The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

APPELANTE Madame [N] [D] née le [Date naissance 1] 1971 à [Localité 1] ([Localité 1]) [Adresse 1] non comparante, représentée par Me Olivier JESSEL, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : B0811

  He alleged that his ex-wife lived with another man for which reason she was not entitled to such alimony.

COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS Pôle 5 - Chambre 5 ARRÊT DU 14 NOVEMBRE 2013 (n° , 12 pages) Numéro d'inscription au répertoire général : 11/13886 Décision déférée à la Cour : Jugement du 27 mai

Jebens, juges , et de M. S.

matter of the dispute.

    On 23 March 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 10 May 2003 and resumed the investigation.

It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Abdurashidova v.

On 15   May 1998 the Attorney-General issued new instructions to the police to commence a new cycle of investigations.

MARXER                Mr.   H.C.

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Jebens, juges , et de M. S.

Jebens, judges and Mr S.

Furthermore, as noted in the decision of March 2005, the servicemen who had been on duty at the Urus-Martan check-point and military commander’s office had not been questioned.

The body of the ninth missing man, Savvas Hadjipanteli, was discovered in 2007.

2003 and the   Leave ‑ to ‑ Appeal Board’s decision of 18 December 2003 – may lead it to conclude that the matter has now been resolved or that for any other reason, it is no longer

In particular, the dispute ("contestation") must be genuine and serious, it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise and, finally, the

    On 11 March 2010 a Chamber of the First Section, composed of Christos Rozakis, Nina Vajić, Khanlar Hajiyev, Dean Spielmann, Sverre Erik Jebens, Giorgio Malinverni and George Nicolaou, judges

The said remedy, as a general matter and in the manner applied in the present case, fulfilled the requirements of an “effective remedy”. Thus, this part of the application was manifestly ill-founded.