The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 8.

of Incoms ‑ Telecom Holding EAD, had been entirely responsible and in control of the preparation of the contract and that the applicant company had been a passive participant in the process, merely

    The applicants and the Government filed observations on the merits of the case (Rule 59 § 1 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Soyer, Mr de Nervo and Mr Nedelec. AS TO THE FACTS I.   the CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.

arguing inter alia that the first-instance court had failed to take any notice of the applicant’s letter of 19 December 2000, that A. was not a credible witness, that two of the remaining co-accused had merely

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Soyer, Mr Puechavy and Mr   Douveneau. AS TO THE FACTS A.   Background to the case 7.

xa0; By a decision of 11 September 1985, which was served on the applicant in the Federal Republic of Germany on 24 December 1985, the Administrative Court rejected the applicant's complaints on the merits

In order to inquire into those      events, we decided that we should address ourselves first to her      as an individual, considering her personality, health,

Merits 19 .

That address was used by the courts for serving this and subsequent decisions. A registered letter was sent to the applicant at the above address.

  The Court heard addresses by Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Higgs, Mr Makin, Mr   Sexton and Mr Pannick, and also Mr Pannick's reply to a question put by one of its members. 6.

On 16   June 1999 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed that order and instructed the Town Court to consider the case on the merits.

The police had tried to contact Ms Pakhtusova at her home address, but she had been at work.

She took up residence in rented property at the address A.   Street 6b. This address is located in the Tarwewijk district in South Rotterdam.

This applied all the more as a piece of paper with the addresses of savings banks was found in the applicant's handbag.

Merits The parties’ submissions 44.

This is because in his appeal the convicted person failed to indicate any reason for the reopening of the proceedings under Article 501 paragraph 1 of the 2008 Code of Criminal Procedure, merely pointing

    Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The applicant 52.

The Constitutional Court did not address any other complaint raised by the applicant. 2.     Other relevant facts 42 .