Greffier lors des débats : Madame Charlotte COMBARET. Les parties ont été avisées que le prononcé de la décision aurait lieu par mise à disposition au greffe le 19 Janvier 2023.

    The applicants submitted the following arguments in support of their claims. 9.

Article 40 § 1: “The value of the claim” “The value of the claim shall be indicated by the claimant.

for damages prevented him from submitting that claim to the courts. 4.

sur le contrat de vente en omettant sciemment le terme crédit et en ne fournissant donc pas d'offre préalable, en ce qu'elle s'abstient de fournir une information claire sur le coût du financement, le

    The Government contested those claims. 48.

The Court rejected, as did the Municipal Court, the applicant's claim for eviction of the defendants.

of 27 May 1999; and the TEAC’s decision of 16 November 2001 (see paragraph 7 above) had revoked the annulment of tax claim for year 1991. 13.

.); and (b)     a claim for damages under that provision cannot be brought against the court which has issued the surveillance warrant but, as the case may be, against (i) the authority which

April 2012 (file page 128) ... so it was an inadmissible new claim.” 11 .

    If the applicant fails to comply with the requirements set out in the preceding paragraphs the Chamber may reject the claims in whole or in part. 4.

    The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violations.

On 9 February 2006 the Helsinki District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten ) rejected the company’s claim to ownership of the applicant’s invention but accepted its alternative claim and confirmed that

Further particulars of the claim are set out below in the section "As to the law". 5.

On 14   March   2001 the Alūksne District Court upheld their claims in part and ordered KTMR to pay the outstanding salaries.

    The Government contested these claims. 40.

On 25 October 2004 the Elbląg Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 250) and dismissed the remainder of his claim.

  The case where the Administrative Court had denied a retroactive effect was based on different facts and could not be compared with the present case.

[The first seven applicants'] argument that claims for reparation for breach of human rights are not a damages claim in the normal sense cannot therefore succeed.