By letter dated 28 May 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 26 February 2010 and that no extension of

By letter dated 14 October 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 1 September 2014 and that

By letter dated 7 September 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified both in French and Romanian that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 8 July 2011 and

On 27 February 2019 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant’s heir, inviting him to submit comments on the Government’s further observations. No reply was received to this letter.

By letter of the Registry of the Court of 5 June 2003 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative.

By letter dated 11 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 January 2013 and that no extension of time

By letter dated 13 June 2023 sent by eComms the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 31   May 2023 and that no extension of time had been

By letter dated 31 May 2018, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations   had expired on 18 April

The subsequent Registry’s letters were sent on 9 June and 15 September 2021, reminding the applicant that the period allowed for the appointment of his representative had expired, while Rule 36 § 2 of

These observations were sent to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply, as well as any claims for just satisfaction. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By a letter dated 10 February 2022 sent to the applicant’s last known address, the applicant’s potential heirs were notified that the application had been restored to the Court’s list of cases.

She was sent to an institution specialised in the handling of seriously disturbed children. She attended classes there and took part in self-assessment programmes.

By letter dated 26 October 2023, sent through the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms), the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations

By letter dated 23 September 2021, sent through the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms) and by registered post to the applicant’s representative, the applicant was notified that the period

On 31 May 2016 the Court sent a letter to the applicant, noting that the period allowed for submission of his position as regards the friendly settlement in his application had expired on 18 May 2016.

According to the Government, on 7 February 2001 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court sent a copy of the decision of 1 February 2001 to the applicant.

In accordance with the applicant’s request, the Registry sent those documents to his wife’s address.

On 1 March 2001 the Parvomay District Prosecutor’s Office sent the case to the Parvomay District Court, which thereupon resumed the stayed civil proceedings.

Elle indique ne pas avoir reçu l’avis de passage de la sommation de restituer alors que la galerie était fermée le 13 août 2020 et fait valoir qu’elle établit que la paire de sellettes a été vendue et

dispensateur de crédit est débiteur envers l'emprunteur non averti d'une obligation de mise en garde sur le risque d'endettement excessif lié à l'octroi du crédit, qu'en l'espèce, respectivement chauffeur au Sénat