Under the provisions of Article 29   §   3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.

They relied on Article 6   §   1 of the Convention.

They invoke Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Rizvan Ibragimov; a violation of Article

It follows that this part of the application has been lodged outside the time-limit prescribed by Article 35   §   1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention

de l'article 27 de la directive 2004/38/CE du 29 avril 2004 et l'article L. 251-1 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile ; - elle méconnaît les stipulations de l'article

6 of the Convention.

; 6 of the Convention.

        In its decision the Court of Appeal noted that the Federal Court, in its decision of 29 March 1990, had found no breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in respect

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Convention.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of their right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” since their civil or criminal

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an ex ante judicial scrutiny of the lawfulness of the search

Date of decision VASOV, Application No. 6156/07 13/11/2012 KOSANIN, Application No. 12192/07 29/11/2011 MILOSAVLJEVIC 28, Application No. 21478/07 11/12/2012 BINJOS, Application No. 25335/07 10/01/2012

Referring to various Articles of the Convention (see appended list), all applicants essentially complain that the rejection of their civil claims and the allegedly flagrant divergent case-law of the domestic

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 23.

10 de la Convention, par l’éditeur qui a publié le reportage litigieux ou, sous l’angle de l’article 8 de la Convention, par la personne faisant l’objet de ce reportage.

    On 1 April 2010 the Court gave notice to the Government, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, of the applicant’s complaints about the alleged absence of adequate medical care for his

Il invoque l'article   6 §§ 1 et 3 de la Convention.