Under Rule 9(4) of the 1980 Rules the applicant could have requested a public hearing, but he did not.

The applicants relied on Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 4.

;      precedence to the application under Rule 27 in fine of the         Commission's Rules of Procedure as well as to bring the   

which they claimed to have sustained in their capacity as voters on account of the rules at issue.

Thirdly, it could not be said that the rules applied by the Court of Appeal had the effect of undermining the rule of law.

    The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

of Rules of Court   A.

      In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated

The Judicial Division rejected the applicant's argument under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, considering that Article 8 does not contain rules governing family names.

      In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he did not wish to take part in the proceedings.

    The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

However, the Government were currently complying with the interim measure indicated to them under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court.

    The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

It further prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until further notice.

    The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court).

   On 23 November 1981, the Chamber constituted to examine the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the plenary Court (Rule 48 of the Rules of Court).

However, they either did not ask for, or were not granted, interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 4.

The letter informed the applicant of the requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly-settlement negotiations in accordance with Rule 62 §   2 of the Rules of Court.

Sokorenko, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules