Thus, the Court has to ascertain whether the assignment in the present case resulted in the acquisition by the applicant of a “possession” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 ( Novikov

Novaković, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik. 3.

the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Goc

Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, 11 February 2020; and Mile Novaković , cited above, § 50).

He was represented by Čeferin, Pogačnik, Novak, Koščak and Partners ( Odvetniška družba Čeferin, Pogačnik, Novak, Koščak in partnerji ), a law firm based in Grosuplje. 4.

They had intended to drop two of the men at the Tekhnologicheskiy Institut metro station and then continue to her home address at Novikova Street.

Finally, it held that the District Court had gone beyond the scope of the prosecutor’s request by referring to other materials on the website, and that the reference to the revocation of the publication

Novák , Mr   D. Karsai, M r   M.M. K ónya,   Advisers .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Grád and Mr Tallódi, and replies by them to questions put by the judges. THE FACTS I.

  In the Novak v.

Novak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.