target
stringlengths 11
70
| prompt
stringlengths 200
10k
|
|---|---|
ten to twenty-five years | 27. On 11 June 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that it had been adopted in compliance with the law. The court also noted that the applicant was accused of a particularly serious offence punishable by imprisonment from |
the same day | 16. On 25 April 2007 the applicant, represented by Mr D. Bartenev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg, lodged an appeal against the order of 9 April 2007, stating, inter alia, that the legal aid lawyer Mrs L. had failed perform her functions properly. On |
23 February 2015 | 26. In November 2014, the Court of Appeal directed the parties to file their respective submissions within two weeks, granting a short extension of this deadline the following month. On 19 December 2014 it set a hearing date of |
11 February 1998 | 13. On 30 January 1998 the District Court wrote to the Central Registry of Prisoners asking whether the defendant was currently detained on remand or serving a prison sentence. The Central Registry responded in the negative on |
20 October 2008 | 21. Subsequently, in a letter of 13 March 2009 the Swiss Central Authority confirmed that the applicant and M.S. had exercised joint custody over P. and J. The authority expressed the view that since the Swiss authorities had not been aware of any decision of Swiss courts or authorities limiting the applicant’s custody rights, the fact that the children stayed in Poland after |
23 April 2003 | 11. In a judgment of 2 June 2004 the Assize Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to fifteen years' imprisonment and eight years' social and judicial guidance, with the obligation to undergo treatment and not to approach the victim, her mother or her brother. Ruling on the civil claims, it ordered the applicant to pay the victim EUR 15,000 in respect of damage suffered prior to |
or around 15 December 2003 | 32. Witness B. testified in his pre-trial statement that his business partner O. had introduced him to the applicant in November 2003. The applicant had agreed to be an intermediary in his business, which involved supplying fish in Voronezh. On |
12 August 1998 | 9. On 1 July 1998 the applicant returned to Austria and lodged a fresh asylum claim on 8 July 1998, this time together with his wife and their daughter. The asylum claim was dismissed by the Federal Asylum Office on |
5 March 2000 | 202. Mr Ya., who between February and May 2000 had been seconded from the Khanty-Mansiysk Region to the Chechen Republic as the deputy head of Oktyarbskiy VOVD, stated during a witness interview of 29 April 2003 that he did not know how the applicant had received severe bodily injuries and that he had not conducted an inquiry in that respect as it had not fallen within his competence. Mr Ya. added that he had heard from other officers that the applicant's ear had been cut off by unknown members of illegal armed groups in revenge for the applicant's cooperation with federal forces. Mr Ya. denied stealing any property from the applicant or selling to anyone any cars belonging to the applicant. He said that he did not know Mr A. or Mr Dzh. and could not explain why they had indicated that they had purchased the applicant's cars from him. Mr Ya. also added that Mr S. (see paragraph 200 above) had informed him of the seizure during the search of |
21 May 2014 | 29. On 14 July 2014 the Jurbarkas District Court terminated the case on the basis that it was time-barred. It held that V.K. had been charged with a crime of negligence, and the five-year statutory limitation period had ended on |
19 December 2002 | 14. During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicants’ detention by decisions of the Ostrołęka Regional Court of 24 April and 23 July 2002, a further decision of an unspecified date, |
10 August 1996 | 60. In their assessment the experts were governed by the Official Secrets Act, as amended on 6 October 1997, Presidential decree no. 1203 of 30 November 1995, the Code of Criminal Procedure and unpublished decrees of the Ministry of Defence nos. 055 and 015 issued on |
4 December 1993 | 20. In 1992 the applicant requested the Macedonian Ministry of Defence to allow him to purchase the apartment owned by the Government at a reduced price or to give him another apartment which used to be owned by the former Yugoslav Army. On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Ministry of Defence to speed up the proceedings. On |
8 October 2003 | 12. On 3 November 2003 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal. The hearing was held in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The prosecutor considered that the applicant's appeal should be dismissed. The City Court found that the extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention was in accordance with the law and upheld the decision of |
the night of 10 March 2003 | 50. On 14 February 2004 A.M. was interviewed as a witness. She stated that she was the applicants’ neighbour, that she herself knew nothing of the circumstances of the abduction of Isa Maayev and that she had learnt about it from his relatives. On |
8 December 1993 | 32. On 1 November 1993 the applicant requested that the public care be terminated. On 19 January 1994 the Social Welfare Board refused the request. It found that continued public care was in the best interests of the children, considering “the difficulties relating to the mental health and the use of alcohol as well as the incest directed against the children”, which had formed the background to their placement in public care. In a meeting with the leading social welfare official on |
28 November 2005 | 35. On 14 December 2005 the court received a report from the Celje Social Work Centre in which the latter observed, inter alia, that contact between the applicants was in the child's best interest. It further observed that contact was taking place in accordance with the court decision of |
12 April 1998 | 16. On 13 April 1998 the investigator came to see the applicant in the SIZO. The investigator wished to question the applicant. He informed the applicant that he was suspected of aggravated robbery and murder committed on |
30 December 1999 | 18. The relevant part of the dissenting opinion reads as follows:
“The defendants (T.T.T. and T.T.S.) had known since 1996 that the immovable property they had bought at public auction was the subject of proceedings as they were parties to the proceedings. The buyer, S.R., was also aware of the proceedings as in the sale agreement signed on |
13 May 2005 | 11. The District Court delivered a succinct judgment authorising the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The full facts and reasoning set out in the judgment read as follows:
“[Ms] Zagidulina was hospitalised in the [PHM] on |
19 October 1999 | 42. In a letter of 10 August 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment confirmed, in reply to the first applicant’s complaint of 20 April 2004, that the criminal proceedings concerning the attack of |
6 September 1993 | 6. On 4 February 1994, following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, the Kartal First Instance Court awarded them additional compensation of 48,410,250,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, namely the rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. The date, |
27 January 2008 | 18. On 21 May 2007 the applicant started reading the case file, which comprised twenty-five volumes and concerned twelve defendants. On 15 October 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan held that the applicant could not be released pending study of the case file, noting that he might abscond, put pressure on the parties to the criminal proceedings against him or re-offend, and extended the applicant’s detention until |
29 October 2002 | 14. On 12 November 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that an investigation into her husband's kidnapping had been instituted on 11 November 2002 under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The decision to institute the investigation stated, inter alia:
“On |
5 July 2013 | 20. According to forensic medical report no. 3575 P, which was carried out in the absence of the applicant from 13 to 18 September 2013 on the basis of the investigator’s order of 2 September 2013, and which comprised an analysis of the applicant’s medical records, the applicant had the following injuries: (i) bruising on his forehead; (ii) bruising on his chest and abdomen; (iii) an abrasion on his abdomen; (iv) abrasions on his right elbow joint and both knee joints, recorded on |
twenty days | 9. By a decision of 27 November 2009 (hereinafter also referred to as the exequatur decision), the ordinary first-instance tribunal (Commissario della Legge, hereinafter the Commissario), accepted the request in conjunction with the crimes of conspiracy, money laundering, aggravated fraud and embezzlement with the aim of fraud, considering that the relevant requirements for the execution of the request were fulfilled. In particular the Commissario considered that those crimes were also punishable under San Marino law. It therefore ordered, inter alia, an investigation in respect of all banks, fiduciary institutes and trust companies in San Marino. The purpose was to acquire information and banking documents (inter alia, copies of statements showing transactions and movements, cheques, fiduciary dispositions (disposizioni fiduciarie) and emails) related to a number of named current accounts in specified institutes as well as any other current account which could be traced back (riferibile) to S.M.I, held by all banks and fiduciary institutes in San Marino, which were directly or indirectly involved with the company or physical persons mentioned in this decision. In reaching that decision the Commissario bore in mind the relevant articles of the Bilateral Convention on Friendship and Good Neighbourhood between Italy and San Marino of 1939, law no. 104/2009, the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and San Marino’s commitment to international organs such as the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEYVAL) as well as Article 36 of law no. 165/05 which provides that banking secrecy cannot be held against the criminal justice authorities and Article 13 of law no. 104/2009 according to which the act of acquiring copies of documentation amounts to seizure.
