The applicants’ father brought compensation proceedings against the relevant State authority for his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, but he had already lost his life by the time the proceedings were

language policy: Article 11 not applicable Facts – The applicant was a “permanently resident non-citizen” of the Republic of Latvia, a legal status granted to citizens of the former Soviet Union who had lost

A.G. had lost consciousness and the applicant had then helped place him on the river bank.

    Having regard to his vulnerability as a stateless person and, in particular, as a former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia citizen who had lost permanent residence status as a result

A few years later he lost his job and was no longer able to pay for the utilities.

Such safeguards were all the more important in the applicant’s case as, with her removal from office, she had automatically lost the right to practise law.

Following the introduction of new legislation in 2005, all the applicants – except for the second, whose medical records had meanwhile been lost – were eventually afforded full access to the requested

The applicant company claims that, considering the deterioration of the state of preservation of the building, the property can no longer serve any purpose and, consequently, that it has lost its investment

    In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application.

A lot of people, in particular from Bitola, lost their deposits in what was later established by the judicial authorities to constitute a “pyramid savings scheme”.

In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application.

In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in her application.

He claimed in particular that since 1999 he had lost all control over his property without receiving any compensation. 2.

The Social Security Authority dismissed the applicant’s objections reiterating its conclusion that he had not lost two ‑ thirds of his working capacity.

THE LAW In a letter dated 9 November 2006 the applicant stated, in reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, that her application had lost any justification after she had withdrawn

    In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 c) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant has lost interest in his application.

As a result of this ill-treatment, and not because of the injury caused by the pistol shot, he practically lost his eyesight.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that he and his family (a wife, their four children and the wife’s her mother and siblings) have lost their home and would be forced to leave the flat.

of possessions Facts – Through various international treaties signed at the relevant time the Romanian State undertook the obligation to compensate former owners or their successors in title who had lost

The Government submitted, inter alia , that after their repeated acquittal, the applicants lost their victim status.