On 15 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

    The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

On 4 March 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 14 April 2009 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

On 2 March 1999 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 11 May 1999 the Lazarevskiy District Court found in the applicant's favour.

In all those cases the authorities had at least carried out investigations, deemed ineffective by the Court.

The criminal case file contains a statement from the Central Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics [in Moscow] showing that he was hospitalised there from 17   March until 25 April 2008 ...

A report drawn up in March 1996 by a specialist from the Institute of Forensic Medicine indicated that the examinations necessary to determine the cause of death were not carried out as there had been

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.

After the deportation operation had been carried out on 25 March 1949, he had drawn up further documents concerning the deportation. – The second applicant had served at the relevant time as an inspector

as forming part of the court documents in the case; none of the officials or members of the Social Welfare Board who had decided in the case could be considered biased; P.’s opinion had already been obtained

    the circumstances of the case A.     The applicant 8.

In the case of Sokurenko v.

carried out. 3.

In the case of Gorokh v.

    The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.

In the case of Ramazyan v.

. - REVISIONS DE CARRIERE CONSECUTIVES A LA LIBERATION. - REINTEGRATION ET REPARATION DES PREJUDICES DE CARRIERE..* LOI DU 27 MARS 1956 - INAPPLICABILITE AUX BENEFICIAIRES DE LA LOI DU 24 JUIN 1964.

In the case of Dimitrov and Momin v.

In the case of Vadim Kovalev v.