Article 37 § 1 in fine states: “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

  1 thereto about the non-enforcement of the judgment of in his favour. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

Article 37 § 1 in fine states : “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”

admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant

Court of Appeal, upon an appeal lodged by the opposing parties against the costs orders, had amended the order without informing the applicant of that appeal or giving him the possibility to react thereto

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

As regards the issues raised by the applicant under other provisions of the Convention and Protocols thereto, the Court would recall that in all the previous similar cases examined to date it held that

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

November 2006, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 January 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases and the applicant’s reply thereto

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications

Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that: “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto

Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that: “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto