Later, until 1987, a relative of theirs had resided at the same address.

    The prosecution case was that the applicant had failed to take reasonable steps to address the drugs problem in the club.

It had found the addresses of Z.T.'s brothers and H.T.'s brother, but the latter did not know where H.T. lived.

  The standard record form, called the screening proforma, recorded the first applicant's name, address, nationality, marital and tenancy status, the chronological details about her arrest, the names

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 36.

They said that any statement given by him was merely a “formality”, since the time-limit for prosecution of that offence had already expired in 1997.

Accordingly, the Court considers that the Government’s objection should be joined to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1. 25.

Merits The parties’ submissions 33 .     The parties agreed that the application concerned the decision on points (1), (2) and (4) of the applicant’s original claim. 34.

Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.

They suspected that the applicant, who resided at this address with his parents, might be this person. 6.

The Court heard addresses by Mr de Vey Mestdagh, Mr Schermers and Mr Kraal, and also replies to questions put by several of its members. AS TO THE FACTS I.

Even if NEPs were in operation in the community, this did not indicate any right, merely that health authorities sought to use this method to manage the problem.

Furthermore, the commentary on the draft Protocol No. 2 expressly stated that the proceedings referred to were “past, present, future or merely hypothetical” (see CM(62)147 rev.).

Thus, the first applicant’s residence in Norway after the application for family reunification had in fact merely been tolerated by the authorities pending the Directorate of Immigration decision.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Mr Emmerson and Mr Moses and also replies to questions put by the President and another judge. AS TO THE FACTS I.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Corell for the Government, by Mrs Thune for the Commission and by Mr Tullberg for the applicant, as well as their replies to its questions.

  On 2 July 1996 the Commission invited the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.

Moreover, the applicant had failed to communicate the family’s new address to the authorities. B.

    By a decision of 11 January 2000 the Chamber declared the application partly admissible and decided to hold a hearing on the merits of the case [ Note du greffe   : la décision de la