On 29 January 1988 the applicant and her husband instituted civil proceedings on behalf of their daughter (“the plaintiff”) in the Ljubljana Basic Court ( Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani ) requesting that

applicants, Agim Behrami and his son, Bekir Behrami, live in Kosovo, in what used to be the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and is now the Republic of Serbia; the application was also filed on behalf

Whereas the Commission has consistently held that the provision of Article 6, paragraph (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d), of the Convention does not give an accused person a general right to call witnesses on his behalf

that his heirs, Ms Joana Veljanovska, Mr Petar Veljanovski and Mr   Blagoj   Veljanovski, also Macedonian nationals, living in Bitola, expressed their wish to continue the application on his behalf

He intervened on her behalf by means of numerous criminal complaints alleging theft and other court actions against individual third parties and agents of the State, including the officer in charge of

In their relevant part, they provided as follows: Section 1 “The Council for the Judiciary shall have mandate and authority to decide on behalf of the Minister of Justice and standing to act in cases in

There appeared the plaintiff's lawyer; the applicant company's representatives lacked due authorisation to act on its behalf.

Alleging medical negligence, her parents brought judicial proceedings on her behalf against the State. The district court found that the State was liable and awarded the applicant compensation.

On the same day a lawyer was assigned to represent the child and made an unsuccessful application for asylum on her behalf.

The applicant was dismissed from his job as an environmental engineer with the Lübeck municipality after issuing a press release on behalf of a right-wing extremist group on the day following the terrorist

Pursuant to a decision taken in July 1986 by the military authority on whose behalf the work was performed, the State refused to pay for part of the work that had been carried out on the orders of the

The complaints submitted by Alain Vaudelle on his own behalf were declared inadmissible.

In 1990 the trustee initiated civil proceedings against the State on behalf of the company, claiming that its bankruptcy had been caused by a criminal investigation which had been retrospectively invalidated

Further medical evidence was filed on his behalf, some within 28 days and some later.

The applicants initiated proceedings in the Sheriff Court, claiming damages on behalf of the third applicant on account of, inter alia , the prison staff’s negligence.

Acting on the applicant’s behalf, a public prosecutor lodged an appeal on points of law with the Senate of the Supreme Court.

THE LAW The Court first notes that the second applicant as the only heir of the first applicant wished to continue the present proceedings on behalf of her late mother and finds that there are no obstacles

His mother acts on his behalf as the guardian, brining complaints before the Court and alleging authorities’ failure to protect her son’s health and physical integrity.

On 24   April 2008 İzmir Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the offence of making terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organization under Article   7 §   2 of the Prevention