75 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court).

    The applications were allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule   52   §   1 of the Rules of Court).

Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b) of the Rules of Court).

It appears thus that this rule is no longer applied automatically: the domestic courts now assess all the relevant circumstances of a given case to determine whether the unanimity rule places an excessive

He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 35 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court B, the applicants designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 31). 3.

the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

On 4 July 2006 the President of the Chamber, having examined the parties' submissions, decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Rule 47 § 5 of the Rules of Court reads: “5.

Rule 39 of the Rules of Court “1.

Conforti, the judge elected in respect of Italy (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 26 § 1 (a)), and Mr   C.L.   Rozakis, the President of the Section (Rule 26 § 1 (a)).

  The applicants requested the Court to apply Rule 39 of its Rules of Court in order to obtain a stay of execution of the decision in question.

    Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, in so far as relevant, provides: “1.

The applicant’s case was granted priority (Rule 41) and confidentiality (Rule 33) and the applicant was granted anonymity (Rule   47   §   4). 8.

The applicant was informed, with reference to Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, that there was a requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly-settlement negotiations. 4.

Par un jugement du 26 juin 2018, le tribunal administratif de Montreuil a rejeté la demande de restitution du prélèvement acquitté par la société Runa Capital Fund I LP.

On 17 July 2024 the Registry sent draft declarations setting out a friendly settlement proposal to the parties and the applicant was informed, with reference to Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, that

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2011, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this