In that context, it recalls that it has the power to decide on the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a complaint by examining it under Articles or provisions of the Convention that are

applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table.

conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amounts detailed in the appended table.

possible for him to try to abscond and hide from the authorities abroad.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, concerning the decision to revoke his residence permit, were communicated to the Dutch Government (“the Government”).

The applicant introduced his complaint to the Court on 14 June 2022, when he requested an interim measure to prevent his deportation to Rwanda pursuant to the respondent Government’s Memorandum of Understanding

application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amounts detailed in the appended table.

application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amounts detailed in the appended table.

of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sebastian Daab, is a Polish national who was born in   1981 and lives in

The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning her claims to property located in Bucharest was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

as “the Convention”), Having regard to the report drawn up on 27 May 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged

, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay her the amounts detailed in the appended table.

rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amounts detailed in the appended table.

to a third party.

The authorities also dealt with the applicant’s requests for release and prepared applications to the court to extend his detention on remand.

conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

The expert had noted in his report that the applicants had failed to submit sufficient documents and provide sufficient facts from the time of the pregnancy to allow him to come to the conclusion that