:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width

  Complaints   The applicant complains of a continuing violation of her rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for home) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the

page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 October 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 65128/19 Alex-Daniel

Daniel P..., demeurant ... de Lomagne, 17 / M. Riahi Q..., demeurant ... d'Agen, en cassation d'un arrêt rendu le 8 août 1996 par la cour d'appel de Toulouse (chambre sociale), au profit de M.

Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width

its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights

0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF075836 { margin-right

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or

:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:

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 a 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 a 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 a continued examination of the applications

:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 79393/13 László KRISZTIN and Adam KRISZTIN against Hungary and 8 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 55000/14 HOMOLA against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2264/16 Krisztián László KLAMANCSEK against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 26816/23 Dénes HEGYI against Hungary and 10 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25939/16 Zoltán VARGA against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights

vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 35711/20 Ferenc PUSKÁS against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights

color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1258/13 Ágnes BRISENO-VARGA and others against Hungary and 6 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights