The applicant complains on behalf of himself and his wife that they are unable to receive a State pension for his wife because she is paid an Invalid Care

   The applicant complains under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention of persecution because of his political beliefs.

On 12 August 2011 he received a response from the Prison Department that he did not have a right to long-term visits because he was serving his sentence in prison.

These individuals could not be deported because there was a risk that each would be ill-treated in his country of origin in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

They invited the Court to strike out the application, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention because the applicant no longer intended to pursue his application.

The decision was not amenable to further judicial review because the Judicial Code explicitly excluded such decisions from that process.

On 15 April 2022 the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in which it held that the President’s decree and the Seimas ’ decision complied with the Constitution, inter alia , because they had been based

From the very outset the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing because the legal representative of his choice, Ms Gataullina, could not attend.

The absence of a European consensus on the question of same-sex marriage was therefore of no relevance, because conferring substantive rights on homosexual persons was fundamentally different from recognising

the criminal procedure under Article 367(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [the “CPP”], and there is nothing to indicate that such evidence was unlawful within the meaning of Article 9 of the CCP, because

By a   further letter of 2 September 2011, it was informed that it could not be granted the licence because all six members of the National Council had abstained from voting on its application. 8.

    On 27 April 2008 the applicant submitted a motion to exclude the presiding judge of the panel, because, in his opinion, she gravely breached her judicial oath by setting the first hearing

Between 19   October 1993 and 7 July 1994 the court adjourned three hearings because of the ill-health of the applicant and the presiding judge, and held seven hearings.

Mrs Codarcea had to be taken into hospital and operated on again, from 8 to 9 August 1996, because – following the blepharoplasty – her eyelids would not close.

    On 14 February 2011 the Travnik Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s winding-up petition because the Federal Ministry of Energy had refused authorisation (see paragraph 11 below).

The applicant was neither present nor represented at the appeal hearing because, apparently, the defence had not been informed of it.

    The applicant’s representative requested revision of the judgment of 17   November 2020, which he had been unable to have executed because the applicant had died before the judgment

  The hearing of the case was adjourned on two occasions, namely on 12 January 1986 and 19 December 1986, because of the absence of the representative of the bank.

  (A)    Because blacks are not human beings?