developments in her case, the change of her address, and the absence of any correspondence from her for nearly three years, indicate that she has lost

VINGT QUATRE OCTOBRE DEUX MILLE VINGT DEUX PARTIES EN CAUSE : Monsieur [F] [Z] de nationalité Française [Adresse 2] [Localité 6] Représenté par Me Jean-Michel LECLERCQ-LEROY de la SELARL LOUETTE-LECLERCQ

ordures ménagères auxquelles elle a été assujettie au titre des années 2019 et 2020 à raison des immeubles dont elle est propriétaire situés 164 route de Brest, 6 avenue de Gourvily, 16 allée Pierre Louet

    The applicant complained that property belonging to her company had been lost as a result of negligent actions on the part of a State agent.

    To arrive at this figure, the experts estimated the lost profit for 1997 (from 1 October), 1998, 1999 and 2000 (up to 31 August).

He also claimed compensation in respect of lost wages. 8.