On 27 March 2015 President Poroshenko made the following post on his Facebook page: “This morning ... the [Security Service] ... detained the murderer of the [Security Service] officer ..

It thus finds that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

        The applicants repeatedly made several attempts to return to their homes and properties in Famagusta.

    On 30 March 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application.

    For the above reasons, the Court cannot make a finding that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

    The applicants argued, referring also to the statement made by A.S.

    Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 9.

A copy of this judgment was not made available to the Court. B.     Civil proceedings against the applicants 14 .

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Ruslan Sergeyevich Pylayev (“the first applicant”) on his own behalf and in the name and on behalf of his mother, Mrs Valentina

The police ordered the meetings to stop or stayed on the premises to take photos and make video recording of the events, checked the documents and questioned the organisers and participants.

: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made

The Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of these complaints (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited

In consequence, with regard to such persons the assessment of whether they fulfil the conditions for nursing allowance should be made without this criterion.

    The Government made a preliminary objection alleging that the application was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 41.

22972/02) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Valentina

font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 3752/08 and 22723/09 Viktor Ivanovich SOLONSKIY against Russia and Valentina

He submitted that in the evening of 27 September 2002 he had wanted to buy some home-made alcohol or to borrow some money from P.

Through a side window of the police van she stated that she had seen a female and a male police officer trampling on the spot while hanging on to the roof of the van, one administering three punches in

Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains that an inadmissibility ruling made against him by the Court of