The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application.

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application.

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application.

He was in detention in Tallinn Prison at the time he lodged his application with the Court. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   M.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of their detention on remand.

of the reasons of their detention.

The Court thus considers that it is no longer justified to continue its examination of this part of the application. 23.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

They were represented before the Court by Mr   M. Erbil, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court

    At this juncture the Court notes that the murder of the applicants’ father was committed during the war in Croatia and that in their application to the Court the applicants alleged that their

The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov. The application had been communicated to the Government .

As regards the applicants’ claims that the ethics course was contrary to their religious belief, the Court observed that neither the School Act nor the curriculum gave priority to one particular belief

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. In 1993, the inhabitants of the Digor District of Kars, including the applicants took part in a demonstration.