to the value of the applicant’s claim.

After the hearing it upheld the applicant’s claim in part.

  The mere circumstance that the relevant legal provisions did not provide for a compensation claim to be set off against claims not related to the property in question was not sufficient to consider

As the previous conciliation claim, the judicial claim also included a detailed account of the remunerations of her colleagues, the use of which was not challenged by the company. 8.

Sur le rapport de M. le conseiller DULIN, les observations de Me FOUSSARD et de la société civile professionnelle PIWNICA et MOLINIE, avocats en la Cour, et les conclusions de Mme l'avocat général COMMARET

On 25 January 2000 the Baltiyskiy District Court of Kaliningrad allowed the applicants’ claims in part.

D.M.H. objected to the payment; the applicant association therefore moved to assert its claim in civil (small claims) proceedings.

The defendants brought a counter claim seeking to be recognised as the owners of the plot based on adverse possession.

D..., dirigeant de la société POREE HAVLIK, société concurrente, dont l'objet est « COMBELLE & CANDIDE » depuis sa boîte personnelle. Ces échanges sont versés aux débats par M.

CREATIONS GUIDOTTI C/ [N] [Y] INFIRMATION Grosse délivrée le 21/10/22 à Me Nathalie CLAIR Me Adrien TESTUT REPUBLIQUE

    The Government contested that claim. 39.

Firstly, they considered that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim” of a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

    The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. 34.

    The Government contested that claim. 39.

In the present case, however, the applicant failed to substantiate her claim and provided no detailed explanation of her reasoning on the issue.

The applicants can accordingly still claim to be “victims” of a breach of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 23.

However, their claim as concerned damage resulting from the loss of the family relationship was upheld as was the amounts awarded. 6 .

On 26 May 1998, the Freiburg Social Court rejected the applicant’s claim.

        The applicant challenged the landlord's claim before the Mauthausen District Court (Bezirksgericht) which, on 15 January 1988, found that all the conditions set out