The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

On 15 January and 7 May 2025, the Registry sent letters, by registered post, to the applicant’s home address, asking whether there was any potential heir wishing to pursue the proceedings before the Court

On   28   February and 14 May 2025, the Registry sent letters by registered post to the applicant’s home address, asking whether there was any potential heir wishing to pursue the proceedings

The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations and just satisfaction claims.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

a copy of an authentic document attesting to her capacity as heir.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

conclusion that a party does not intend to pursue the application.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The observations were forwarded to the applicant company’s representative, who was invited to submit his observations in reply. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the refusal to grant him family reunification to join his mother in the Netherlands, were communicated to the Government of the Kingdom

On 3 February 2022 the Court decided, under Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of the Court, to disjoin the present application from those to which it had been joined (see above) and to restore it to its list of

The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit its own observations. No reply was received.