Law – Article   34 (victim): The applicants had argued that they belonged to a group of people, namely “women of child-bearing age”, who risked being directly affected by the measure.

The child has lived all her life in the applicants’ shared home and was formally recognised by her mother in October 2000.

He brought two actions, seeking to be taken back into the care of child welfare services and to have his basic needs provided for.

Avenant n°1 à l'accord relatif à la mise en place des Comités Sociaux Economiques (CSE) de Fos-sur-Mer et Saint-Chély-d'Apcher et du Comité Social Economique Central (CSEC) d'ArcelorMittal Méditerranée

  The applicant had cared for the baby during the first eleven months of his life due to H's inability to cope with the child. H. subsequently left the family home with the child in May 1983.

in trial: violation Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Trial of children in adult court: no violation Article 5 Article 5-1-a After conviction Child detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure" following

Further, blood tests from the applicant, the mother, the child and I., taken during the course of affiliation proceedings, excluded the applicant from paternity of the child.

custody, parental access and child maintenance.

In March 2014 the applicant and B had a child, X, in Türkiye. In 2015 B and X moved to Norway, where X was taken into public care and placed in a foster home.

  The child was assessed by his local education authority (LEA) as having special educational needs in 1976, his hearing impairment being compounded by other difficulties.

Article 182 Circumstances to be taken into account by the court when determining the amount of child maintenance “1.

    Criminal investigation into the allegations of child abuse On 21 March 2011 the applicant saw bruises on A.

Thereafter the applicant applied to the Lauenburg District Court ( Amtsgericht ) for an increase in the child maintenance.

    On 30 July 1981 Ms A. gave birth to a child, S.

    The applicants took the child to the Burgas Multi-Profile Active Treatment Hospital.

In the Reslová case the applicant’s eldest child has reached majority.

On 11 March 2014 the Head of the Aliens Office issued corrigendum to this decision and removed the applicant’s youngest child from its scope.

Since then the foster-mother has had sole custody of the child.

In addition, it considered that the child had said that she enjoyed living in Portugal with C. and M. but also that she loved the applicant and wanted to be with him in his new house. 6.