It gave further details as to the search and seizure operation, inter alia, that copies should be made of the documentation, that in the event that the investigation was successful the directors of the credit institute were to submit the relevant documents within |
30 January 2003 | 48. After repeated complaints by the Milevi sisters, on 15 November 2002 the Directorate instructed the municipality to gather more evidence that the flat was indeed being used as commercial premises entailing regular visits by outsiders. As a result, on |
25 December 2013 | 57. On 17 October 2013 a discharge note from the hospital stated that the applicant had been, inter alia, recommended an ophthalmological examination in order to determine his dioptres. A discharge note of |
more than two weeks | 8. The Sentence enforcement division reiterated in its judgment that the applicant’s release on licence would be accompanied by the following general obligations (Article 132-44 of the Penal Code): complying with the instructions of the sentence enforcement judge or of the social worker from the Prison rehabilitation and probation service; receiving visits from the latter and providing him or her with information or documents facilitating supervision of his livelihood and compliance with his obligations; informing the social worker of any job changes and, if such changes are liable to hamper compliance with his obligations, obtaining prior authorisation from the sentence enforcement judge; informing the social worker of any changes of address and of any travel lasting for |
1 January 1993 | 21. On 18 February 1993 the Regional Court invited the applicant to specify which public body possessed the powers conferred by the Lustration Act in the area of security screening after the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on |
24 May 2001 | 11. On 16 May 2001 the applicant requested the court to terminate the proceedings because the criminal prosecution had become time-barred and sought reimbursement of the costs and expenses she had incurred in the proceedings.
On |
7 October 1998 | 8. On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court held hearings on 20 February and 9 October 1997. On the latter date it suspended the proceedings pending the determination of a preliminary question. On 26 May 1998 it quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court, instructing it to arrange for the owner of the real property in question, a minor, to join the proceedings. On |
4 July 1997 | 68. In reply to the Delegates’ question: “The prison authorities maintain that Mr Yusev was X-rayed on 19 August 1995 and that he was not ill at that time. Considering that they both fell ill, but no infection was passed on from Mr Yusev to your son, do you have any comments on this allegation?” the witness stated: “They found tuberculosis in Yusev first and after they were both detained in the same cell they discovered tuberculosis in my son as well.” In reply to the Delegates’ comments: “Our records indicate that the examination in which it was discovered that Mr Yusev had tuberculosis took place on |
11 October 2012 | 8. During the events giving rise to the present case, the applicant continued to report on the above matters. In particular, on 3 May 2012 she published an article on the above-mentioned mining consortium. On 7 May 2012 she published an article entitled “President’s family benefits from Eurovision Hall”. On |
18 December 1998 | 31. On 11 November 1998 the managing director ordered that forty‑seven dockers be made redundant. On 20 November 1998 the human resources director served notice on thirty-five dockers, of whom twenty‑eight were DUR members (according to the applicants). The applicants submitted that the actual dismissal did not take place because it required the consent of their trade union, which would never have been granted and had not been sought. Instead, on |
29 July 2004 | 66. On 2 February 2005 the Governor of Częstochowa gave a decision cancelling his own decision of 8 September 1998. The Governor relied on the amendment of the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of |
3 January 2003 | 17. On 20 March 2002 the District Court passed its separate judgment refusing to dismiss Intertex’s action, and stating that if it was established in the case Intertex v. the HotLine companies that the former had a money claim against the latter, that claim should form the basis of the assessment in the proceedings between Intertex and the applicant. Also, the proceedings should continue to be stayed awaiting the outcome of the proceedings between Intertex and the HotLine companies. The applicant’s appeal against the part of the judgment that concerned the refusal to dismiss the action was upheld by the Court of Appeal on |
15 August 2002 | 46. On 15 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, in reply to the first applicant’s complaint that the district prosecutor’s office had taken no action, informed him that the criminal proceedings instituted on |
14 May 2013 | 31. On 26 June 2013 the applicant complained to the Perm Regional Judicial Department that the judge had included a false statement in the case file that he had been informed of the date of the hearing by mobile telephone. He enclosed a list of telephone calls provided by his mobile operator showing that he had not received any calls from the court. He also complained that a letter notifying his counsel of the date of the hearing of |
18 February 1998 | 9. In January 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Olsztyn Regional Court. He requested compensation for physical injuries and suffering which he had sustained during his military service and requested the court to grant him a permanent disability pension, having regard to the fact that he was now unfit to work. On |
1 August 2004 | 6. At about 7 p.m. on 1 August 2004 a group of people, including Z. and Sh. and two volunteer citizen guards (добровільна народна дружина), who were identified in the course of the ensuing proceedings (see paragraphs 9-11 below), entered the yard of the applicant’s house and, according to the applicant, assaulted him. In particular, he was punched, hit with a gas pistol and kicked in the head and torso and as a result briefly lost consciousness. According to the material available in the case (see paragraph 9 below), the volunteer citizen guards used force against the applicant while exercising their powers under the relevant regulations (see paragraph 13 below) in an attempt to take him to a police station in relation to the incident of |
30 November 2001 | 46. The latter informed the SRJI on 6 January 2003 that during the preliminary investigation in criminal case no. 34/33/0741/01, opened in relation to the abduction and murder of Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova, the identities of the servicemen involved had been established and that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued on |
10 December 1992 | 20. On 16 November 1992 the Regional Court requested the defendant’s observations in reply. In a letter of 25 November 1992 the defendant replied that it had already filed its observations with the City Court. On |
the period between 1 July 2009 and 31 December 2009 | 11. According to a personal plan set up on 26 February 2010 it was anticipated that the applicant would enrol in a catering and hotel services training programme. However, there is no information in the file indicating if and when he attained this training course. According to the prison records the applicant was also involved in certain work activities in |
6 August 1997 | 30. On 15 April 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention, claiming, inter alia, that it was no longer justified. The applicant maintained that there was no danger of him absconding and argued that if that was his intention he would already have done so as he had had sufficient forewarning that the authorities were actively investigating the murder. Purportedly, he had had ample time to abscond, if that had been his intention, between the time of the arrest of Mr K., the search of his home on |
1 September 2011 | 17. On 14 February 2012, in its reply to the applicant’s claim signed by K.B., the British Council denied that the applicant had submitted a request to extend her maternity leave for another six months as of |
21 November 2008 | 28. On 11 August 2009 the applicant, based on the above decision of the Constitutional Court, requested the Court of Cassation to reopen the proceedings and to re-examine her appeal on points of law of |
25 June 2003 | 23. On 18 October 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded. It acknowledged that the applicant “was not heard, was not informed about the charges against him and that he was not given the prosecution documents”. It held that the applicant could not rely on his absence from the proceedings by way of defence, because he had left the country on |
August 2004 | 27. In August 2007 the director of correctional colony no. 2 lodged an application with the Livny District Court of the Oryol Region requesting that the applicant be compulsorily admitted to Special Medical Tuberculosis Establishment no. 3 in the Tula Region for an in-depth medical examination and prophylactic treatment for tuberculosis. The colony director argued that since |
22 January 2007 | 33. On 10 October 2006 the expert informed the parties that the local inspection (which required free access to the applicants’ cellar) should take place on 9 November 2006. At the applicants’ request, it was postponed to |
9 April 2006 | 28. The applicant's letter to the Court of 10 April 2006 bears a stamp “censored day ... ... year” (cenzurowano dnia ... ... r.) and no signature. The envelope in which that letter was sent bears a stamp confirming that the applicant's letter was received for dispatch by the administration of the Gdańsk Detention Centre on |
February 1997 | 15. In January 2000, when it became known that Margaret Connors was going to marry Michael Maloney, the applicant alleged that the Council manager of the site stated, “The minute you marry Michael Maloney you’ll be out that gate”. Michael Maloney was a member of a family against whom proceedings had previously been brought for eviction from the site on allegations that they were “a magnet for trouble”. In |
