The court decided to reject that request because the applicant had not included such a request in his written appeal. 22.

She then became worried because she noticed Maro Guloyan’s one-year-old child alone by the window and started to search for her in the bedrooms.

The applicant was handcuffed because he was aggressive and he was clenching his fists and trying to walk away, because he did not stand still or answer questions, and because he shouted at the police officers

It should have requested the company D to submit the arbitration agreement because section 105 of the PILP Act so required.

requisites of the call for candidacies, or because his merits were inferior to hers, or because Law   3/2007 and the Agreement of the Council of 22 June 2005 gave her preference, or due to all of

The judgment of 17 July 2006 was not subject to cassation appeal and became final.

administratif de Rennes, statuant en référé, a rejeté sa demande tendant à la communication de documents administratifs concernant son placement d'office au centre hospitalier spécialisé "Le bon sauveur" de Bégard

The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place because of the defendants' absence. 7.

According to the report of those discussions which was produced on the same day, some of the parents who were present wished to have the applicant replaced with a different teacher of religion because

He claimed that he had assisted the second applicant after the killing because he was his friend and because he feared him.

    On 14 November 2005 V.V. died and the applicant became his heir.

The judgment became final on 9 October 1994. On 22 November 1994 the applicant sought the execution order.

On 9 January 2014 the applicant became a patient of Dr M.G. in the Warsaw Holy Family Specialist Hospital ( Szpital Specjalistyczny im.

him, because the applicant’s wife had already taken him to the paediatric unit, as instructed by chief-nurse N.L.O.

On several occasions the applicant asked the court to stay the proceedings because the criminal proceedings against I.S., relevant for the case in question, were still pending.

This judgment became binding on 11 March 2002 and was enforced on 27 October 2004. 6.

The court concluded that the applicant presented such risks because he was charged with an exceptionally serious crime. 7.

This judgment became binding on 8 April 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006. 7.

More specifically, he submitted that, because of the neighbours’ illegal construction, he and his family could not enjoy the intimacy of their summer home because the neighbours had an open view on it.