On 19 December the applicant lodged an application with the Court together with a request for application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

  She further requested the Commission, under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the Swedish Government that the expulsion decision should not be enforced until further notice.

On 20 March 2008 the applicant requested an interim measure from the Court under Rule 39 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

Rules of Procedure and to communicate the      application, moreover, the subsequent prolongation of application      of Rule 36, as decided upon on 19 April, 23

Moreover, in the letter to the applicants, they were informed, among other things, that, according to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court, they needed to be represented by an “advocate” before the

    In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Second Section.

on its own jurisdiction”, the ICAC had had the power to rule on the question of its jurisdiction.

which were sent by telegraph or fax under the procedural rules.

53 § 4 of the Rules of Court.

Schedule 1 contains the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure (“the ET Procedure Rules”).

    The application was allocated to the Court's Third Section (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

  It stated that the Prague 5 Finance Office had correctly decided the case in accordance with the Private Business Accounting Rules (Rules) (Zásady vedení úcetnictví pri soukromém podnikání obcanu

    On 12 December 2012 the acting President of the Fifth Section, to which the case had been allocated (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court), decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court B, the applicant designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule   31).

The “without prejudice” rule 16.

Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court read as follows: Article 39 of the Convention “1.

  59 §§ 1 and 4, and Rule 60).

    The applications were allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

When applied, the rule may therefore imply an indirect discrimination.

   In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant's wife informed the registry on 25 July 1990 that her husband had died; she stated