It awarded the applicant SKK   50,000 [2] by way of   just satisfaction in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and dismissed her remaining claims. B.

  The domestic proceedings The applicant lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal on 15   December 2006, claiming, inter alia, damages for indirect discrimination contrary to regulation 3

The judge rejected the applicant’s claim that his removal to Italy would be in violation of his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and held that the applicant had not established that Italy

Part of the costs were to be paid by the applicants in view of their rejected claims. 7.     The applicants appealed. 8.

Furthermore, it noted that the rental yields used by the expert were rather high when compared to those established by the 2018 amendments, namely, 2 percent, which would be more adequate, and thus its

The Government also considered that the claim for non-pecuniary damage was excessive.

    On 22 March 2022, the Szeged Regional Court adopted its decision, upholding the applicants’ claims.

It did not accept the applicants’ argument that the case should be dismissed owing to the delay in the proceedings, reasoning, inter alia , that they could not claim to have been under any uncertainty

Finally, the immigration judge considered that the second applicant’s failure to claim asylum in France damaged his credibility. 23.

The Court finds that this complaint is about damage which the applicants claim to have sustained as a result of undue interference by the authorities with their property.

    On 20 April 2006 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted the claim and annulled the decision of 5 June 2002.

The applicant company did not make a claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 45.

She further complains that the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany, in the proceedings under the Act Regulating Unresolved Property Questions, interfered with her claim to the restitution of her

    On 23   December 2002 the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court granted the applicant's claim in part. 11.

  As regards the claim that Mr.

It found that a pension claim was not a claim which falls entirely under the assets subject to the bankruptcy proceedings.

The respondent submitted to the court official documents evidencing [this fact] and thus de facto accepted their claims. ...

  He suffered discrimination compared with persons who suffered lesser injuries.

By a judgment filed in the registry on 8 May 2002, his claim was rejected.