51227/16 Anđelka JAKOVLJEVIĆ and others against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 17 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2009 and 2010 the applicants obtained final domestic judgments against a privately-owned

  His application concerned an allegation, that during criminal proceedings for fraud, his counsel spoke privately to the judge and then put improper pressure on the applicant to plead guilty.

It also shared the objections made by the applicants as to the use made by the first ‑ instance court of the privately commissioned expert opinion.

On 21 August 1999 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka awarded the applicant 1,438 Ukrainian hryvnias [1] in compensation for damage caused to his property by a privately owned company,

2014 and 9 March 2016 to encompass the examination of complaints relating to, among other things, alleged breaches of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of privately-owned

also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that there had been an interference with his peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that he had not been permitted to use his privately

SELARL BLG AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de ROANNE INTIMEE : Mme [J] [E] épouse [L] née le [Date naissance 1] 1995 à [Localité 6] [Adresse 2] [Localité 4] Représentée par Me Anne BARLATIER PRIVITELLO

    Subsequently the applicants submitted a privately commissioned expert opinion, in which the court-appointed expert’s approach and methodology was criticised.

    Article 31 of the 2009 Housing Code provided that, in connection with the expropriation of land for State needs, privately owned accommodation located on that land could be alienated from

Neither the applicant nor her privately retained lawyer P.S. had exhibited the requisite diligence in pursuing the case, which had resulted in the appointment of M.B. as her defence lawyer with the aim

Section 35 of the Housing Co ‑ operatives Act provided for a claim for compulsory sale only where co ‑ operatives had built houses on privately owned land.

In this connection, the Court notes that on 5 May 2005 the applicant still had twenty days within which to avail herself of the possibility of seeking leave to appeal out of time by way of a privately

The Dospat forest authority made submissions to it, pointing out that as there had never been privately owned forests in the area, there was no need for restitution.

The Court finds it difficult to see how that order, issued during the Soviet era before the independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan, could be considered as an instrument expropriating privately-owned

He also referred to Article 50.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arguing that the court should have appointed a legal aid lawyer on account of his privately retained counsels’ failure to appear. 27.

In a judgment of 29   June 1972 the court found that the land was part of the State forest and that it could not be privately owned.

In that connection, the Court noted that the relevant provisions of the Bulgarian Criminal Code were later amended and at present provided that insult is privately prosecutable in all cases without exception

Prior to the applicants’ conviction, the domestic courts had never ruled that accepting bribes by employees of privately-owned companies constituted a criminal offence.

It is not clear whether S. was a legal-aid lawyer or was engaged privately. On 13 December 2004 the applicant confirmed his statements during a reconstruction of the crime scene.