proceedings should be struck out because their continuation would contravene Article 30 § 2 of the Constitution.

A hearing fixed for 20 January 1993 was rescheduled for 21 April 1993 because the applicant could not appear.

Another car was offered to her, which she refused because it was cheaper than the one to which she was entitled. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Government in February 2001.

Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant contends that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and that her private behaviour was considered inappropriate by the national authorities because

In addition, it concerns the cancelation of the applicant’s pension rights granted for his participation in the popular revolt which overthrew the communist regime in Romania because he was declared a

The Deputy Minister of Justice and Security, relying on the applicant’s criminal record that included convictions of theft, insult, and destruction of property, made the impugned decision because she considered

and the manner in which the domestic courts examined their claim against the NTRC challenging the results of the tender, had not been compliance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention, because

They also complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a reasoned decision was breached because in the course of ensuing proceedings the domestic courts failed to address their serious

Ion PĂCALĂ against Romania lodged on 13 May 2021 communicated on 1 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in an administrative fine imposed on the applicant on 15 April 2019 because

    Without prejudice to Question 1, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the judgment awarding compensation to the applicant has not been enforced (see Burdov

The applicant alleged under Article 6 §§ 1and 2 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings opened against him (i) were unfair because the domestic courts had failed to examine all the essential arguments

November 2014 the Bar Association’s administrative board dismissed the aforementioned application finding that the applicant was not a person considered worthy of public trust under the Attorneys Act because

On 18 May 2016 the children’s judge issued a supervision order ( ondertoezichtstelling) in respect of the applicant’s children born in 2013 and   2015 because of the unsafe and unstable parenting

The constructions of the buildings in which apartments had been offered to them were never started because of financial difficulties of the municipalities (or were never finished for the same reasons).

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings were not fair because the courts failed to apply the statute of

l'exécution d'un jugement du tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny du 16 mars 2000 prononçant en tant que de besoin l'expulsion de Mme et de tout occupant de son chef d'un logement situé 4 rue du Four-Bécard

The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had to bear an excessive burden because the customs authorities refunded the customs duties paid by it after a considerable period

October 2020 communicated on 21 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the domestic courts to declare the applicant’s civil action for defamation inadmissible because