Judgment was delivered on 4 May 2007.

It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lipatnikova and Rudic v.

On 19 May 1988 he reached the age of 65 and from May 1993, when he turned 70, he received a statutory retirement pension.

          The facts as submitted by the applicant and which may be deduced from documents presented with the application, may be summarised as follows:   &#

ARMENIA (Application no. 64004/11)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 May 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

Public criticism may relate to a critical attitude or opinion about a person’s actions, but may not include subjective insulting judgments.

    provision may be made for depriving individuals of their right to vote and to be elected, but only subject to the following cumulative conditions; ii.

Applications nos. 788/21 and 22976/21 Lilian MARTINELLI and Others against Malta and Raymond MILLER and Others against Malta lodged on 22 December 2020 and 30 April 2021 respectively communicated on 9 May

– if need be and on the application made by the [relevant] prosecutor – prolong detention for a period [or periods] which as a whole may not exceed 12 months. 3.

It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shahanov and Palfreeman v.

It is not only material interests which the successor of a deceased applicant may pursue by his or her wish to maintain the application.

  On 26 May 1995 the applicant was arrested for aggravated theft.

It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yelena Ivanova v.

On 24 May, 28 May and 6 December 2010 the RUV broadcast news items, prepared and presented by the applicant, on its news programme at 7   p.m.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 21 May 1999 a truck owned by a State-owned sanitation company (“the company”) ran over the applicant’s daughter.

The hearing was adjourned to 9 May 2000. 11.     On 2 May 2000 the applicant requested to represent herself in the proceedings. 12.

The indictment of 24 May 1999 has been amended on two occasions, and two further indictments have been brought.

Nor have they informed the Court of any attempts they may have made in order to obtain at least fragmentary documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations.

I have      very grave reservations as to the truth of the claims made by      [the sixth applicant].   I believe that many of them are untrue.