For this purpose they submitted a valuation, dated 2014, which takes into account the rental value of the property over a span of years.

They invoke Article 14 of the Convention, which provides as follows:   “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

The Court finds this explanation acceptable and is thus satisfied that in the present case there were exceptional circumstances that dispensed the Government from the obligation to raise their objection

The applicants argued in this connection that they could not be expected to have acquired the requisite knowledge on the date of the first actions brought by them.

This had also been the real reason for the attack in August 2006 by the Secret Service as they had wanted to interrogate him and then kill him.

the civil rights and obligations of the members of the first applicant, and thus to have created for them a right of access to court, this did not mean that the first applicant could be regarded as a

Thus, the issue of proportionality did not even arise as this was not a sanction, and he could turn to the co-directors to pay their relevant share.

the purposes of this provision.

They also submitted that they had been unable to inspect the content of the documents prior to their seizure and had thus not been in a position to contest them.

The applicants did not participate in this increase of capital and thus their shares currently represent 2.07% of all the shares in the company.

In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus an acceptable sum as to quantum in the present case. 3.

For this reason, the Court considered that they should not be considered alternatively, but concurrently.

This would allow the tenants the possibility of a fair hearing where they would be able to submit evidence concerning any other title they might have to retain the property, without prejudice to any claim

They thereby failed to observe the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of this complaint.

They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

They complain in particular of the assessment of the evidence by the Arnsberg Administrative Court. 3.

They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

for the holidays to which they should have been entitled.

Thus, the applicants could not on the basis of this provision, after their marriage, request the adoption of the wife's name as the family name.

Thus, it finds that the applicants have not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them in this respect.