Romania , §§   151 and 163, and Stanev , § 157, both cited above)?

Being both a minor and married, Ilkaï was considered to be dependent on her husband and was not therefore entitled to acquire Greek nationality through her mother.

The court granted both spouses parental authority over their child and fixed a monthly financial provision the applicant was to pay to his wife.

In November 2013 the applicant and D.N. both applied to the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow (the District Court) for a residence order in respect of A.

In 2017, A was indicted for repeated sexual abuse against both children. Later that year, he was acquitted of all charges by a district court. No appeal against that judgment was lodged.

In these circumstances, the Court could not disregard the growing and legitimate concern, both in Europe and internationally, about environmental offences.

Both parties appealed. By May 2005 the applicant had on five occasions requested that a hearing be scheduled.

Directorate General of Migration Management, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court and complained, inter alia , of (i) the material conditions of his detention in both

In late 2010 the authorities placed both children in emergency foster care.

By letter dated 27 November 2007, sent by registered post, both the applicant’s representative and the applicant were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had

They were both found guilty and were awarded 40 additional days’ custody and seven additional days’ custody respectively. They were subsequently refused leave to apply for judicial review.

Both parties appealed. On 29 June 1999 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of 26 April 1999. Both parties lodged appeals on points of law.

Although the applicants had asserted that the appropriate comparator group in their case was other detained patients, the Court considered that in reality the applicants had significant elements in common both

    The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts of both instances had allegedly adopted general practice, according to which the public (except for individuals

Court had to examine whether the State, in the context of its positive obligations under Article   8, had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and both

It found that there had been insufficient reasoning (both in terms of the existence of a reasonable suspicion for perpetrating the offences and grounds for continued detention), and that the possibility

Consequently, it found that the state security courts were not independent and impartial and unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in this respect in both cases.

Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court has had a positive balance in both 1998 and 1999 as the number of cases closed has exceeded the number of new cases brought by 216 and 323 respectively (the

The applicant Government invokes Article 2 of the Convention under both the substantive and procedural aspects of that provision.

The applicants lodged a judicial claim, arguing a violation of their right to respect for their family life, with regard both to the right of parents and daughters to maintain personal relationships as