The Court has found that those principles mandated the Russian State to fulfil in good time, in an appropriate and consistent manner, the legislative promises it had made in respect of claims arising out

Thus, the complaint submitted to the Court must first have been made to the appropriate national courts, at least in substance, in accordance with the formal requirements of domestic law.

: “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 applicant’s lawyers were present and made submissions to the court. 11.

  45526/05); -     and Ms   Valentina Vasilyevna SHVETS of Krasnyy Luch born in 1941 (no.   45527/05). 2.

/12) 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 Russian nationals, Ms Valentina

His distorted handwriting, repetitive use of words and confused language made her suspect that he was unwell. 11.

heating system which supplies their residential buildings • State required to ensure that the impugned measure does not impose excessive burden on applicants, while allowing private heat suppliers to make

It affirmed the allegations made by him in 2000, and the Government did not show that the nuisances arose only in 2006.

legal certainty   dictates that where a civil dispute is examined on the merits by the courts, it should be decided once and for all, and a departure from that principle is justified only when made

    The Court considers that it has already addressed the main legal questions raised in the present applications, and that there is no need to make a separate assessment of the admissibility

It does not appear that the courts, at the relevant stages of the proceedings, made a thorough assessment of individual facts pertinent to the question of whether such a preventive measure was necessary

    The Government made comments in reply to the applicants’ original and updated claims for just satisfaction. 43.

application (no. 7536/05) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Valentina

  19433/07, § 72, 31   July 2012)       39624/22* 24/07/2022 Household Yuliya Mikhaylovna CHERNIGINA 1979   Aleksandr Sergeyevich CHERNIGIN 2011   Valentina Nikolayevna

His widow Mrs Valentina Grygorivna Palchyk informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application of her late husband. 3.

    The Government considered the claims to be unsubstantiated and indicated that the awards should be made in line with the Court’s established practice. 21.

Italy (no. 35772/03) Giovanni Valentino v. Italy (no. 31434/03) Maria Romano v. Italy (no. 7615/03) Nervegna v. Italy (no. 34573/03) Vallone v. Italy (no. 34904/03) Beata Bogusław v.

: “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