early October 2002 | 19. On 5 March 2007 the applicant was questioned by an officer of the department of the interior of the Grozny District. She stated that she did not remember the exact date, but that at about 7.30 a.m. in |
7 October 1995 | 29. A 9th hearing was held on 21 March 2000. The applicant was present but his lawyer was not. During the hearing Menderes Koçak gave evidence before the trial court and stated that his vehicle had not been burned. No one had asked him to give money to the PKK. When asked by the trial court to explain the inconsistencies between the statement he had made to the police on |
24 January 2012 | 8. On the following day the Kaluzhskiy District Court in the Kaluga Region found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence under Article 18.8 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (failure to leave Russia upon the expiry of the authorised period of stay and illegal residence) and sentenced him to a fine of 2,500 Russian roubles (62 euros) and administrative removal from the Russian Federation. Pending removal, the District Court held that the applicant should be held in the detention centre. On |
under 18 years old | 24. Chief Inspector P.J. stated:
“... that he had been involved in placing detainees in cells, upholding the detentions and releasing the detainees. When the Copenhagen Police planned comprehensive police actions and expected to detain many people, he was usually selected as the person responsible for verifying that standard procedures were observed when the detainees were placed in a cell at Bellahøj police station.
On the relevant evening he had been assisted by two leaders, each of whom had assistance from two colleagues in carrying out body searches, and making photo recordings, of the detainees. Ten additional police officers were there to help. One of his tasks had been to make sure that the six-hour rule was observed. They had been faced with the issue that the six-hour period applicable to two of the persons detained under the Police Act expired at 9.50 p.m. He had contacted the control-room supervisor before the expiry of this period. Concurrently, clashes had been starting in the streets, and the control-room supervisor had decided not to let the relevant persons out. They had not wanted to add fuel to the fire. This decision had been made by the supervisors because he himself did not have the power to make such a decision. He had talked to the control room many times during that evening from 9.30 p.m. onwards. Very many detainees had been brought to the police station up until around 11 p.m., reaching a total of 136 detainees. Half of them had been detained under the Police Act. He had regularly asked when they should start releasing the detainees. He had not called and asked about specific names, but a general assessment had been made on an ongoing basis for all detainees from the time when the statutory six-hour periods started to expire. The radio communication had made it possible for him to keep updated about when things started calming down after the arrests of people in the Boltens Gård courtyard, and finally it had been confirmed that he could start releasing the persons detained under the Police Act. He did not keep a log of all telephone calls and was therefore unable to give the exact time. As far as he recalled, there had probably been one detainee |
9 February 2007 | 44. In reply to the judge’s letter of 5 March 2008, by a letter dated 16 April 2008 the MNS informed the judge that the first applicant, who was at that time detained in the MNS pre-trial detention facility, had been diagnosed with hypertension and was being provided with the relevant treatment. However, the MNS’s letter was silent as to the judge’s requests for information concerning the first applicant’s presence on the premises of the MNS on 2, 3 and |
three months | 24. On 3 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined another claim lodged by the applicant that the VCA had been protracting the adoption of a decision on the restoration of her property rights. She asked the court to oblige the VCA to return to her 0.7730 hectares of land. The court held that the authorities had been inactive and ordered them to issue a decision restoring the applicant’s property rights within |
every two weeks | 15. At a court hearing on 28 September 1999 the parties agreed that from 15 October 1999 the applicant would be entitled to visit his children every fortnight, accompanied by a representative of the Kleve child protection agency, and that he could have telephone contact with the children |
25 August 2003 | 33. On 28 February 2006 the applicant again complained to the district prosecutor. She reiterated that her son had been abducted by servicemen of the 45th regiment, stationed in Khatuni. She pointed out that Mr V.M. had been released on |
the closest Saturday | 29. On 8 April 2005 Ilinden objected, saying that they could not change the date and the time because according to Macedonian cultural tradition the dead had to be commemorated either on the day of their death or on |
