Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

The latter decision concerned the merits of the case, i.e. the applicant’s entitlement to an unemployment allowance.

  The Administrative Court, referring to decisions of 29 January 1987, 9 June 1988 and 8 June 1988, pointed out that the addressee of the regulations on periods of rest was not the employee, but the

  Notice was given to the address for service given by the applicant.

Their behaviour must also have appeared predictable to the authorities, since, following a previous escape Mr Angelov had been found at the same address in Lesura.

On 8 February 1994 the court requested the police to provide the address of L. K. 12.

Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and

    On 14 February 2025 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications.

        The Court heard addresses by Mr Bratza, Mr Saccomanno, Mr Manzo and Mr Raimondi, and Mr Saccomanno's reply to a question put by one of its members.

The applicant mentioned as an example of their bad faith the fact that the publication had deleted all positive comments about him from the article published on its webpage and had blocked the IP addresses

It was accepted at the applicant's trial that the note had been passed to the friend in mistake for another note on which she had written her address.

considers that she was required to prove her innocence, rather than the State being required to prove her guilt, and that the provisions of the Working Hours Act in any event do not refer to employers, but merely

bailiffs attempted to summon P.P. to voluntarily hand the children over to the first applicant respectively in late 2015, in March 2016 and in September 2017, without success, as P.P. did not live at the address

Merits Article 6 of the Convention 20.     The Government claimed that it was primarily for the domestic courts to apply and interpret domestic law.

    The Court notes the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, but does not consider it necessary to address it in view of its conclusion that the applicant’s complaint under

    The applicant eventually obtained legal representation and on 14   March 2008 the Senate did consider his request for reopening of the proceedings, and rejected it on the merits.

    Merits 17.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 25.

The court indicated, inter alia , that the decision merely stated that the officers concerned had not inflicted any bodily harm on the victims and that no attempt had been made to establish the circumstances

The decision states that since 2004 RFSRO had failed to file tax returns, had been showing no signs of activity, had no known assets and was not present at its registered address.