in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and (iii)   whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see also Korolev

violation; and (2) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis , Korolev

  Karyagin, Matveyev and Korolev v.

En l’affaire Sivova et Koleva c.

(1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022     28883/23* 11/07/2023 Yelena Vasilyevna KOVALEVA

Finally, the Court considers that in the present cases the applicants’ complaints were duly considered by the domestic courts, as required by Article   35   § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Korolev

/1971 Russian     Supreme Court of Komi Republic, 16 February 2010   prosecution witnesses “Ivanov”, “Sidorov” and “Petrov” - anonymous   41623/14 07/05/2014 Maksim Nikolayevich KOROLEV

xa0; possessing and selling drugs K. and Kos. anonymous witnesses   buyers of drugs in two test purchases “extraordinary circumstances” none     41623/14 07/05/2014 Maksim Nikolayevich KOROLEV

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

  Korolev (application no.

     Vsevolod Korolev (no.   2156/23) 53.

Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010; Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria , no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; Nedelcheva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 5516/05, 28 May 2013; Popov and Chonin v.

pourquoi la question de savoir si un tribunal a manqué à son obligation de motiver découlant de l’article 6 de la Convention ne peut s’analyser qu’à la lumière des circonstances de l’espèce ( Sivova et Koleva

naissance Nationalité/Droit applicable Lieu de résidence/ Siège social 1 TRANSINS INDUSTRY AD   bulgare Varna 2 BURGAS METAL EOOD   bulgare Burgas 3 ECO VARNA EAD   bulgare Varna 4 Antonina Koleva

  13338/03, 10 April 2003, and compare with Kovaleva and Others v.   Russia (dec.), no. 6025/09, 25   June 2009).

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.

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§   115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.

L’appréciation de ce seuil est par nature relative et dépend des circonstances de l’espèce ( Korolev c.   Russie (déc.), n o 25551/05, CEDH 2010).

a delay of less than one year in payment of a monetary judicial award was in principle compatible with the Convention, while any longer delay was prima facie unreasonable (see, among many others, Kosheleva