Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Luis López Guerra,   Kristina Pardalos

Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   L.

They had been provided for by different laws and had different aims. Thus, if a firm fulfilled the requirements to be eligible for both benefits, they could not be denied.

They remained in military service between March and June 1999. 5.

They had not informed her of any possibility of taking the proceedings which they now referred to.

However, they submitted that “had they done so, the procedure and outcome would have been entirely different”.

They explained that, owing to economic difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (and the related disruptions in global supply chains and the record-high world market energy prices), there had been

They argued that the applicant could not claim that there had not been any reasonable prospects of success of an appeal on points of law to redress this part of the complaint.

If the president concludes that there are insufficient grounds to initiate a prosecution, he or she may reject the appeal (Article 167 CCP).

The DAT considered that there were grounds for a review of the lifetime award due to a change in circumstances.

They alleged that there had been a causal link between the prison administration’s failure to exercise surveillance and their relative’s death because the smuggling of drugs into the prison could have

The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent

They were the issues relating to the admissions made by the appellant and the scientific / forensic evidence.

In the present case there was no restriction on the right to speak.

It further awarded EUR   500 for every year, over the thirty-year period during which they suffered the violation, that is, EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damage.

It further notes that they are not inadmissible for any other reason. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     Arguments of the parties a.

They agreed for the exchange to take place in the outskirts of Mesker-Yurt by the Rostov-Baku road.

They were granted victim status. 12.

    B and C, who were then aged 6 and 4, were interviewed online by the court and stated that they wished to have a family where they could grow up together and that they had not maintained contact