The applicants   Ion Aurel Manoilescu and Alexandra Maria Dobrescu are Romanian nationals, born in 1941 and 1921 respectively.

In the case of Alexandrou v. Cyprus, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Georgios A.

They moved to Russia to join Nikolaj Slivenko, who had moved there in 1996, and have not been able to visit Tatjana Slivenko’s parents in Latvia since.

KARIMOV against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   December 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Linos-Alexandre

    On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage.

Therefore, the Court considers that the heirs of Ms Francesca de Riso, as indicated in the table below, have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application.

    The relevant provisions of the CCP in respect of challenges for bias against judges are described in Alexandru Marian Iancu v.   Romania (no.

Romania (no. 70787/01) The applicant, Ion Răducu, was a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lived in Alexandria (Romania).

Such concern and protest by the Bar Association would, in the Court's view, have been sufficient to raise a doubt about confidentiality in the mind of an objective observer.

In the present case the applicants have made use of this remedy twice.

Therefore, the Court considers that the heirs of Ms Giuseppa d’Alba, as indicated in the table below, have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application.

The solicitor’s clients will have to take their affairs elsewhere; the staff will have found other employment; and the practice will be destroyed in any event. 111.

In April 2003 she should have undergone FGM (female genital mutilation), as according to the custom in her village, every five years the unmarried women were to undergo FGM.

The consultant's certificate read as follows:     "I have examined this patient at the Alexandra Hospital this evening and am of the opinion that he is unfit to attend the trial at the Crown

In any event, it would have to be limited to what the applicant would have received under the amended pension regulations in force since 2004.

    Principal facts   The applicant, Alexandros-Leon Lykourezos, is a 72-year-old Greek national who lives in Athens.

The applicants finally complain that they did not have, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, any effective remedies at their disposal for their complaints under Article 3. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.

Subjecting their contact to supervision by a prison officer would not have been adequate since they could have communicated through the use of body language and gestures. 40.

Thus they argue that any evidence collected should have been discarded.

The prosecutor did not hear A. as he had not resided at his home address and his whereabouts could not have been established. 14.