EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /91. Wiktor Olesen. against. Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
|
|
- Benjamin Booker
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No /91 Wiktor Olesen against Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 18 October 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-12) C. The present Report (paras ) II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras ) A. The particular circumstances of the case (paras ) B. Relevant domestic law (paras ) III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras ) A. Complaint declared admissible (para. 39) B. Point at issue (para. 40) C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (paras ) CONCLUSION (para. 51) APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION I. INTRODUCTION Page 1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.
2 A. The application 2. The applicant is a Danish citizen, born in He is retired and resides at Hirtshals. Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. Morten L. Wagner, a lawyer practising at Viborg. 3. The application is directed against Denmark. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Laurids Mikaelsen, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4. The case concerns the length of the proceedings in a liability and compensation dispute between the applicant and a hospital. These proceedings commenced in 1982 and are at present still pending. The applicant considers that the dispute has not been determined within a reasonable time and invokes in this respect Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. B. The proceedings 5. The application was introduced on 15 July 1990 and registered on 11 April On 2 September 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. 7. The Government's observations were submitted on 20 November On 8 December 1992 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case. 9. On 31 March 1993 the applicant submitted his observations in reply to those of the respondent Government. 10. On 5 July 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible in so far it concerned the length of the proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. 11. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 20 July 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government submitted further information and observations on 9 September On 30 March 1995 the applicant informed the Commission that he maintained his position. 12. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected. C. The present Report 13. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present: MM. H. DANELIUS, President G. JÖRUNDSSON J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS F. MARTINEZ
3 L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS M.A. NOWICKI I. CABRAL BARRETO J. MUCHA D. SVÁBY 14. The text of this Report was adopted on 18 October 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention. 15. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is: (i) to establish the facts, and (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention. 16. The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto. 17. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission. II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A. The particular circumstances of the case 18. On 17 December 1973 the applicant was admitted to Hjørring hospital for a prostate operation which was carried out on 20 December Certain unforeseen complications occurred as a result of which the applicant was re-operated on the same day as well as the following day. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 5 January Subsequently, the applicant experienced a certain deterioration of his health and a number of medical examinations were made. In 1977 it was established that the applicant suffered from a so-called pre-senile dementia and further medical examinations were carried out in order to establish its cause. Following these examinations the applicant became convinced that his illness derived from errors committed by the medical staff during the operations in 1973 and on 15 January 1982 he therefore instituted proceedings in the High Court of Western Denmark (Vestre Landsret) against the hospital. He claimed damages in the amount of 800,000 DKK maintaining that the hospital staff had committed errors during the operations which again had caused the deterioration of his health. The parties agreed to request the Medico-Legal Council (Retslægerådet), hereinafter "the Council", to submit an expert opinion and by 1 June 1983 the parties had agreed on the questions to be submitted to the Council. 20. The first expert opinion by the Council was submitted on 9 April 1984 and this was followed by further submissions from the parties. On 25 February 1985 a preliminary hearing was held in court during which the applicant requested access to the hospital's medical records, a request which was apparently refused. Furthermore, the question arose of asking the Council to submit additional explanations, something which was finally agreed upon during another preliminary court session held on 4 March The Council's further explanations were submitted on 23 May Nevertheless, it appears that further disagreements arose in respect of access to the hospital's medical records and whether further
4 questions should be put to the Council. On 1 May 1987 another preliminary court session was held during which the Court allowed the applicant to put further questions to the Council whereas it appears that his request for access to the hospital's medical records was refused again. On 10 June 1987 the Council submitted that it was unable to answer the remaining questions. 22. On 10 November 1987 the preparation of the case had finished and the case was scheduled for the main hearing which took place on 12 April Judgment was pronounced on 28 June The applicant's claims for damages were rejected as the Court did not find it established that medical errors had been committed by the hospital staff. Costs in the amount of 45,000 DKK were awarded against the applicant. 23. On 5 July 1988 the applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court (Højesteret). He furthermore applied to the Ministry of Justice for free legal aid which, however, was refused by the Ministry on 24 November 1988 as he was not considered to have any reasonable prospects of being successful in his appeal. 24. As the applicant maintained that he was unable to conduct the case in the Supreme Court himself, he requested the Court to appoint counsel for him. However, on 12 May 1989 the Supreme Court refused the request. 25. The applicant furthermore requested permission to put further questions to the Council and also to have access to the hospital's medical records. Both requests were refused by the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court (Højesterets anke- og kæremålsudvalg) on 14 March The applicant then proceeded on his own to obtain further expert opinions and on 21 May 1990 also asked for an adjournment in order to find a lawyer who could assist him, something in which he was not successful. 26. On 23 April 1991 the Supreme Court decided to order the applicant to present his case through counsel. Furthermore, the Court appointed a lawyer to represent him, following which the applicant again requested the Court to give him access to the hospital's medical records. On 6 November 1991 the Court decided to meet the applicant's request. 27. Having studied the medical records the applicant, on 9 March 1992, asked the Court for permission to submit further evidence and to obtain further explanations from the Medico-Legal Council. On 16 December 1992 the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court granted the request. However, as before the parties were unable to agree on the questions to be put to the Council. Eventually, on 9 November 1993, the Appeals Selection Committee decided that three specific questions, drawn up by the Committee, were to be put to the Council. The case was adjourned pending the Council's reply which was submitted on 18 March In the meantime the applicant had applied to the Department of Private Law (Civilretsdirektoratet) for legal aid. This was refused on 27 March 1992 and subsequent applications were refused inter alia on 15 April 1992, 11 December 1992, and 17 May Eventually, on 30 March 1994, the Department of Private Law granted the applicant free legal aid in respect of the appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court. 29. Following the Medico-Legal Council's reply of 18 March 1994 new questions were put to the Council on 21 October The Council's reply was submitted on 14 June The applicant's civil case against Hjørring hospital is still pending in the Supreme Court. The main hearing has been scheduled for 15 April 1996.
