the applicants applied to the trial court, the latter would have merely reviewed the question of whether the execution of the applicants’ sentences should have been suspended following the amendments made

    On 4 October 1999 two bodies (male and female) were found in a lake in Garkalne parish, near Rīga. 6.     On 8 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.

He was eventually informed in 2005 that no determination had been made in his favour in respect of his complaints.

Russia (no. 34449/03) The applicant, Valentina Aleksandrovna Shulepova, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in the Kaliningrad Region (Russia).

in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see   Centre for Legal Resources on   behalf of Valentin

that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see,   for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the above complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicants and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made

Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 August 2016 by a Bulgarian national, Mr Valentin

The Court considers that the analysis and finding it made in Mursaliyev and Others also apply to the present case and sees no reason to deviate from that finding. 21.

above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the merits of these complaints (see, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

Hungary (no. 36037/17, §   52, 2   March 2021) the Court made a thorough assessment of the general living conditions in one of the transit zones.

It thus considers that this complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on its merits (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

Timișoara, Jilava, Craiova, Gherla, Rahova, Baia Mare and Satu Mare Prisons 01/10/2009 to 21/12/2016 7 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s)   Arad and Gherla Prisons 23/12/2019 pending More than

The Court also reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration made by a respondent Government even if the applicant

The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

  no need to examine   separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 in view of its findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin