In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman

The applicant finally submitted that his case was similar to that of Shofman v. Russia, which was recently declared partly admissible (see decision of 25   March 2004, no. 74826/01). 2.

expenses AZN   30,000 for non-pecuniary damage AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN   2,000 for translation, postal and other expenses   3 57130/13   16/08/2013 Famil GASIMOV 1989 Shirvan

In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman

  54396/22), political scientist Yekaterina Shulman (no.   19394/23), playwright and satirist Viktor Shenderovich (no.   28810/23) and interviewer Yuriy Dud (no.

After 2012 he returned to Moldova, where he gained popularity as a wealthy businessman, philanthropist, showman, politician and organiser of concerts and anti-government rallies.

In general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman

  I note that Mr Sharman proposes to hold the next Hindu       youth festival in such place, acknowledging that the temple       premises in Wandsworth

  The applicants were represented by Mr Robert Sherman, as Counsel and Ms Nuala Mole, legal adviser.   12.   On 26 May 1998, the Commission declared the application admissible.

The applicants were represented by Mr Robert Sherman, as Counsel and Ms Catharine O'Hanlon, trainee solicitor. The first applicant also attended.

xa0;   General election 6 May 2010     Detained at relevant time at HMP Long Lartin              47370/10 11/08/2010   Alex SHARMAN

further recalls that it is primarily for the respondent State to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see   Shofman

biological and social reality should prevail over a legal presumption of paternity (the Government cited Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands , 27   October 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297 ‑ C, and Shofman

Nikolayevich Karabet, the first applicant (born in 1981 and died in 2011), -     Mr Artyom Valeriyevich Beksyak, the second applicant (born in 1986), -     Mr Igor Vladimirovich Shorban

    The applicants are: 1) Ms Tabarka Tagirovna Israilova [1] , born in 1953; 2) Mr Shirvan Mikhaylovich Israilov, born in 1940; 3) Mr Tagir Atiyevich Gikhayev, born in 1924; 4) Ms Avlaz Gikhayeva

  34308/96, 19   October 1999; Shofman v. Russia , no. 74826/01, § 31, 24   November 2005; Tavlı v. Turkey , no. 11449/02, § 26, 9 November 2006; and I.L.V. v.

Cyprus , no. 23890/02, § 55, 20 December 2007; see also Shofman v. Russia , no. 74826/01, §§ 44-46, 24 November 2005 and Novotný v. the Czech Republic , no. 16314/13, §§ 43-58, 7 June 2018).

Russia) The applicants are: 1) Ms Larisa Betereskhanova, who was born in 1971; 2) Mr Sharpudi Dudarkayev, who was born in 1949; 3) Mr Shaaman Dudarkayev, who was born in 1994; 4) Mr Shamkhan Dudarkayev

Nirmal Sharma , a case which raised similar issues.