5 B. Relevant domestic law 31. In civil lawsuits the court acts at the request of the parties. Civil proceedings are instituted by one of the parties submitting a writ of summons to the court concerned (cf. section 348 of the Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven)). Certain lawsuits, like the present one, are brought before the High Court as the court of first instance (cf. sections 224 to 226 of the Administration of Justice Act). Legal proceedings are considered to be instituted when the court receives the writ of summons. The court is responsible for the service of the writ of summons. The lawsuit then falls into two parts - a preparatory phase and a hearing phase. 32. Two procedures may be followed in respect of the preparation. Pursuant to section 351 of the Administration of Justice Act, the preparation of a case may be carried out by the parties appearing at preliminary hearings either personally or through a representative entitled to appear for the person concerned. This is called oral preparation. Pleadings are exchanged and formally submitted to the court during a session. Pursuant to section 352 of the Administration of Justice Act, the court may decide that the case is to be prepared without the parties appearing in court at preliminary hearings. This is called written preparation. In the case of written preparation the parties forward their pleadings to the court which records the documents and sees to it that the opponent receives a copy of them. 33. The purpose of preparing a case is to establish the facts and the legal issues of the case, to make sure that the case is elucidated in the best possible way and to establish what the parties disagree on. 34. In addition to the normal preparatory court hearings during the preparation phase the court may hold preliminary hearings pursuant to section 355 of the Administration of Justice Act. The court may summon the parties to such preliminary hearings for the purpose of gaining sufficient clarity of the scope of the evidence and the points at issue when the court finds this expedient. During such preliminary hearings, the court may also decide on disputes between the parties relating to the preparation and actual organisation of the case. 35. According to the Administration of Justice Act, the parties in a civil lawsuit have competence as regards the substance of the case, i.e. the problems to be considered by the court. On the other hand the court has the final responsibility for the judicial procedure. A stay of proceedings can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for such a stay. The relevant provision is section 345 of the Administration of Justice Act according to which "the court may adjourn proceedings, if this is found expedient, also in order to await an administrative or legal decision which may influence the outcome of the case. The court shall notify all parties concerned regarding the stay of proceedings as soon as possible." 36. Proceedings may for instance be stayed in order for the parties to produce evidence of relevance to the case, to conduct friendly settlement negotiations, to procure expert opinions, to clarify the positions of the parties etc. Moreover, proceedings will normally be adjourned if one of the parties submits a pleading in order to allow the other party to comment on it. Proceedings will usually also be adjourned when an expert opinion has been submitted, enabling the parties to review the result and decide whether the expert opinion necessitates further questions to the expert. 37. In civil lawsuits the case is elucidated by the parties and takes the form of a negotiation between them. The parties decide the questions to be considered by the court, and it is the parties who present the material to the court. As a starting point, the parties thus decide themselves how much or how little the court is to be
6 presented with and consider. The court ensures that continuous progress is made in the case, and that the case is not allowed to be neglected. The court intervenes in situations where one of the parties professes misgivings concerning a stay of proceedings, or when the court feels that a stay does not serve any real purpose. Finalising the preparation of the case and fixing it for hearing involve a restriction on the new material to be presented by a party, (cf. section 357 and section 363 of the Administration of Justice Act). 38. Following the finalisation of the preparation of the case it is for the court to fix the date for the hearing of the case, (cf. section 356, subsection 2, of the Administration of Justice Act). The court may if necessary summon the parties for this purpose. III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION A. Complaint declared admissible 39. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his case has not been determined within a reasonable time. B. Point at issue 40. Accordingly, the only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention 41. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by (a)... tribunal..." 42. It is undisputed that the proceedings in question involve a determination of a "civil right" and thus fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. 43. The proceedings began on 15 January 1982 when the applicant instituted proceedings against Hjørring hospital. These proceedings are at present pending in the Supreme Court. Until now they have accordingly lasted more than thirteen years and nine months. 44. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and that of the authorities before which the case is brought. Furthermore, the special circumstances of the case, in particular what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation, must be taken into account and may call for an overall assessment (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30 and X v. France judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, p. 90, para. 32). 45. The Commission also recalls that in civil cases the exercise of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time is subject to diligence being shown by the party concerned (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Pretto and Others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, pp. 14 et seq., paras. 33 et seq.). Nonetheless this principle cannot absolve the courts from securing that the case progresses within a reasonable time (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Martins Moreira judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 143, p. 17, para. 46), and Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their legal system in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (cf. Eur Court, H.R., Bunkate judgment of
