The district court established that – based on the results of the oral hearings and the expert reports – J. had a comparably good relationship and bonding with both parents.

    Both applicants are represented before the Court by Ms J. Kuijper and Mr Th.O.M. Dieben, lawyers practising in Amsterdam. A.     The circumstances of the cases 4.

Both on the way to and inside the police station the applicant had been subjected to beatings and sworn at.

  They are both represented by Mr. F. Insam a lawyer practising in Graz who also defended them in the domestic proceedings.

          The applicant holds both the western and eastern part of a tip at Theresienfeld in Lower Austria.

The Court accordingly held in both cases that there had been a violation of the Convention in that respect.

    A hearing in both cases was held on 18 May 1999.

This allegation led both to criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant.   On ..

As he remained in these conditions, the responsibility of both States was engaged as from the respective dates of ratification.

They both worked for the Lithuanian branch of the KGB (the Soviet Security Service), Mr Sidabras from 1975 to 1986 and Mr   Džiautas, from 1985 to 1991.

    On 21 February 2005 the father requested the Family Court to replace the supervising Youth Office, which had refused to continue its task due to both parties’ behaviour, by another child

  Since 2015 – pending More than 7   year(s) 15,000     3605/18 21/02/2018 Aleksey Yuryevich BOROVKOV 1962     Cataract in both eyes failure to transfer the applicant to a

to the Government, and the remainder of both applications was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule   54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

service refused the application of both applicants.

    In respect of both sets of proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 10 that there had been unjustified and disproportionate interferences with his right to freedom of expression

In any event, it was up to the court applying both the referencing provision and the referenced provision to assess whether criminal liability was foreseeable in the circumstances of the case.

It further referred to the report of the welfare authorities, which noted that while both parents were capable of taking care of the children, X was more engaged in arranging day-to-day affairs such as

    The Court notes that the applicants were able – unlike the applicants in Scordino (no.2) and Odescalchi and Lante della Rovere (both cited above) – to petition both for compensation in respect

The applicant and his wife were married in 1992 and had two children, both born in 1995. The applicant’s wife died on 9 July 1998.