In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the lawyer who had assisted the applicant in the proceedings before the Commission informed the Registrar that

who would represent him (Rule 30). 3.

  Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 § 4 (b)).

GHC CONSTRUCTIONS, prise en la personne de son représentant légal en exercice Représentant : Me Philippe RULLIER, avocat au barreau d'AIX-EN-PROVENCE Appelante à S.A.S.

At the same time Mr Papon’s lawyers sought, under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, to have the application dealt with as a matter of urgency.

As to whether the absence of observations from the Government on the question of the six months’ rule could have affected this position, it was recalled that this rule, in reflecting the wish of the Contracting

to be by way of full hearing rather than a review as part of the 57th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules.

Meanwhile, on 26 October 2010, the applicant’s representative was requested to appoint a legal representative on behalf of the applicant, as required by Rule 36 § 4 (a) of the Rules of Court.

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to give the case priority under Rule 41, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity, Having deliberated, decides as follows

The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.

In view of this and bearing in mind that Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court requires applicants to keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application,

    Request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court In June 2016 he requested an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court asking to stay his deportation to Uzbekistan

On the other hand, the acting President decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 3.

The application was given priority under Rule 41. 5.

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to give the case priority under Rule 41, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity, Having deliberated, decides as follows

68 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (review of decisions) against the aforementioned decision of 13   February 2019. 4.

THE LAW On 1 March 2013 the Government invited the Court to strike out the case and discontinue the application of Rule 39 since the applicants no longer faced a risk of being deported to Iran.

to the application introduced on 20 December 1996 by Vincenzo GATTO against Italy and registered on 13 January 1997 under file No. 34469/97;     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule

39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to give the case priority under Rule 41, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity, Having regard to the observations submitted