Even though the first applicant’s claim of a close relationship with his father had only been made for the first time in his appeal to the Cologne Court of Appeal, the Federal Constitutional

domestic judgment and decisions delivered in favour of the applicant and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the Croatian Government’s decision not to make

with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Sergeyevich Svinarenko and Mr Valentin

    Copies of the observations received were transmitted to the Court of Cassation, which did not make any comments (Rule 94 § 5). 8.

02) 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 a Russian national, Mrs Valentina

The fourth applicant, Ms   Valentina Borisovna Voykina, the mother of the first applicant, was born in 1948 and died on 5 December 2010.

: “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

: “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

  However, as mentioned above, no expropriation order had been made in respect of the applicants’ plots of land (see paragraph 41 above).

The Court of Cassation had only made a contrary ruling in cases where the surrogate mother had also been the biological mother of the child or where the surrogacy arrangement had been carried out in France

The question, however, is whether they made a reasonable attempt to do so (see, as a recent reference, Anna   Todorova v. Bulgaria , no. 23302/03, § 77, 24 May 2011). 65.

Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made

to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf (Article   6 § 3   (d)), and that Article   6 §   2 of the Convention had not been complied with in the light of the statement made

above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

: “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

: “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

: “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

Any statements the applicant may have made to the police on 22-25 June 2000 were not mentioned in the judgment. 36.     The applicant appealed in cassation.

  Pursuant to the order made in consequence the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on 11 January 1994 and the Government's memorial on 20 January.