considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer , cited above, ibidem; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon

The case of Solomon v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000) concerned a question corresponding to that of the present case.

  the   United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v.   the   Netherlands (d

Solomon, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were successively represented by their Agent, Mr Rǎzvan-Horațiu Radu, and their Co-Agent, Ms I.

against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two nationals of the State of Eritrea, Mr Solomon

origin of one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control (e.g. a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Solomon

    Meanwhile, the applicant and the Solomon Guggenheim Corporation had on 18, 19 and 20, 29 October 1988 respectively sought an order from the RAC annulling the note of 1 July 1988.

  the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22   June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5   September 2000). 50.

examined by the Commission, and used their discretion to reach the opposite conclusion to that reached by a decision of the Commission which the Court found to be final (see paragraph 85 above; see also Solomun

11 02/07/2011 Vladimir Ilyich KOLESNYK 21/09/1948 Konotop Konotop Court, 26/11/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 09/12/2008   44417/11 13/07/2011 Alla Vasylivna SOLOMKA