In June 1989, the applicant gave to his wife his share in their matrimonial home and his interest in the endowment policy covering the sum borrowed when this house was mortgaged

The applicant, for his part, challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal.

he had lodged his application with the Court.

    In the instant case the first applicant stated his views on allegedly anti-clerical attitudes in his home region.

  He considers that he cannot be blamed for the conduct of his defence counsel.   THE LAW   1.

    On 3 April 2018 the Ministry requested that the child protection authority assess whether the child’s return to his father would be in his best interests.

his right to property. 14.

his right to property. 14.

2002 (prolonging that period until 30 September 2002), on 11   September 2002 (extending his detention until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (prolonging his detention until 30 June 2003),

The applicant waived his right to be represented by a defence counsel. 9.

The Court of Appeal, in June 1998, requested the applicant to supplement his appeal and to specify his claims.

    The applicant complained, under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, that the search of his house had amounted to a breach of his rights.

Article 999 “Everyone shall be liable for damage he has caused not only through his own act but also through his failure to act or his negligence.”

However, it had been his nephew, K.S., who had killed Imran Gisayev because his second son had died in 1995. In his view, the killing had been just as it had been part of a blood feud.

    On 24 August 1993 the applicant asked for his appeal not to be heard in Crete on public order and safety grounds. His request was unsuccessful. 15.

    On 10 February 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.

reasoning when prolonging his detention. 20.

On 21 October 2014 the Supreme Court refused to entertain his cassation appeal. COMPLAINT 13.

        On 8 December 1987 the Regional Court heard the two children in chambers and the applicant in the presence of his lawyer in camera.

    The applicant complained of the unlawful placement of his daughter in a closed educational facility for minors and a violation of his and his daughter’s right to respect for their family