7 26 May 1993, Series A no. 248-B, p. 31, para. 23). 46. Whereas the applicant maintains that a period of more than thirteen years cannot in any circumstances be considered reasonable in a case of this kind, the Government submit that of the period of time the case has been before the Danish courts the parties are responsible for the delays of more than eight years characterised more than anything else by the fact that they have been unable to reach agreement on some points and have reached agreement on other points only after very long periods of discussions during the preparatory phases both in the High Court and in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Government maintain that the complexity of the case is evident, inter alia, from the fact that it has been deemed necessary to have a very large number of questions put to the Medico-Legal Council and other medical experts. 47. As regards the latter point the Commission recalls that the case concerns an action for damages as a result of alleged errors committed by the hospital during the operations the applicant underwent there. The Commission does not consider this to be of particular complexity from a legal point of view. Thus, although the production of evidence, including expert evidence from the Medico-Legal Council, has turned out to be time-consuming, the Commission does not find that the complexity of the case can justify the period of time involved. 48. As regards the conduct of all parties involved the Commission recalls that the Danish legal system in civil cases is not of an inquisitorial type, but the lawsuit is elucidated by the parties and takes the form of a negotiation between them. However, according to the Administration of Justice Act it is nevertheless the court which ensures that continuous progress is made in the case and that the case is not allowed to be neglected. 49. In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant was not allowed access to the hospital's medical records until 6 November 1991, i.e. almost ten years after the case commenced, when the Supreme Court overruled its own Appeals Selection Committee's prior refusal. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the applicant tried several times through the Medico-Legal Council, or by other means, to obtain evidence which might support his claims. Nor is it surprising that the applicant was in need of time to prepare the case, having regard to the fact that free legal aid was refused until 30 March 1994, i.e. more than twelve years after the case commenced. 50. However, the gist of the matter lies in the fact that the High Court of Western Denmark and the Supreme Court did not use their powers to make orders for the speeding up of the progress of the proceedings. In both courts it became clear that the parties were unable to resolve the numerous disputes over the issues which were to be examined by the Medico-Legal Council as well as other matters, and it may well be, as maintained by the Government, that more than eight years passed in particular due to this. However, in such circumstances the courts ought to have intervened in accordance with their powers under the Administration of Justice Act in order to ensure proper progress in the proceedings regardless of the parties' conduct. However, the courts failed to do so. Accordingly the dispute between the applicant and the Hjørring hospital has not been determined within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. CONCLUSION 51. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Secretary to the Second Chamber (M.-T. SCHOEPFER) President of the Second Chamber (H. DANELIUS)
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28288/95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by M.T.J. against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 19011/91 by M.T.J. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 29188/95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 33029/96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 October 1998, the following members being
More informationMr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 May 1986, the following members being present: MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President C. A. NØRGAARD G. SPERDUTI M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES G. JÖRUNDSSON
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 23959/94 Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 31 May 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /91. Anders Fredin. against. Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 9 February 1993)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18928/91 Anders Fredin against Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 9 February 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)..................1
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF NIELSEN v. DENMARK. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 July 2009 FINAL 02/10/2009
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF NIELSEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 44034/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 July 2009 FINAL 02/10/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. NIELSEN v. DENMARK JUDGMENT 1 In
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 17392/90 by W.M. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present: MM. S. TRECHSEL,
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 22838/93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF IVERSEN v. DENMARK. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF IVERSEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 5989/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 September
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 63214/00) JUDGMENT (Striking out) STRASBOURG
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 44704/98 by Kirsten NORMANN
More informationFISCHER v. AUSTRIA. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members being present:
FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16922/90 by Josef FISCHER against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BRØSTED v. DENMARK (Application no. 21846/04) JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CHRISTENSEN v. DENMARK. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CHRISTENSEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 247/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 January
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38986/97 by P. W. against Denmark
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 8305/04 by Per Karsten POULSEN
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 12945/87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 April 1990, the following members being
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13445/87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1991, the following members being present:
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 25907/02 by Søren TOPP against
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28268/95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:
More informationSeite 1 von 10 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST CHAMBER Application No. 25629/94 H.F. K-F. against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 10 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationIn the case of A and Others v. Denmark (1),
In the case of A and Others v. Denmark (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
More informationPage 1 of 27 In the case of A and Others v. Denmark (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13057/87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 March 1989, the following members being present: MM.
