However, the Court does not consider that it has to address this question of Bulgarian law.

In the circumstances of the present case, an examination under section 11(2) of the Law of 31 December 1987 is necessary in order to dispose of the case on the merits. ...

The Court heard addresses by Mr. Trechsel, Mr. Weitzel and Mr. Minelli for the Commission and by Mr. Voyame and Mr.

Accordingly, the POA was no longer a trade union but merely an unincorporated association. Following Evans v.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 20.

These are merely examples of a generally bad situation that persists across the entire facility. Cell A-3 in wing E measures 36 m² and was equipped with 16 beds.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.

execution of the detention orders made for the purpose of enforcing the removal directions, a stay which would in fact have an equivalent effect to that of the annulment of the same decision on the merits

    Merits 1.     Substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (a)     The parties’ submissions 29.

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     The applicant 32.

    Where it is possible to have recourse to the specialist courts to address the violation, the constitutional complaint may only be lodged after all remedies have been exhausted (section 90

Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 191-193, ECHR 2004-V; and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010). 51.

Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 191-193, ECHR   2004-V; and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010). 51.

In particular, he failed to address the matter in his initial application for judicial review (see paragraph 9 above) and mentioned it very briefly in the written observations he submitted to the SAC,

On appeal, the appellant has merely submitted that in the impugned decision the Deputy Minister has not made an assessment based on the guiding principles but only considered that the interest of public

    The applicant did not address this issue. 22.     The Court first observes that the compensatory remedy referred to by the Government was merely of a retroactive character.

1996 the applicant’s representative applied for a compulsory residence order to be made, to which the Minister of the Interior acceded on 4 April, requiring the applicant to reside at a designated address

The Court heard addresses by Mr Lehmann and Mr Foighel for the Government, by Mr Trechsel for the Commission and by Mr Korsø Jensen for the applicant, as well as their replies to its questions.

Turkey ((merits), no. 48642/07, 4   April 2017). C.     Proceedings brought by the applicants 1.     Application no. 6372/05 by Mr Zülfikari 18.