Even taking into account the explanations given by the applicant for taking these enforcement measures, according to which the enforcement measures were aimed at the mother and were   addressed to

The proceedings were governed by the MOA, and not the Criminal Procedure Act.

On the available material, it is clear that four bullets were fired at the first applicant’s car, two of which were fired from an automatic rifle and the remaining two from a pistol.

The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov. 3.

    The applicants were represented by Mrs I.Y. Cherpak, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. 3.

Among other motions filed by the applicants that were rejected as inadmissible by the authorities were the following.

Those reception conditions were also guaranteed to Dublin-returners.

The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice. 3.

During this time, the proceedings were conducted with the assistance of Mr E.F.

    The applicants were represented by Ms S. Margaritova-Vuchkova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms N.

    The applicant and his family were living in a wooden house owned by the municipality on the riverside in Sedkyrkeshch settlement of Syktyvkar.

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.

The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.

The presiding judge further refused B. access to the case-file because it was not sure whether the files would be available for the hearing scheduled on 13 March 2006 if they were sent to Bremen after

    On 15 October   2008 the expert opinion was served on the parties who were granted a time-limit of one month for possible comments.

    The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. 3.

The applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage were dismissed. On 14 May 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 8.

procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2) and who were represented by Mr E.