The quashing had been unjustified because the district and town courts did take into account the interpretation of 2005, and because the interpretation of 2007 had been given after the judgments.

The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v.

The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v.

The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v.

Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

Işıldak, a lawyer practising in Manisa; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent

They all live in Manisa. The first two applicants are the parents and the remaining applicants are the sisters and brothers of Mr Ahmet Peker, who died on 18 December 2007.

ORDONNANCE DE RÉFÉRÉ AUDIENCE DU 18 Avril 2024 DEMANDERESSE Mme [L] [E] épouse [D] [Adresse 5] [Localité 7] Rep/assistant : Maître Jean claude DULEROY de la SELARL DULEROY & DIAZ-DULEROY

Marc X... et Mme Mariette X..., épouse Z..., ses enfants ; que le tribunal de grande instance a alloué une créance de salaire différé à Mme Z... ; que, par arrêt du 15 février 2001, la cour d'appel

remariage d'un assuré décédé, la pension de réversion est partagée entre son conjoint survivant et le ou les précédents conjoints divorcés non remariés, au prorata de la durée respective de chaque mariage

left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 5 December 2016   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 44489/15 and 45670/15 Daniela DOBRILĂ against Romania and Dana Maria

display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 52528/99 by Constantin SVETENCO and Maria

The law did not provide for the State’s obligation to compensate non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of a crime.

Did the national courts assess the “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” of the searches in the present cases?

Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   May   2022 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria

The document did not mention the recipient and contained no signature of a judge. The applicant’s claim was dismissed.

It appears that the police officers present did nothing to stop these attacks.

  The sale in question did not serve these purposes.         The applicant appealed.

In particular, having regard to the circumstances of each case, did the national authorities, in their decisions, adequately examine and appropriately balance the applicants’ right to freedom of expression