26 April 2012 | 56. On 21 June 2012 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Sabail District Court against the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office, Mr N.A. (an investigator at the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office) and Mr A.A. (the Baku City Deputy Prosecutor). She argued that the publication of detailed information concerning her private life in the status report of |
8 April 1998 | 27. In a judgment of 5 March 2002, following nine hearings held between 14 November 2000 and 19 February 2002 and in the course of which Mr R. had given evidence to the Court of Appeal on 17 January 2001, the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of |
28 September 2006 | 13. On 11 January 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 11 April 2005. The detention was further extended on several occasions (on 23 March, 23 June and 22 December 2005 and on 30 May and |
21 and 22 December 2004 | 9. On 25 January 2006 the National Anticorruption Department brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and a co-accused for improperly using his influence and information acquired by virtue of his position in order to obtain unwarranted material gain for himself or others. It held that on |
17 February 1997 | 27. On 14 January 1997 the requests for remission of sentence made on behalf of the applicant companies were rejected. The next day, counsel for the applicant companies and Mr Wouterse wrote to the Advocate General, informing him that he could not square those rejections with the undertakings given by the Advocate General. In a letter of reply dated |
13 October 2004 | 9. In the meantime, in August 2003 the applicant applied for a residence permit. He was required to undergo a medical examination during which he tested positive for HIV. On account of that circumstance, his application for a residence permit was refused. The refusal was upheld at final instance by the Oryol Regional Court on |
up to two years | 37. On 11 June 2012 the Basmannyy District Court examined and granted the request to detain the applicant pending criminal investigation. It reasoned as follows:
“In assessing the circumstances under investigation, [the court takes account of] the submitted materials and the indicated information in their integrity, as well as the personality of [the applicant], who is suspected of having committed criminal offences one of which is characterised as grave and the other of medium gravity, punishable by |
October 1997 | 42. On 4 May 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing. It admitted in evidence the material submitted by the applicant organisation but refused its request for a disclosure order against the Council of Ministers. That request apparently concerned documents about the preparation of the |
10 March 2008 | 13. The need for an immediate decision and enforcement was explained by the substantial risk of corruption of material. The decision referred to sections 7-9 of the Coercive Measures Act and to the County Administrative Court’s judgment of |
fifteen years | 53. The Draft Constitution further continues:
Article 101
“The members of the Majlis al-Ummah [people’s assembly] are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.”
Article 102
“The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are elected by the people.”
Article 104
“Consultation (Shoora) and the mashoora are the seeking of views in absolute terms. These views are not binding in legislation, definitions, intellectual matters such as discovering the facts and the technical and scientific matters. However they are binding when the Khaleefah consults in other practical matters and actions that do not need scrutiny or research.”
Article 105
“All citizens, Muslim or not, may express their views, but Shoora is a right for the Muslims only.” 2. Jihad and the army
Article 56
“Jihad is a compulsory duty (farD) on all Muslims. Military training is therefore compulsory. Thus, every male Muslim, |
1 July 1998 | 14. Towards the end of 1997, the applicant received a telephone call from the Federal Constitutional Court informing him that the questions raised by his complaint would become obsolete with the expected entry into force of the amended Law on Family Matters of 16 December 1997 (Kindschaftsrechtsreformgesetz) on |
25 November 1990 | 60. This report is signed by Lance Corporals Ali Yavaş and Mustafa Tüylek and by Master Sergeants Yusuf Karakoç, Mehmet Yılmaz, Mustafa Ten, Süleyman Altuner, Üzeyir Nazlım and Ramazan Baygeldi. It states that at around 7.30 p.m. on 25 November 1990 sounds were heard in cell no. 18. The door of the cell was opened and the occupant was found unconscious, having convulsions and thrashing from side to side. An attempt was made to contact Senior Major Haşim Üstünel, the head of the intelligence unit, but when he proved unavailable Colonel Enver Uysal, commander of the Mardin provincial gendarmerie, was informed. On Colonel Uysal's instructions the detainee, who was established to be Yakup Aktaş, was taken to hospital by car. On examination at the hospital it was determined that Yakup Aktaş had died in transit.
