If so, did that interference or control of use comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.

    The DEJA scheduled a meeting on 18 October 2014 in the presence of a psychologist but the meeting did not take place as E. did not show up with the children.

The Inspector found that the fence did function as an enclosure but it exceeded two metres at certain points.

EXPOSÉ DU LITIGE : Monsieur [Z] [B] et Madame [R] [F] ont contracté mariage le [Date mariage 4] 2007, devant l’officier d’état civil de [Localité 9] (73).

On 13 April 1999 the Maribor Labour Court held the first hearing; another six hearings ensued.

  12838/07) did not express an intention to take part in the proceedings. 5.

des époux à la demande d'Erik X... ; que Gnagna Y... contractait un nouveau mariage en France le 4 mars 2000 et produisait à cette occasion, ainsi qu'à l'occasion de diverses procédures, un certificat

, Ms Ana Muntean, Mr   Ioan Şeican, Ms Victoria Şeican, Ms Maria Voic, Ms Mariana Voic and Ms Ioana Voic – are Romanian nationals who were born in 1950, 1951, 1954, 1930, 1937, 1952, 1954, 1949, 1928

    Mr Stephanus Maria Anna Hendrikus Janssen 9.     Mr Stephanus Maria Anna Hendrikus Janssen is a Netherlands national born in 1965.

The Government did not object to this.

première résidence habituelle après le mariage.

margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY   Application No. 12057/86 by The Estate of Maria

Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Branko Lubarda,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya

  QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants’ entitlement to restitution in kind, recognised in final administrative decisions and court judgments, amount to “possession” within the meaning of Article

    The applicant, Mr Ufuk Özyıldız, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1961 and was detained in Manisa Prison at the time when the application was lodged. 2.

They therefore did not have effective remedies in that connection. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

However, it found that the current legal framework within which such proceedings were to take place did not sufficiently safeguard their interests because, inter alia , the claimants did not have access

They therefore did not have effective remedies in that connection. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. 19.     The Court finds this complaint admissible (see Kudła v.