Moreover, the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent who do not cohabit (see, for example, Kuppinger v.

An interlocutory appeal against such a decision can be lodged with a superior court.

Agreements of this nature – giving rise to obligations solely between lawyer and client – cannot bind the Court.

    Further, as the present case shows, a decision can often survive despite the existence of an error in the reasoning advanced to support it.

According to the established case-law of the Convention organs, “possessions” can be “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least

Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre

Grèce, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (première section), siégeant en un comité composé de   :   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, présidente,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ksenija

le délibéré de la cour, composée de : Mme Dominique ROSENTHAL, Président, Monsieur François LEPLAT, Conseiller, Madame Florence SOULMAGNON, Conseiller, Greffier, lors des débats : Monsieur Alexandre

2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre

Daily volume of the meal norm is 3,000 calories.

Alexander , Q.C.,   Mr. N. Bratza , Barrister-at-Law,   Counsel ,   Mr. J. Cane , Department of the Environment,   Ms. D.

Mrs M. complained, in particular, that in June 2003 the applicant had come to Cannes, France, where their son N. had been on holidays with a nurse, and had threatened to take N. away.

However, that cannot be done at the expense of other procedural guarantees (see Aždajić v. Slovenia , no. 71872/12, §49, 8 October 2015, and Gankin and Others v.

    The Court reiterates that “possessions” can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate

That statement cannot therefore be regarded as valid grounds capable of justifying the striking out of the application in his regard in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (compare X and

Romania , no. 42009/04, § 56, 23 July 2013; Marius Alexandru and Marinela Ștefan v. Romania , no. 78643/11, §   116, 24 March 2020; and Danciu and Others v.

The applicants can accordingly still claim to be “victims” of a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. 35.

The Court of Appeal’s finding in December 2010, on a balance of probabilities, that had a Parole Board hearing taken place in March 2008 he would have been released cannot be equated to a formal Parole

European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre