The applicant was only allowed to address the court at the end of the hearing. 13.

Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits

    The Court of Appeal did not address the applicant’s submissions of 28 June 2010. 19.

Article 422 “(2)     Where a request for the protection of legality has been lodged to the detriment of the accused and the [Supreme] Court establishes that it is well founded, it shall merely

further action is still needed to ensure full compliance by the Russian Federation with its obligations resulting from the Court’s judgments;   Noting with great interest in this respect that in his Address

    The Court does not have to address all the objectives raised by the Government because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 51.

However, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to address this issue since, even assuming that the applicant has “victim” status, the complaints it raises are in any case inadmissible for the reasons

  Although the Supreme Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the applicant’s claim, in reaching that conclusion it exercised its power to determine the question brought

    In response, the applicant argued that the negative information the plaintiff considered disseminated, namely that he was the owner of the stadium, was not in the article and was merely the

It did not address the complaints about their alleged ill-treatment by the police, noting the absence of any significant breaches of the law on criminal procedure.

He alleged that that the police “were coming to his address and disturbing him. They even threatened me indicating the flat of a Turkish police officer downstairs.

On this ground they requested that the investigation should address the issue of misappropriation of budgetary funds, interview V. and K. about this matter and examine the relevant documents.

They argued, inter alia , that no public hearing had been held in their case and they had merely been notified of the date and the place of the delivery of the decision on the merits.

Merits 18.     The applicant complained that the administrative court had refused to annul the fine, despite his final acquittal for the same act.

The Constitutional Court also rejected the Government’s second plea, which concerned the merits of the case.

Following this meeting, Ms E moved away to an unknown address and they have not seen each other since. 29.     On 6 February 2008 the applicant’s wife died. 3.

As the defendants' address was unknown, the court appointed Mr   M.Š., an advocate from Osijek, to act as their temporary representative ( privremeni zastupnik ) in the proceedings.

By mentioning Dr F.’s name and his practice address directly in this context, the applicant had reproached the doctor specifically for performing abortions and had created a “pillory effect”.

She argued that the investigator did not provide her with an opportunity to consult the case file and failed to address her motion.