They also noted that the first applicant had a dependent wife and young child, and that the family had no other accommodation in Kyiv. 14.

, and had sufficiently explained the evidence on the basis of which it had made its assessment.

He further alleged that he had had no remedies available to him as required under Article 13 of the Convention. 4.

It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Chamber of the Court in

By 2009 construction work had not yet started.

It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Chamber of the Court in

she had not had victim status, and had therefore no right to lodge a complaint with the Court. 50.

They further alleged that their children had been deprived of many of their fundamental human rights and freedoms as a result of the monastic canons and the vows they had taken before entering the monasteries

had in October 2014.

information had been forthcoming about what steps had been taken to investigate the persons whose names had been identified as involved in events.

He also contended that the prohibition, which had been applied to him regardless of his health problems, had caused him great mental suffering and had breached his rights. 11.

in that judgment had related to the specific facts of that case.

The ECJ had also held in a number of cases that a difference in treatment had to be objectively justified.

Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   I.

The applicants reiterated that the deprivation of liberty had not been in accordance with the law and had not pursued any legitimate aim. B.     Admissibility 32.

The applicant explained that he had all the relevant documents and had paid taxes to the Moldovan local authorities in Varnița.

One of the bailiffs added in his memo that the applicants’ actions had amounted to an encroachment upon the court’s independence and impartiality, whilst another submitted that the wrongdoers had been

The Parole Board accepted that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 4. On the question whether to grant a declaration that there had been a breach in the case, the judge said: “35.

is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place is currently under consideration and will be decided by the Grand Chamber