Firstly, the nature of the violation of the Convention raised before the Court in the present case had made it impossible for N. and M. to issue a valid authority to act.

d'appel devant se placer au jour où elle statue pour évaluer les éventuelles disparités de revenus entre les parties, ces factures anciennes ne peuvent être retenues ; qu'il aurait été nécessaire que Mame

In the case of Valentyn Ivanov v.

The Court recalled its recent judgment in the case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

    By letters of 18 May and 19 October 2004 the Government made the following declaration: “1.

COUR D'APPEL DE DOUAI CHAMBRE 2 SECTION 2 ARRÊT DU 06/03/2007 * * * No de MINUTE : 07/ No RG : 06/01372 Jugement Tribunal de Grande Instance de VALENCIENNES du 28 Février 2005

By letter dated 22 September 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications in all cases except

Aleksandrovna DANILENKO and Konstantin Viktorovich SHUMIKHIN against Russia lodged on 25 July 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants, Ms Valentina Aleksandrovna Danilenko and Mr   Konstantin

    By letter dated 8 April 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.

    On 15 March 2016 the seventh applicant made a formal request to the governor of the correctional colony seeking clarification as to whether he could make a telephone call or have a long-term

The phone records made during the tapping, the court found, had been examined by the experts, who had found no reason to doubt their authenticity.

assistance (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

    Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues. THE LAW I.

This decision was referred to by the District Court when it rejected the applicants’ motion for declaring the testimony made by Mr   N. inadmissible. 5.

They are the wife and daughter of Valentin Moiseyev, who was also an applicant before the Court (application no.62936/00). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.

height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)214 [1] Valentin

margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41193/15 Valentin

{ margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 38662/14 Valentin