(e) Record of inspection of the interrogation centre on |
31 January 1998 | 16. The Regional Court confirmed that the said transitional provision was applicable to the applicant’s case. It noted that at the time of his last offence on 3 October 1985, the applicant’s first placement in preventive detention could not exceed ten years. It was only following the entry into force of the Combating of Sexual Offences and Other Dangerous Offences Act on |
2 July 2009 | 20. The applicant lodged a fresh constitutional complaint, arguing that the admission of the evidence infringed his right to respect for his home under Article 13 of the Basic Law and his right to a fair trial under Article 2 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 20 § 3 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 23 below). On |
2003 until March of 2012 | 45. The applicant submitted that after the decision became final, he learned of certain facts previously unknown to him. In particular, he found out that when the child was born and throughout the proceedings A.L. had been married to J.Z. and had five children in that marriage. In addition, from |
5 to 8 December 2014 | 29. The Government provided information about the applicant’s conditions of detention. They submitted that the applicant had been detained in a cell measuring 9.32 sq m, which she had occupied with two or three other detainees from |
8 August 2005 | 21. According to the applicant, in the absence of a notification of any decision in her case she unsuccessfully complained to various domestic authorities, including the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, about the failure of the domestic courts to determine her case within a reasonable time. No response followed, save for the one on |
the preceding twenty years | 78. In his annual report for 2012 under the national preventive mechanism the Ombudsman noted, inter alia, that the problems in relation to overcrowding and living conditions in the prisons had accumulated for decades and were well known. During |
22 February 1999 | 29. The Government submitted that between November 1998 and January 1999 the Smolninskiy District Court had “taken measures” to examine the applicant’s requests. They did not provide any details about the nature of these measures. The applicant disagreed. He contended that during that period the Smolninskiy District Court had not taken any steps to grant him access to the file and that it had not decided on his requests. He indicated that he had been first granted access to the requested materials on |
20 October 1994 | 92. Mr Bulut Yılmaz sent three letters to the applicant’s lawyers in which he described his eye-witness account of the abduction of Hüseyin Koku on 20 October 1994 (see paragraph 20 above). Mr Yılmaz left Turkey in 1995 and settled in Switzerland where he was subsequently granted political asylum. According to these letters, Mr Yılmaz had seen two plain-clothes police officers talking to Hüseyin Koku on Malatya Street in Elbistan on |
12 January 2010 | 52. On 11 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators take a number of steps. These included obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation and questioning the officials who had been in charge and its participants, the applicant’s neighbours Mr R.M., Ms Z.G and Ms Zh.S, and the construction workers who had carried out the work on the applicant’s house on Second Darvina Lane. On |
between 8 July 2003 and 12 January 2005 | 14. During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant was detained in Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison IZ-52/1 (“remand prison no. 52/1”) and Moscow remand prison IZ-77/3 (“remand prison no. 77/3”). The parties agreed on the following timeline of the applicant's detention in those prisons:
- |
1 June 2001 | 18. On 26 February 2003 the investigator from the Shevchenko District Prosecutor’s Office terminated criminal proceedings against G.A. and on the same day instituted criminal proceedings against R.A, relying in particular on the evidence given by M.S., who had insisted that R.A. was the person who had stabbed E.A. on |
fifteen years’ | 8. By a judgment of 23 June 1998 the applicant was convicted at first instance on a charge of murder and several counts of theft and fraud and sentenced to death. On 20 December 1999 his conviction was upheld on appeal, but the death sentence was commuted to |
