The applicant, therefore, argued that the flat was used for living purposes.

The flat in “Borovo” was not the former matrimonial home, because it was co-owned by the applicant’s former husband and third parties and both spouses had left it in 1995. 9.

However, the applicant did not regain possession of her flat until 21 March 2003.

  The applicant complains both of the court's and his lawyer's conduct in the case.

FLAT LEASE GROUP S.A.S.

According to her, she and her husband had purchased two flats in Sukhumi in 1986 and 1991, respectively. She provided the specific address and numbers of both flats.

When she had enquired about her flat and her possessions in the flat, M.F. had threatened her over the telephone. 16.

de cette opération, le dégagement d'une botte a laissé apparaître une flamme conduisant, en une quarantaine de minutes, à un embrasement généralisé du hangar qui a été entièrement détruit. 6.

When the applicants were in the vehicle, police searched both homes and rummaged through the household goods inside the flats.

In October 2007 he purchased a larger flat measuring 82.27 square meters as his existing flat was too small for his family of four. 3 .

It is difficult for me to say how long they stayed in the flat. While they were in the flat, a doctor arrived with an ambulance. She gave V. an injection of tranquillisers.

They also pointed to a number of flaws in the investigation, flaws which had resulted in the loss of evidence supporting the homicide theory.

and move into their new flats.

They all lived together in the flat in question. On 24 August 1992, while the applicants were absent from Zagreb, three members of the Croatian Army broke the door and occupied the flat.

    Upon Ms M.’s death, Ms Z. and Mr Z. lodged a claim seeking to have both the 1993 ownership certificate for the flat and the 2011 will invalidated.

Lastly, the applicant referred to the undisputed fact that the flat had been acquired when he and Ms S. had been married. Accordingly, he insisted that he had the right to a share in that flat.

On 6 January 1998 the applicant allocated his share of the flat to the Union for use. At an unspecified time the Union renovated the flat at its own expense. It has used it as its office ever since.

... the flat returned to the municipality.

Both of them had lived in that flat since 1963. They submitted that as a result of the events described below, they were forced to move out of the flat.

’s flat and to move into the flat [proposed to him], provided that the [condition of] the flat in question complies with the requirements laid down by this law in respect of alternative dwellings.