That being so, the issue is not – and cannot be – whether or not use was made of an effective judicial remedy (section 43(1) of the CCA [Constitutional Court Act]) but whether the remedies afforded by

    The Government described the steps taken recently by the national authorities in order to complete the criminal investigation into the events of December 1989 and made reference to their

On various dates (see the Appendix) the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications.

    Some applicants made accessory complaints referring to assorted Articles of the Convention.

The applicant also made a statement confessing that he had jumped out of the window and stated that he had no complaints against anyone.

Its findings made in Mozer are valid with respect to the period of time covered by the present case.

Russia (no. 23377/02) The applicant, Valentina Sergeyevna Mokrushina, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.

Indeed, the Decree made the entry into force of those provisions conditional on the adoption of governmental budgetary measures. The new provisions were not implemented until 2007.

They did not suggest that the court had made an appropriate assessment of facts relevant to the question of whether such a preventive measure was necessary in the circumstances at the respective stages

    Having considered that medical documents submitted by a prosecutor were insufficient to make the finding, on 9 July 2018 the Piraeus Indictments Division appointed an infectiologist to assess

In their various statements made during those investigations, I.B. and the applicants declared that they had been beaten up by police.

    The Government made no comment in this regard. 21.

It follows that those applicants who are displaced women have not made out a prima facie case that they are victims of a violation of the Convention.

    The submissions made by the applicant and the Government were identical to those made by the parties in respect of the same complaint raised in the case of Annagi Hajibeyli v.

The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

They did not award compensation reflecting the market value of the expropriated land, but instead proceeded to make awards based on the criteria contained in section 5   bis of Legislative Decree

    The courts were bound to respond to V.V.’s specific claim made in the court action, that is the applicant’s exclusion.

It therefore decided to make a submission to Parliament to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “breach of oath”.

All payments due to the applicant under the judgment of 3   February 2006 had been made prior to its quashing on 1 February 2007.