Merits Submissions by the parties (a)    The Government 42.

    The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits. 8.

It did not expressly address the applicants’ arguments concerning the allegedly disproportionately high sums awarded for damages. 23.

He declared the same address as on 7 December 2005. 16 .

Par lettres des 25 décembre 1990 et 13 février 1991 adressées au procureur de la République, le requérant demanda à bénéficier de la possibilité d’organiser sa défense.

The applicant was supposed to pick up his daughter at M.P.’s permanent address in Maribor and bring her back to the same address. 16.

Therein the applicant’s address had again been stated as M.K. Street no. 30. 14.     Various other documents successively referred to both addresses.

The Court heard addresses by the above-mentioned representatives. AS TO THE FACTS I.    THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.

The object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address the allegation made of violation of a Convention right and

A sentence which has been proportionately imposed does not become disproportionate merely because of the length of time an applicant has, in fact, been detained pursuant to it.

s new address and advised him that, therefore, in the future the Budapest XX.

The assessor noted that a deduction for saved living expenses had not been made from Mr Robinson's award; however, he considered that each case had to be decided on its own merits at the time of assessment

° du dossier 25/182 Plaidant : Me Anaïs FRANÇOIS, avocate au barreau de PARIS **************** INTIMEES Madame [G] [Z] épouse [F] née le [Date naissance 2] 1966 à [Localité 3] (GUINEE) [Adresse

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     The applicants 28.

    On 25 March 2003 the Court decided to hold a hearing on the merits (Rule 54 § 3). 10.

  The law allows censorship only in respect of a letter which constitutes a public prosecution offence, but not merely a private prosecution offence such as insulting an official.

    The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits of the case (Rule 59 § 1). 8.

In implementing these measures the government has committed serious human rights violations, which it refuses to address.

    On 20 August 2010 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. II.