: violation Extract (Article 6 § 1): “...The Court notes that the finding of inadmissibility reached in the instant case by the Court of Cassation penalised the applicant for a clerical error committed

    On 1 November 2016 the Tiergarten District Court convicted the applicant of preferential payments during insolvency ( Gläubigerbegünstigung ) and three counts of fraud and sentenced him to

notes that the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment in so far as it concerned the care order.

    On 3 December 2015 the Supreme Court granted the appeal on points of law, reversed the impugned judgment and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, finding that the Higher Court had

    He accordingly requested those documents from the trial court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. 17.

  3530/2014 of the Athens Court of Appeal. The Greek State lodged an appeal on points of law against the appellate court’s decision.

    On 14 October 2002 the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, on the applicant’s further appeal, quashed the District Court’s decision dated 16 August 2002 and the Regional Court’s decision dated 9

  Proceedings before the Skopje Appellate Court     The applicants appealed to the Skopje Appellate Court against the Gostivar Municipal Court’s judgement.

Ils font valoir que : - le Bureau européen d’assurance hospitalière n’est pas l’assureur du centre hospitalier d’Arles, mais un courtier ; - par une ordonnance du 26 mai 2023, la cour administrative

The applicant presented a sick leave note from a court-approved physician ( lekarz sądowy ), dated 10 April 2016 and informing the court that she could not participate in the court proceedings until 30

In the course of the compensation proceedings, the applicant unsuccessfully asked the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance (hereafter the “Üsküdar Court”) to appoint expert witnesses to analyse the impugned

Administrative courts had taken five years and eight months to rule that they had no jurisdiction - except in Court of Appeal, no action taken by judges in the ordinary courts to expedite proceedings.

On 4 February 2016 the Government made a request to restore the application to the Court’s list of cases as in the course of the proceedings to enforce the Court’s decision, they were informed that the

In 2014, in the course of the proceedings before the European Court, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration, recognising the violation of Articles   9 and   11 of the Convention in

its property rights determined by the courts.

In that decision, taken by a panel of three judges, of which judges S.C. and S.D.E., the court held that “in the court’s opinion, the applicant diverted the very meaning of the profession of a magistrate

On a further unspecified date the applicants filed a counter-claim.     On 9 June 1994 the court held a hearing.

In the letter the Court advised the applicant that he was to submit a completed application form by 12   June 2009. The Court’s letter was sent to remand prison no.   IZ-3/1 in Ufa.

    At the outset, the Court reiterates the Constitutional Court’s most relevant conclusions, which are summarised in paragraph 19 above. 31.

In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended several times by Gdańsk Regional Court (on 24 May, 19   August and 22   November 2016) and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal