The Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

They therefore requested that the judgment be revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

It follows that the Court cannot examine whether the applicant's appeal was lodged in accordance with to the domestic rules.

They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.

39 of the Rules of Court.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment

    Rule 78 of the Rules of Internal Order in Penal Facilities required that visitors arriving for long visits submit to a full search.

On 30 August 2018 the Court (the duty judge) decided to suspend the examination of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until receipt of further information from the Government.

41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Governments under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in case no. 69094/14, Having deliberated, decides as follows:

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government

  Leave was refused because there is no provision in the relevant Immigration Rules (Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 169, as amended) permitting a dependent husband to remain in the United

The European Court held that the association was deprived of effective protection of its rights due to an unpredictable interpretation of the applicable procedural rules governing the admissibility of

    The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

55 of the Rules of the Court, and, among other authorities, N.C.

He accordingly requested the revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant,