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

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government

39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having

    The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

    The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and Rule   62   §   3 of the Rules of Court).

and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and Rule   62   §   3 of the Rules of Court).

the Convention or its Protocols (Article 39 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

They accordingly requested that the judgment be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

They therefore requested that the judgment be revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

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

  However, regardless of whether there had been any such hindrance, Article 34 of the Convention was closely connected to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

They accordingly requested that the judgment be revised within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant,

They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court and asked the Court to declare the case inadmissible for abuse of right of individual application

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government

39 of the Rules of Court.

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government

  By reason of Order 19, rule 3, para. (1) of the County Court Rules 1981 the case was referred for hearing by way of arbitration under Order 19, rule 7 of the County Court Rules.   18.