12 February 2004 the hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to appear. 16.     On 29 March 2004 the hearing was cancelled because the judge was ill. 17.

In particular, the hearings were adjourned twice because of the failure of the applicant to appear, twenty times due to the failure of the respondents or their representatives to appear, and twice because

Two hearings did not take place because both parties did not appear. Three judges in succession dealt with the case.

In July 2017 the charges against K.P. were dismissed because she had fulfilled the aforementioned conditions. 3 .

S., a victim, also submitted an extraordinary appeal, arguing that the proceedings had been unfair because she had also not been summoned and that because the applicant had been convicted unfairly because

They had decided to search her bag because such an action “was compatible with the law”.

As a result, the details of the conflict with Pte   K. became known among the members of Pte   Ye.F.’s new unit as well and he became shunned as a “rat”.

However, he claimed that he had been insulted and then dismissed because of his Hutu ethnicity.

enregistrée le 3 décembre 1992 au secrétariat du Contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, présentée pour la FEDERATION DEPARTEMENTALE DES CHASSEURS DU MORBIHAN, ayant son siège ..., et par le CLUB NATIONAL DES BECASSIERS

She continued to hold citizenship of the former USSR until 31 December 2000 when she became a stateless person. She currently lives in Moscow.

He maintained that he fell within the jurisdiction of all the respondent States because they were the occupying powers in Iraq, because he was under their direct authority and control or because they were

The hearing scheduled for 10 February 1998 was adjourned because the defendants did not appear. However, the court heard the applicant.

In the letter of 26   January 2011 addressed to the applicant’s mother it was found that there had been no possibility of placing the applicant in the therapeutic ward because of his legal status

    The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decision on reverting her money to the State had not had a legal basis because Article 188 of the Criminal Code did

(prohibition of discrimination) , namely that the authorities had discriminated against him by denying him the right to take over the tenancy of the flat, was declared inadmissible , in particular because

The applicant thought that this amount was excessive because it amounted to almost half of the garden community’s budget.

In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because she had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Virovitica Municipal Court.

In this connection they submitted that the applicant did enjoy access to a court because he had instituted civil proceedings for damages before the Osijek Municipal Court.

The applicant’s family lived in the house until 1957, when they moved to the Turkish quarter of Larnaca because of the inter-communal troubles.