25 March 2015 | 24. In a decision of 28 May 2015 the Audiencia Nacional rejected the applicant’s request to stay the extradition proceedings, finding that the complaints contained in the first súplica appeal had already been dealt with in the decision of |
8 October 2009 | 24. After their appeals had been rejected by the Supreme Court on the same basis, on 18 June 2008 and 6 July 2009 the third applicant lodged two separate constitutional appeals. In its decisions of 25 December 2008 and |
15 August 2002 | 13. On 26 October 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal decision of 15 August 2002 with the Presidium of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the applicant and his lawyer had not been properly notified of the appeal hearing of |
several years | 14. An expert psychiatric report drawn up by Dr Ri. on 5 September 2005 stated, in particular, as follows:
“... there is no doubt that Mr Rooman requires treatment which focuses initially on his paranoiac psychosis. Here, therapy must be undertaken simultaneously at psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic level. ... Long-term therapy over |
1 June 2001 | 19. On 27 February 2003 the investigator from the Shevchenko District Prosecutor’s Office relying on Articles 72 and 73 of the 1993 Minsk Convention, decided to transfer the criminal case to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan for further investigation in accordance with Azerbaijani law. He concluded that R.A. was the person who had stabbed E.A. on |
forty to seventy year old | 11. On 1 June 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned a part of plot no. 220 (approximately 53,750 m2). In this connection it noted, particularly, that the area in question contained |
more than three years | 49. On 21 December 2005 the District Court ordered the applicant’s release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. It stated that the applicant had been held in detention on remand for |
14 May 2001 | 14. On 1 April 2003 the 4th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court rejected their appeal as being outside its jurisdiction, considering that it was rather a matter for the Supreme Military Administrative Court. Referring to a judgment of the Jurisdiction Disputes Court of |
12 December 2005 | 30. In an expert report dated 1 November 2010, a panel of doctors reached, on the basis of medical documents, a conclusion identical to that expressed by I.C. during the previous proceedings before the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 26 above), namely that the victim’s injury had been caused between 6.35 a.m. on 9 December and 6.35 a.m. on 10 December 2005. According to the report, the rupture of his intestine had initially been incomplete and only on |
between February and May | 62. According to information provided by the applicant in a letter of 17 November 2014, the Venice Youth Court held hearings in January and April 2014 in the presence of both parents and fixed a series of meetings between the applicant and his daughter. A number of meetings took place |
28 January 2000 | 18. Following his arrest on 17 January 2000 the applicant was placed in the Inter-district Temporary Detention Centre of the Principal Department of the Ministry of the Interior in St Petersburg (the Detention Centre, Межрайонный изолятор временного содержания ГУВД). He remained there until |
9 November 1998 | 31. The applicant failed to appear at six of the above hearings. He excused himself for not being able to attend the hearing of 11 March 1996 one day before that hearing, on account of a clash of scheduled court appearances. Three days before the hearing listed for |
12 September 2001 | 12. Subsequent to the decision of 3 January 2001, the Regional Court resumed the proceedings. A hearing scheduled for June 2001 was adjourned as the notification sent to the applicant had been returned to the court undelivered. The Regional Court's further enquiry about the applicant's address was unsuccessful. Consequently, on |
3 November 2003 | 8. On 18 September 2001 she was dismissed from her post by an order of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii) for manifest professional unfitness. On 15 July 2003 the decision was endorsed by the President of the Republic and on |
3 December 2014 | 38. The Supreme Administrative Court found her request admissible but rejected it as unjustified (неоснователна) in a final decision of 2 June 2015. On 25 November 2015 the bailiff invited the applicant to voluntarily comply with the final judgment of |
Subsets and Splits