Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010, and Korolev , cited above).

    The Government argued that the Court could apply in the instant case the same reasoning as in the cases of Korolev v. Russia ((dec.) no.

The severity of a   violation should be assessed by taking into account both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v.

Bulgaria (no. 18967/03, §§ 61-63 and 68-81 and 92, 3 December 2009), and Sivova and Koleva v.   Bulgaria (no. 30383/03, §§ 30-32 and 36-43, 15 November 2011).

    By a decision of 6 February 2013, upheld on appeal on 31 July 2013, the Korolev Town Court allowed his claim and ordered to pay Mr K.

His wife, Mrs Nanka Koleva and his daughter, Ms   Christina Koleva, stated that they wished to pursue the application. They also submitted additional complaints.

Such companies are subjected to the rules of private law and exercise no public power (see Sivova and Koleva , cited above, §§   48 ‑ 49).

contrôle en révision pouvait être introduit dans un délai de trois mois à compter de la dernière décision judiciaire contestée (voir, pour les dispositions pertinentes en l’espèce de ce chapitre, Kovaleva

The authorities’ failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court’s view, led to it finding a violation of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Korneyeva v.

’ failure to comply with these requirements, in the Court’s view, led it to finding a violation of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see the above ‑ mentioned cases, as well as Korneyeva

  36659/04, 1   June   2010 and Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.   25551/05, 1   July   2010).

wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see Korolev

la violation d’un droit, quelle que soit sa réalité d’un point de vue strictement juridique, doit atteindre un seuil minimum de gravité pour justifier un examen par une juridiction internationale ( Korolev

  36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1   July   2010; and Gaftoniuc , cited above).

  36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1   July 2010; Gaftoniuc v. Romania , (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011).

  Korolev v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 5447/03) The applicant, Vladimir Korolev, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Orenburg (Russia).

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8 October 2019, and Teslenko and Others v.

  Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.   25551/05, 1 July 2010; Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22   February 2011).

    The Court reiterates the principles developed in its case-law concerning the criterion of significant disadvantage ( Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.   25551/05, ECHR 2010; Giusti v.