T-3-1092/97 on 8 May 1997 (hereinafter: the contract). 2.2.

    On 29 May 2006 the President of the Chamber decided to give notice of the application to the Government.

RUSSIA   (Application no. 13862/05)         JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   28 May 2009   FINAL   06/11/2009   This judgment may be subject to editorial

That is to say that, from then on, for such an appeal to be admissible ratione valoris in non-commercial matters, the value of the subject matter in dispute had to exceed the last-mentioned amount.

Jebens, judges, and Mr S.

    On 21 March 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeal.

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

  The parties may request further explanation on specific points. They may also submit proposals concerning amendments to the questions.

    Par une décision du 20 mai 2010, la Cour a déclaré la requête recevable. 5.

Turkey , no. 38187/97, § 272, 31 March 2005; and Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III).

    On 20 May 2008 the investigators questioned the applicant. 52.

It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v.

    En outre, la Cour constate que ce grief n’est pas manifestement mal fondé au sens de l’article 35 § 3 de la Convention.

It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dzhabirailova and Dzhabrailova v.

consult on any legal matter with a legal adviser of their own choice and at their own expense. ... 23.5   A judicial authority may in exceptional circumstances authorise restrictions on such confidentiality

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

Jebens , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 11 May 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.

In a decision of 6 May 1997, deposited with the registry on 15 May 1997 and served on the applicant on 21   May 1997, the court, while upholding the application of the special regime, relaxed the

By order of 3 March 2000 the court declared the application inadmissible. On 24 May 2000 the Riga Regional Court upheld the order.