istrict Court for examination on the merits.
10. On 31 March 2000 the company withdrew its claim for eviction of the applicants and the District Court discontinued the proceedings in that part.
11. On 3 April 2000 the District Court decided to examine the applicants' counter claims against the company in separate proceedings, adjourned the case on the applicants' request and scheduled the next hearing for 4 August 2000. The Government submitted that it had not been possible to schedule the hearing for an earlier date since the judge had been busy in unrelated proceedings.
12. The hearing of 4 August 2000 was adjourned on the parties' request and those of 8 September, 30 October and 27 November 2000 did not take place because the parties did not attend them.
13. On 10 April 2001 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 31 March 2000 to discontinue the proceedings in the part concerning the eviction of the applicants and remitted the matter for re-examination to the District Court.
14. In August 2001 the apartment building in which the disputed flat was situated burnt down.
15. On 24 August 2001 the case was adjourned because the parties to the proceedings did not appear.
16. On 26 September 2001, after a fresh examination, the District Court discontinued the eviction proceedings.
17. On 12 November 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims for the provision of housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 12 March 2002 it referred the case to the Regional Court for examination on appeal. The Regional Court set the examination of the case for 26 March 2002. However, on that date it had to refer the case back to the District Court in order to decide on the reinstatement of the time-limit for the applicants to lodge an appeal against the decision of 3 April 2000.
18. On 5 June 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicants' request for reinstatement of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 3 April 2000.
19. On 19 September 2002 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 26 September 2001 to discontinue the proceedings in part relating to eviction and that of 5 June 2002.
20. On the same date the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 November 2001 on the ground that the District Court had failed to establish all relevant facts of the case and remitted the case for re-examination to the District Court.
B. Second examination of the case
21. On 18 October 2002 the case was remitted to the District Court and was assigned to Judge Ka.
22. In March 2003 the applicants applied to the Regional Court for supervisory review of the decisions of 3 April 2000, 26 September 2001 and 5 June 2002.
23. The hearing of 29 May 2003 did not take place because the applicants did not attend it.
24. On 9 June 2003 the case was referred to the Regional Court in order to decide on the applicants' request for supervisory review of the decisions of 3 April 2000, 26 September 2001 and 5 June 2002. By a decision of 30 September 2003 the Regional Court refused to refer those decisions for examination on the merits to the supervisory review court and on 9 October 2003 it sent the case back to the District Court.
25. The District Court scheduled the next hearing for 3 December 2003. However, on that date the case was adjourned on the applicants' request in order to have additional time to prepare for the hearing.
26. The hearings scheduled between January 2004 and September 2005 were adjourned for various reasons. In particular, on 20 January 2005 the case was adjourned until 9 March 2005 because the applicants did not appear and that of 15 April 2005 was adjourned because the applicants requested additional time to amend their claims. Four hearings were adjourned on the requests
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
