He was deported to Turkey the same day, without being allowed to make contact with a lawyer or his wife and daughter.

BWC BEST WINE CORP OF [Localité 1] c/ [Q] [F] Nature de la décision : AU FOND Grosse délivrée le : aux avocats Décision déférée à la cour : jugement

BWC BEST WINE CORP OF [Localité 1] c/ [H] [I] Nature de la décision : AU FOND Grosse délivrée le : aux avocats Décision déférée à la cour : jugement

    In 1998 the applicant and his wife bought a flat. In 1999 the applicant’s wife initiated divorce proceedings against the applicant and in 2000 the divorce was pronounced. 6.

    By a letter of 29 October 2018, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 5 August 2017 and that his wife, Ms Dorica Tvrdinić, was his sole heir.

    On 29 November 1996 the applicant filed for divorce from his wife and for custody of their children before the Košice I District Court. 5.

    His wife died on 7 April 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1995 and 1997.

On 1 July 1998 he lodged a fresh asylum claim in Austria, this time together with his wife and child.

    According to the information available to the Court, the applicant never requested to the prison authorities permission to receive long-term visits from his wife. B.

The applicants are husband and wife. The first applicant prior to his administrative removal from Russia resided with the second applicant in Perm. The second applicant continues to reside there.

    On 19 February 2020 the applicant’s legal representative and his wife, Ms Iuliana Horhat, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 29   July 2018 and the applicant’s wife expressed

  Particular circumstances of the case     The applicant and his wife were married in 1973 and had three children, born in 1974, 1976 and 1988. The applicant’s wife died in 1996.

On 24 June 2015 the applicant and his wife had a son, of which they have joint custody.

On 5 December 2002 the applicant and his wife were evicted from the house in Banja Luka.

Between 1954 and 1959, the applicant also visited her father and his wife once a year.

  The judicial investigations of 21 November 1989 (see above, para. 22) included the monitoring of the telephone lines of X., Y., the applicant and his wife.

    On 5 February 1996 the applicant’s wife filed a divorce petition with the appropriate tribunal de grande instance .

He thus asked the judge to inform the Tartu Prison that the applicant was not prohibited from communicating with his wife and his daughter. 14.

  Thereafter the cases lay idle due to the serious illness of the applicant’s wife which prevented her from appearing before the court.