02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Valentina

: “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 Government’s unilateral declarations By letters sent on the dates tabulated below the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving

: “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

By letter dated 28 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications.

: “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

: “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

: “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

: “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

: “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

This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and we have reached.”

    In the present cases, an award in respect of damage can only be made on the basis of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

Nor does it contain any records made after the applicant’s discharge from hospital on 17   September 2012 (see paragraph 27 above) until April 2016.

That Article provides that orders made under it by the tax authority are enforceable and must be complied with by credit institutions or persons carrying out banking functions. ...

They made him acknowledge and sign an official refusal of his request for refugee status, while also cursing at him.

    The Government made several preliminary objections as to the admissibility of the application.

The investigator’s decision in this respect was not made available to the Court.

    According to the applicant, on 15 May 2014 he had demanded that the police officers allow him to use his right to make a telephone call.

The court made no other order concerning the applicant’s detention. 47 .     On 14 March 2013 the District Court again returned the indictment to the prosecutor.