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /92. Zoltán Szücs. against. Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 3 September 1996)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 20602/92 Zoltán Szücs against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-15)......................1
More informationMcCANN, FARRELL AND SAVAGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 18984/91 by Margaret McCANN, Daniel FARRELL and John SAVAGE against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 September
More informationDECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark
1 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 May 1988, the following members
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /92. Terra Woningen B.V. against. the Netherlands REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 20641/92 Terra Woningen B.V. against the Netherlands REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 5 April 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationDECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 29759/96 by Nikola KITOV against Denmark The
More informationE. Recapitulation (paras )... 12
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18892/91 Wilhelm Putz against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 11 October 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)......................1
More informationRULES OF COURT (1978) ADOPTED ON 14 APRIL 1978 AND ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY PREAMBLE *
RULES OF COURT (1978) ADOPTED ON 14 APRIL 1978 AND ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY 1978 1 PREAMBLE * The Court, Having regard to Chapter XIV of the Charter of the United Nations; Having regard to the Statute
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /94. Józef Michal Janowski. against. Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 25716/94 Józef Michal Janowski against Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION
More information1. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 14 January 2009 (OJ L 24 of , p.
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL This edition consolidates: the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 (OJ L 225 of 29.8.2007, p.
More informationRULES OF COURT (1978) ADOPTED ON 14 APRIL 1978 AND ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY
Rules of Court Article 30 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that "the Court shall frame rules for carrying out its functions". These Rules are intended to supplement the general
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 31414/96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1998, the following members being
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16400/90 by H.S. and H.Y. against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL COURT
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL COURT This edition consolidates: the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 May 1991 (OJ L 136 of 30.5.1991, p. 1, and OJ L
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28858/95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 November 1996, the following members being present:
More informationPROTOCOL (No 3) ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
C 83/210 Official Journal of the European Union 30.3.2010 PROTOCOL (No 3) ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, DESIRING to lay down the Statute of
More informationFRIEDL_v._AUSTRIA[1] Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-9)...
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15225/89 Ludwig Friedl against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)......................
