the notification of the Court’s decision striking the respective part of the case out of its list of cases, a fresh notification issued by the competent bailiff with respect to each and every payments made

emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made

A copy of the letter was not made available to the Court, but the Government did not dispute the applicant’s rendition of the letter’s content. 25.

Pavlyuk, the deputy head of the isolation block; Mr Valentin M.

that the applicant’s complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

  39553/21* 29/07/2021 Valentin Aleksandrovich FEDKIN 1977 Mariya Olegovna Eysmont Moscow Rally in support of A.

The BCEA proposed to make the payments not as compensation for expropriation, but rather on the basis of contracts of sale to be entered into by the residents and Z.I., a representative of the BCEA.

has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

Nikulina, Mr Semen Grygoryevich Shehali, Mr   Yuriy Ivanovich Mykhailenko, Mrs Yevgeniya Borisovna Shyryayeva, Mr   Vyacheslav Vasiliyevich Parhomenko, Mr Anatoliy Dmitriyevich Dobrovanov, Mrs Valentina

In 2002 company K. made further arrangements and agreements aimed at completing the construction of the building. In 2005 company K. transferred the flat at issue to another individual.

with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20   October 2017 by a Ukrainian national, Mr   Valentyn

applicants listed in Appendix I, after unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, on 19 January, 30 January, 23 June and 11   July 2023 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make

    As regards the facts and progress of the criminal investigation, the Government made reference to their observations in Association “21   December 1989” and Others (cited above) and

emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made

Accordingly, in order to decide whether an applicant was required to make use of a particular domestic remedy in respect of his or her complaint under Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, the

has examined the main legal issues raised by the applicant in his application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the above 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

has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin

xa0;   As concerns the applicants listed in Appendix I, after unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, on 19 January and 11 July 2023 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make