The Rules came into effect on 1 June 1990.

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

    In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Second Section.

    The Court finds that the applicant’s arguments do not relate to a clerical error, an error in calculation or an obvious mistake within the meaning of Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. 9.

    In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Second Section.

The Court of its own motion granted the applicants anonymity (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). They were represented before the Court by Mrs N. Lorenz, a lawyer practising in Vienna. 2.

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

    In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Second Section.

They accordingly asked for the judgment to be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

They accordingly asked for the judgment to be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

The applicant lodged a request before the Court under Rule   39 of its Rules of Court for his extradition to be stayed pending the outcome of his application to the Court.

They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 5.

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 deliberated

44 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

In the meantime however it had appeared that she had divorced, a fact which she had failed to mention to the Court until May 2006 notwithstanding the terms of Rule 47 (6) of the Rules of Court according

Rule 39 was applied on 4 May 2010 to prevent her removal to Iran the following day, and the application was communicated to the Government of the United Kingdom on 17 January 2011.

On 30 November 2020 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings

39 of the Rules of Court).

  Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three); not necessary to rule on preliminary objection (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.