Baskakova, Ms G. Bogdanova, Mr V. Nilov, Ms   Y. Yermolayeva and Ms T. Shafranova.

  Violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n o 1 Kindler de Barahona c.

0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 135 November 2010 Bannikova

prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 13/05/2022   41557/22* 12/08/2022 Valentina Aleksandrovna SAFONOVA 1994 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova

on 14/03/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   50663/22* 15/10/2022 Aleksandr Pavlovich ZHODZISHSKIY 2001 Natalya Andreyevna Baranova

(For a case where the judicial examination of the plea of incitement was found by the Court to have been sufficient, see Bannikova v.

CORTES E VALBOM S.A. 30/09/2008 30/12/2008 25025/05 DE SOUSA CARVALHO SEABRA 16/12/2008 16/03/2009 30844/05 DE AVELLAR CORDEIRO ZAGALLO 13/01/2009 08/06/2010 13/04/2009 04/10/2010 31720/05 KINDLER DE BARAHONA

  Case Bakanova v. Lithuania, no. 11167/12:   1.

    Jana BALANOVÁ, who was born in 1940 and lives in Bratislava.     Allan BÖHM, who was born in 1962 and lives in Bratislava.

against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mrs Lidiya Mykolayivna Barsukova

    Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents concernant les voies de recours internes ont été rappelés dans les décisions Barahona Guachamin et autres c.

that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see, for similar reasoning, Bannikova

detention - The domestic courts’ failure to consider the applicant’s complaint regarding his detention from 09/11/2010 to 18/02/2012. 23/09/2019 15/10/2019 6,000     58729/17 03/08/2017 Georgi BARASKOV

that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 (see, for similar reasoning, Bannikova

Y... être née le 01/ 11/ 1985 à BARAHONA REPUBLIQUE DOMlNICAINE, être de nationalité Dominicaine et demeurer... dans la maison de sa mère Y...

CORTES E VALBOM S.A. 30/09/2008 30/12/2008 25025/05 DE SOUSA CARVALHO SEABRA 16/12/2008 16/03/2009 30844/05 DE AVELLAR CORDEIRO ZAGALLO 13/01/2009 08/06/2010 13/04/2009 04/10/2010 31720/05 KINDLER DE BARAHONA

Therefore, in cases where the main evidence originates from an undercover operation, the authorities must be able to demonstrate that they had good reasons for mounting that operation (see Bannikova ,

In this respect, the Court’s examination of complaints of entrapment has developed on the basis of two tests: the substantive test and the procedural test of incitement (see, for instance, Bannikova v.

The relevant criteria determining the Court’s examination in this context are set out in the case of Bannikova v. Russia (no.   18757/06, §§   37-65, 4   November 2010).