Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for in this case.    

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

P. was a soldier of the Ukrainian Armed Forces serving in the zone of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation (ATO)” since 2014. He was wounded several times and   had contusions.

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 15   January 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 7   October 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of Ministers is now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 3 September 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

On 20 August 2014 the pre-trial judge called to examine the lawfulness of the applicant’s indictment and of the evidence collected in the case-file declared the indictment valid and the evidence lawful

Article 13 (art. 8, art. 13) of the Convention in these cases;   Takes note of the information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom;   Decides, therefore, that no further action is called

In July 2001 he availed himself of a remedy newly provided under the so-called “Pinto Act” to seek compensation for the length of the proceedings against him.

According to the applicant, his leaflets were promoting (advertising about) internet-based TV and radio outlets both called Azerbaijani hour ( Azərbaycan Saatı ), the distribution of those leaflets did

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 3 September 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 5 August 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 1 September 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 15   January 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called

accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 6 October 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called

with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 21   October 1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called