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF PETERSEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 70210/01) JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)
More informationBERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND (Application no. 37801/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 July
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM (Application no. 50615/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 November
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 60974/00 by ROSELTRANS, FINLEASE
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56619/15 Rasmus MALVER against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 May 2018 as a Committee composed of: Ledi Bianku, President,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF KLEMECO NORD AB v. SWEDEN (Application no. 73841/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF JANSSEN v. GERMANY (Application no. 23959/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 December
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /96. Ian Faulkner. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 30308/96 Ian Faulkner against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 1 December 1998) 30308/96 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2008/6. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General,
UNITED NATIONS United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo UNMIK NATIONS UNIES Mission d Administration Intérimaire des Nations Unies au Kosovo UNMIK/AD/2008/6 11 June 2008 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION
More informationSECOND SECTION. Communicated on 25 August Application no /14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014
SECOND SECTION Application no. 25593/14 Ahmad ASSEM HASSAN ALI against Denmark lodged on 27 March 2014 Communicated on 25 August 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ahmad Assem Hassan Ali, is a Jordanian
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN (Application no. 26891/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 January
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION)
STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION) This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /92 by Kristina KRAMELIUS against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 21062/92 by Kristina KRAMELIUS against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 17 January 1996, the following members
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL (As adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 64/119 on 16 December 2009 and amended by the General Assembly in Resolution 66/107 on 9 December
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of
More informationBERMUDA STATUTORY INSTRUMENT SR&O 71/1968 MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL RULES 1968
Laws of Bermuda Title 11 Item 36(a) BERMUDA STATUTORY INSTRUMENT SR&O 71/1968 MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL RULES 1968 [made under section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1968 and brought into operation on
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF VERNILLO v. FRANCE (Application no. 11889/85) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 February
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 July 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 67081/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 July 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MATEUS PEREIRA
More informationINDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT
INDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT CHAPTER 12:01 48 of 1920 5 of 1923 21 of 1936 14 of 1939 25 of 1948 1 of 1955 10 of 1961 11 of 1961 29 of 1977 45 of 1979 Act 12 of 1917 Amended by *See Note
More informationDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
In the case of K. v. Austria*, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")**
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. Application No /84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY Application No. 10825/84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 July 1987, the following members being present:
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND. (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 September 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45073/07 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35178/97 by Hubert ANKARCRONA
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Richard Waite and Terry Kennedy. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 26083/94 Richard Waite and Terry Kennedy against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 2 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras.
More informationRules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank
Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK SECTION I: Organization Rule 1 Term of Office
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA (Application no. 32163/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUŠKO v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF W. R. v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 26602/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 December
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28212/95) JUDGMENT
More informationMaking a Complaint Against Members of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants In Ireland
Making a Complaint Against Members of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants In Ireland INDEX Introduction 3 How the Institute can help you 3 Relationship with your CPA 3 Making a complaint to the
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 49126/99 by Anders WEJRUP against
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16152/90 by Ahmed LAMGUINDAZ against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members
More informationINDUSTRIAL COURT ACT
INDUSTRIAL COURT ACT Act 68 of 1973 24 December 1973 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Establishment of Industrial Court 4. Staff 5. Informal powers 6. Sitting of Court 7. Institution
More informationSTATUTE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. -Edition 2007-
STATUTE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL -Edition 2007- STATUTE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ARTICLE I ESTABLISHMENT There is hereby established a
More informationDecision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Ivan Gazidis
More informationCASE_OF_ORTENBERG_v._AUTRICHE[1]
In the case of Ortenberg v. Austria*, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
More informationCHAIR S DIRECTIONS (for Standard Dwellinghouse claims)
CHAIR S DIRECTIONS (for Standard Dwellinghouse claims) 1. Introduction 1.1 These directions are effective from 21 September 2015 and are issued pursuant to s114 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF VASILEVA v. DENMARK (Application no. 52792/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 September
More informationSTATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Article 1 The International Court of Justice established by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations shall be
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF BERTUZZI v. FRANCE. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF BERTUZZI v. FRANCE (Application no. 36378/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 February
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 76682/01 by P4 RADIO HELE NORGE
More informationGUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION
GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION Legal Services Table of Contents About the Guide to Proceedings Before the Immigration Division ii, iii Notes and references..iv Chapter 1... POWERS
More informationSTATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Article 1 The International Court of Justice established by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations shall be
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF application no. 34311/96 by Adolf HUBNER against
More informationHEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS DOCTORS. General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004
2004 No 2608 HEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS DOCTORS General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 Made 4th October 2004 Laid before Parliament 7th October 2004 Coming
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY (Application no. 22840/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY. (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 December 2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 December 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationNursing Act, 2005 (Act No. 33 of 2005)
14 No. 34494 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 5 AUGUST 2011 No. R. 619 5 Au~ust 2011 Nursing Act, 2005 (Act No. 33 of 2005) REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE CONDUCTING OF INQUIRIES INTO ALLEGED UNFITNESS TO PRACTISE DUE
More informationThe Patent Regulation Board and The Trade Mark Regulation Board. Disciplinary Procedure Rules
The Patent Regulation Board and The Trade Mark Regulation Board Disciplinary Procedure Rules The Patent Regulation Board of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Trade Mark Regulation Board
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF VALENTIN v. DENMARK. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF VALENTIN v. DENMARK (Application no. 26461/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 March
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 23 March 1993 *
ings, and a plea concerning matters of fact of which the applicant had no knowledge when he lodged his application are thus admissible even though submitted for the first time in the proceedings following
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /93. James Hamill. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 21656/93 James Hamill against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 2 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-18)
More information