It thus lasted approximately five years and nine months. A.     Admissibility 20.

The first period thus lasted eight years, nine months and four days .

time an asbestosis, and, further, as it had not been established in medical science that people exposed to asbestos ran an increased risk of cancer, even if asbestosis was not present at the same time

The Regional Court granted the request on the same day. 32.

The second, in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions.

It therefore lasted over five years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction.

In this connection, they argued the same for the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

On the same date it decided to appoint a guardian ad litem for absent participants in the proceedings and announce that fact in a newspaper. 21.

The period under the Court’s consideration thus lasted until 13   November 2006. 28.

    On the same day the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to of one year’s imprisonment suspended for a three-year probation period.

At 7.30 a.m. the applicant gave her first written statement to the same female police officer. This interview lasted until 9.40 a.m. (see paragraphs   11-15 above).

person in respect of the same facts, and moreover before two different assize courts in the same city.

Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

  The Court also noted that the proceedings in question had lasted 12 years.

On the same date another judge withdrew for the same reason. The case was then assigned to the fourth judge, who conducted the proceedings until the end. 24.

By a decision of 30 September 2002, at the prosecutor’s request, a further extension in respect of the same persons was ordered until 1   January 2003, on the same ground.

On the same date, the applicant was informed of the decision. 10.

and with the same number of years of service but having retired at different dates varied considerably, in a way which the applicant considered to be unjustified. 24.

On the same date I.B. was issued with an occupancy order ( ордер ) in his name (see applicable legal provisions in paragraph   33 below).

    On 6 February 1998 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that in the police registry B.J.’s address was the same as before.