39 of the Rules of Court to stay the applicant’s extradition.

On 4 October 2016 the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be removed to South Sudan until further notice.

On 7 October 2020 the applicant’s request of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted.

On 12 June 2012 the applicant requested the European Court of Human Rights to issue an interim measure under the terms of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

80 of the Rules of Court; Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Pieter Jelle Haas, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1964 and lives in Hilversum.

    Application of Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court 6.

On 8 July 2022 the Court (the duty judge) decided to suspend the examination of Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court until receipt of information from the parties.

On 1 December 2006 the Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated to the Government that the applicant be hospitalised. The case was given priority under Rule   41.

to be by way of full hearing rather than a review as part of the 57th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules.

The application was also given priority under Rule 41. 5.

On 13 September 2005, the Ruma Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company AD “Korzo” Ruma (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of unjust enrichment.

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

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

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

39 of the Rules of Court (violation of Article 34).

On 3 February 2012, the Acting President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties

Therefore the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court comes to an end.

As they stood at the material time, these two documents set somewhat varying rules on ensuring the safety of the household gas equipment.

The Government's request concerning the alleged abuse of the right of petition On 10 June 2009, the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 b of the Rules of Court

41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in certain cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS