Merits 15.

The Supreme Court did not address this issue, but dismissed the appeal on the ground that the lower courts had not decisively relied on their statements. 33.

       On 2 March 1994, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application

    On 18 June 1999 the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted its opinion on the merits of the case. 13.

    The criminal proceedings on the merits 17.

In accordance with the schedule, anybody living at the applicants’ address should have been rehoused by 30 December 2004. 20.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

    As to the merits, the applicants’ central argument was that the expropriation had not pursued a genuine and compelling public interest.

Also, the customs post was not a military object but merely a building for the purpose of providing customs’ functions.

According to the Government, a copy of this decision was sent to the applicant’s home address.

It was hence necessary to quash its judgment as a whole and refer the case back for re-examination, rather than address specifically the points raised by the applicant.

It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

    Merits 39.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 29.

Without giving any specific details, the court merely reproduced the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, noting that “the case [was] not important for the development of the law

The Ministry found that the Development Rules merely reflected provisions of a similar document of the Makarska Municipality which had been already found by the Ministry to be contrary to the relevant

    The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations.

Without entering into the merits it quashed the first-instance judgment and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the prosecutor's office did not have standing to bring proceedings.

    The applicants lodged appeals on points of law which were declared inadmissible for lack of merit by the Court of Cassation on 23 November, 7, 14 and 23 December 2011. 17 .