Subsequent developments On 11 May 2011 the Agent of the Government sent the following letter to the Court: “With reference to your Court’s judgment of 21 January 2011 in the case of M.S.S. v.

On 19 September 1995 he informed the court that M had already returned to Poland. However, on 8 October 1995, upon the court’s order, the police again established that M was abroad. 20.

In the course of the proceedings, the Administrative Court did not forward to the applicants the Ministry’s and a third party’s submissions concerning the applicants’ administrative action.

  On 22 October 2003, having pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter and one count of unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, the Criminal Court sentenced the applicant, 17 years and

    On 16 July 2009, following a retrial in the Crown Court at Leeds, the applicant was convicted on two counts; rape and assault by penetration of his 14 year old step daughter.

He asked the Supreme Court to quash the trial court’s judgment and its own 2002 decision upholding the original conviction.

With regard to the appeals against sentence, the court examined whether the conditions for placement in a psychiatric institution were met, but no new factual elements were adduced and the court's &#xa0

    On 23 March 1994 the Supreme Court reversed the Bratislava City Court’s judgment and ordered that:     “... [the applicant] has to accept that ...

On 19 September 1995 he informed the court that M had already returned to Poland. However, on 8 October 1995, upon the court’s order, the police again established that M was abroad.

(b)     The Court’s assessment 61.     The Court reiterates that it may only deal with an application if it is lodged with the Court within the six-month time-limit.

On 9 September 2009 the District Court of Kotka convicted the applicant, inter alia, of four counts of aggravated tax fraud that had taken place from 2003 to 2005.

partie, la chambre criminelle de la Cour de cassation n'a compétence que si le premier président de la cour d'appel estime nécessaire de désigner une cour d'assises située hors de ce ressort

On 6 May 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.

This view was later upheld by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Dispute could thus have been submitted to the civil courts. Conclusion : no breach (unanimously).

by a member of the procureur général 's department and participation of the latter in the court's deliberations: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports

After having held an oral hearing, the District Court had convicted the applicant of theft and menace on the first count and of theft on the second count. 18.

  SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT A.

As regards the credibility of the statements given by A.S. in the course of investigation, the trial court found: “In contrast to [the applicant] (...) the witness described in detail how he had first

by a member of the procureur général 's department at the Court of Cassation: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions).

. # Mme H contre Cour des comptes des Communautés européennes. # Fixation de la pension de survie de la veuve et des enfants à charge d'un membre de la Cour des comptes décédé au cours de son mandat. #