The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

This complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

    The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits

DECISION Application no. 23085/16 Cătălin RĂDUCANU against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   February 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent

  1 concerning the non-enforcement of a final judgment were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. 3.

FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14565/16 Gheorghe DUCA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   February 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent

The applicant’s complaints were communicated under Article 3 of the Convention to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

On 16 December 2014 the applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who then submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

    The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

ITALVETRI COMPANY S.R.L. against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8   March 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A.

The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

A B, représenté par Me Vincent Poudampa, demande au tribunal, dans le dernier état de ses écritures : 1°) d'annuler l'arrêté du 19 mars 2022 par lequel la préfète de la Gironde l'a assigné à résidence