he judgment was overturned on appeal by a decision of the Orenburg Regional Court ("the Regional Court") on 10 October 2002, for erroneous application of the substantive law. The case was remitted to the first instance for fresh examination.
B. Second examination of the case
16. On 2 December 2002 the hearing was adjourned at both parties' requests.
17. Two following hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request due to her counsel's failure to appear and to enable her to secure additional evidence.
18. On 20 January 2003 the District Court ordered a technical examination. Eleven questions were put to the experts.
19. On 10 February 2003 head of the State forensic examinations bureau informed the court that the examination would start in April once the snow melted.
20. On 9 July 2003 the same official informed the court that the examination was delayed because it was necessary to carry out an additional survey and to invite another expert.
21. On 20 October 2003 the District Court requested information on the date of completion of the examination. In their reply the forensic examinations bureau referred to a heavy workload.
22. The technical examination was completed on 9 December 2003, and on 30 January 2004 the District Court resumed the proceedings.
23. Two following hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request to enable her to secure additional evidence and specify her claims.
24. On 2 March 2004 the court granted the applicant's motion for a new technical examination, which lasted until 20 March 2004. The experts had to answer one question.
25. On 5 April 2004 the District Court resumed the proceedings. The court adjourned two following hearings to enable the applicant to specify her claims and for a new respondent to familiarise themselves with the claims.
26. On 11 June 2004 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. However, the judgment was set aside by the Regional Court on 21 September 2004 for erroneous application of the substantive law. The case was ordered for re-examination.
C. Third examination of the case
27. On 12 November 2004 the District Court accepted alterations to the applicant's claims and, four days later, ordered a technical examination. Thirty-six questions were put to the experts. The decision to order the new examination was upheld by the Regional Court on 22 March 2005 on the applicant's appeal.
28. On 18 April 2005 the case was sent to the experts, followed by a contract for execution of services on 13 July 2005 and by payment arrangements on 12 October 2005.
29. On 13 January, 1 March and 31 May 2006 the District Court inquired with the forensic examinations bureau about the results of the examination. It is unclear whether it received any reply.
30. On 8 August 2006 the applicant complained to the president of the District Court of unreasonably long consideration of the case. The parties did not submit any information regarding a reply to this complaint.
31. On 21 August 2006 the District Court received the examination results and resumed the proceedings.
32. Between 30 August 2006 and 14 March 2007 nine hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request for various reasons, mainly to summon witnesses and secure additional evidence, as well as to enable the respondents to familiarise themselves with the amended claims.
33. On 19 March 2007 the District Court disallowed the claim. On 6 June 2007 the Regional Court overturned the judgment on appeal for erroneous application of the substantive law and required a new hearing.
D. Fourth examination of the case
34. On 8 August 2007 the District Court granted the applicant's motion for a new te
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
