and Rule 111-b of the Prison Rules.

39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

) or committed a disciplinary offence (Rule 3).

36 request and instructed the Secretary to request the parties to submit further information in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicants then took steps to discover the identity of their respective biological fathers (or obtain certain non-identifying information) but their efforts were thwarted by the legal rules on egg

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

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court B, the applicant stated that he did not wish to take part in the proceedings. 3.

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court B, the applicant stated that he did not wish to take part in the proceedings. 3.

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court   B, the applicant stated that he did not wish to take part in the proceedings

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court B, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings. 3.

    Section 21(2) of the Law provides that until the establishment of separate procedural rules, Family Courts shall follow the Civil Procedure Rules. Family Courts Procedural Rules 16.

Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule   21 §   4 (b)).

    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule   35 §   3 (d) of Rules   of Court B, the applicant stated that he did not wish to take part in the proceedings. 3.

Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule   21 §   4   (b)).

The Grand Chamber included ex officio Mr Conforti, the judge elected in respect of Italy (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4 of the Rules of Court), Mr L.

NUSALOVA against Russia lodged on 1 April 2016 FURTHER QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Given the Government’s response to the Court’s decision to impose, on 4   April 2016, an interim measure under Rule

43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (old Rule 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the case was definitively settled due to the entry into force, on 20 May 1999, of the Law modifying the Constitutional Tribunal Rule

43, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Court (former Rule 44, paragraph 2) provides that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible shall be effected by means of a judgment which the

rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned delay until settlement;   Recalling that Rule