She asked the court to award her damages for breach of her personal rights and to oblige J.E. to publish an apology. 16 .

    After completion of the pre-trial investigation, the applicant’s case was sent to trial at the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes.

The court explained that the applicant should approach the Prisons Administration with complaints concerning the prison authority in charge of Pārlielupe Prison or the prosecutor’s office if a crime had

In addition, she worked as a regional coordinator for the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, where she trained journalists in investigation techniques and cross-border reporting.

suggested that the measure imposed on the applicant should be challenged, noting that the Speaker should have showed more tolerance, and had unambiguously promised a favourable resolution and even an apology

In its judgment, the court emphasised the public interest in the investigation and, if appropriate, the prosecution and conviction of those who had committed crime.

    Judge B.B. asked the newspaper to publish an apology but it refused to do so. 13.

If you and other judges interpreted it that way – I sincerely apologise. [However,] other questions and doubts remain after the reading of Marian Maciejewski’s text.

It was to be published once and was to read as follows: “The editors of Fakty i mity apologise to Ms ATK – prosecutor at the Łodź Regional Prosecutor’s Office - for breaching her personal rights through

He alleged that the applicant had publicly insulted him on numerous occasions and sought a judicial order that she apologise and pay him appropriate financial compensation.

This is already a problem, this is already a crime”. The Minister insisted on the applicant apologising for the words “unclean person”. Thereupon the applicant said: “Alright, I apologise”.

court considers that this information is damaging to the honour, dignity and professional reputation of [the 13 plaintiffs] as officers of the anti-narcotics unit, whose main duty is the fight against crime

In particular, he was convicted on 4 July 2007 by the Paris Court of Appeal for denial of a crime against humanity.

Under the Law, the potential victim can seek publication of a retraction, a public apology or rectification.

The applicant demanded apologies and compensation for moral damage. On 3 June 2002 the Novozavodsky District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.

place   ; [après cela], Enric Stern avait renversé un liquide inflammable [sur la photographie] et Jaume Roura y avait mis le feu à l’aide d’une torche, et la combustion avait été célébrée par des cris

FORACO MANAGEMENT [Adresse 3] [Localité 4] Représentée par Me Emily APOLLIS de la SELARL SAFRAN AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de MONTPELLIER- Postulant Représentée par Me Marine MONGES de la SCP SELAFA

    The first-instance court ordered the first applicant to issue an apology and refutation.

  Following complaints by the applicants concerning the allegations, a letter of apology was sent to them by the hospital administrator.