: “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

    However, the Supreme Court in its judgments made a mistake and misrepresented those findings by the lower courts by stating that they had established that the damage had occurred by a failure

    As a result, the applicant specified his claim in line with the expert evaluation seeking payment of HRK 254,141.12 (approximately 34,500 euros (EUR)) and made a subsidiary (alternative)

above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

: “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 has accepted that the next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

Although no plea of inadmissibility on account of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae was made by the Government, this matter goes to the Court’s jurisdiction and it is not prevented from examining it

: “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

abuse of the right of application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention because the applicant company had failed to inform the Court of the friendly settlement agreement concluded with, or the payment made

As appears from the summary made by that court, the indictment was based on the following presentation of facts: at about 2   p.m. on 5 April 2010, having allegedly obtained unofficial operational

The Armenian Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). 3.

That conclusion makes it unnecessary to ascertain whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual

findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case and that there is no need to examine this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

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.

above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

This appears to also be confirmed by the prison authorities’ statement made in the proceedings before the PPS (see paragraph 4 above).

It thus finds that the applicants’ remaining complaints are admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

  37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007 and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). III.