On the same day, the public prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release.

It thus lasted five years and ten months before two levels of jurisdiction. 11.

By decision on the same day, the Investigating Judge ("giudice per l'udienza preliminare") dismissed the charge of abuse of power as time-barred and committed the applicant for trial on charges of making

The Civil Chamber No. 11 in turn transferred the case file to the Civil Chamber No. 19 on the same ground.

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 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

At the hearing held on 4 July 2001 the applicant withdrew his claim since the case was settled out of court on that same day. THE LAW I.

During the same period the disclosure of the applicant’s bank-accounts was ordered.

On the same day the applicant was taken to three different hospitals to undergo a gynaecological examination in order to establish her virginity status.

It thus lasted two years, two months and twenty-one days.

Vashchuk, a lawyer practising in the same city. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently, Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice.

Following his release from police custody which lasted about three days, the applicant was admitted to a hospital with a nose-fracture diagnosis and underwent surgery on his nose, although the forensic

The proceedings lasted since 2004 and, following remittal of the case to a court in Donetsk in early 2014, the authorities no longer have access to the domestic case file. THE FACTS 2.

By the same decision it upheld the applicant’s detention on remand. 13.

They thus lasted for one year and nine months. A.     Admissibility 30.

They thus lasted nine years and seven months. 23.

    Finally, the applicants complain under the same provision that their correspondence with the domestic authorities was perlustrated at the Kharkiv pre-trial detention facility (SIZO).

    The applicants filed a criminal complaint with the police on that same date.

It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

Relying on that same Article, the applicant in application no. 35272/17 also complained that the civil court’s award had been insufficient.

On the same day the applicant confessed to more crimes. F.     Discovery of injuries 18.