Romania (no. 35671/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: inadmissible Alexandru Lindner and Cristina Hammermayer are two Romanian nationals

In view of the above, this Centre recognised her right to care outside her family and she was accommodated in the Caritas Home for elderly and dependent persons ... in I.

Police Station interviewed the applicant’s father about the applicant’s relationship with her family. 27.

The Ombudsman explained to O.H. the provisions of the Family Code concerning the right of the parent living apart from the child to have contact with the child.

    The applicant again reiterated his request for a transfer to Varaždin Prison on 6 May 2010, citing personal and family reasons. 18.

    The applicant left Somalia with his family for the Netherlands in 1992 when he was fifteen years old.

Additionally, the applicant claimed that her family life with M would be irrevocably disrupted. 23.

Victim Ms   P. had feared the applicant, considering him to be dangerous for her and her family.

02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Alexandr

Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20   January 2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro , President ,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre

xa0; Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre

The Court observes that these objections were identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v. Turkey (no. 16162/90, §§ 11-22, 20 January 2009), and should be dismissed for the same reasons.

    On 21 March 2003, D.V. and his family moved out of the applicant’s house; three days later, on 24 March 2003, the applicant repossessed it.

He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, as well as to its relevant case-law on the matter (see Văleanu and Others v.

:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s291FE63F { width:18.95pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:

    At the material time Mr Ramzan Shaipov (also spelt as Shoipov) and the applicants lived in their family home in the settlement of Chiri-Yurt.

    The applicants alleged, in particular, that the circumstances of identification of their deceased family members had been inhuman and degrading and that the decision not to return the bodies

The source of his income or means of subsistence for his family are not known. Earlier [the applicant] was found liable for administrative offences against public order and public safety.