On 11 July 1997 the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal against sentence.   B.

La composition, le fonctionnement et le ressort territorial de ce comité ainsi que les éléments du dossier au vu duquel il rend son avis sont fixés par décret.

s wishes were not entirely his own; he had been influenced by B., his mother.

into his work contract after that date.

In his evidence at the applicant's trial, the police officer in charge of the investigation explained that he had learned that the applicant had dual nationality, had or was about to sell his house in

    As in the above mentioned cases, the facts of the present case as adduced by the applicant were to a considerable extent a reconstruction of dates and other elements relevant to his rendition

The applicant also sought 150,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and suggested that he be instructed to pursue that part of his civil claim in the said civil proceedings

The applicant considers such lack of an effective review of his dangerousness and thus the lawfulness of his detention, was in violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.

  On 5 March 1985 his expert's report was served on the applicants.

The doctor who examined the applicant noted the presence of a widespread bruise on his back, bruises on both legs, bruises on his left arm, swelling on the right side of his forehead, and swelling on his

On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected his application. 13.

He submitted that his sister had died and that he wanted to visit his ailing mother. 18.     On 23 August 2006 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed his application.

his compliance with procedural decisions.

for his failure to pay the poll tax.

Further, the applicant fails in his attempts to deny liability by arguing that his remarks are no more than a quotation from the impugned article by Josy Braun.

his trial, the requirements of Article 5 §   3 are met.

The applicant also complained that the civil courts dealing with his compensation claim had rejected his proposal to rehear all the evidence previously taken by the criminal court and that, apart from

    On 8 October 1990 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, the company F., challenging his dismissal and seeking his reinstatement and payment of salary arrears for

case, or having his case put, to the Supreme Court in a concrete and effective manner.