The applicant’s brother had a family of his own. The court concluded that the applicant did not have a family life to be protected in Estonia.

  He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Mason and Others v.

limits on and arrangements for visits by his family.

European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   November 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Linos-Alexandre

The biological reality was not enough to constitute family life. Moreover, there was no legal impediment to developing family life.

It indicated in particular that the applicant family had integrated well in Polish society, their fifth child had been born in Poland and the older children were attending school there and spoke Polish

  1, Alexandru Donici str. no.

On 18 April 2011 their physical cohabitation was registered and since then they have been considered as a family unit for statistical purposes.

    The applicant complained that the domestic courts in the above civil proceedings for divorce and custody had violated his right to respect for his family life in that they: (a) had taken

In deciding so, the court of appeal considered that the person’s own convictions at the time of death should be subsequently respected by the family in the choice of rites. C.

    The Family Act 16.

Furthermore, they submitted statements by family members, friends, neighbours and co-workers.

    In the evening of 20 March 2009, at around 7.30 p.m., all the family was at home and the children were playing in the house. 19.

    The witness I.M. had returned to the village three days later and entered the house of the Orić family, where he had seen the dead bodies of Ljuban and Mara Orić.

  22893/05, 27 May 2008, and Alexandru Marius Radu v. Romania , no.

The court held that between the civil parties and the nine ‑ year ‑ old girl there had been a strong emotional relationship and the girl’s violent death had caused intense pain to her family

    Family visits during detention on remand and subsequent imprisonment 19.

A police officer talked to M. in the presence of Mr O.A.’s adult family members. No further action was taken. 46.

    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.