On 2 April 1990 the chairman of Plovdiv Municipal Council issued an order, granting the cooperative a right to construct over the same plot of land on which Ms Badeva, the first applicant

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.

    There was also an expert present at the inquiry who gave his report and on the same date the court adopted a decision determining the land borders.

    The applicants have formed a same-sex couple since 1999.

One of the witnesses called by the court was fined twice for the same reasons. 21.     On 30 June 2000 the Leningradskyy Court found in part for the applicants.

On the same day the prosecutor authorised his detention on remand. 8.

According to the applicants the search lasted for about an hour.

It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3). THE FACTS 4.

    Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 October 2003 and was examined at the same time for admissibility and

On the same day the applicant applied to the court to grant her legal assistance and to exempt her from court fees in cassation proceedings.

They were represented by the same lawyer. Subsequently, certain E.D. and A.D. acquired a part of the petitioner’s share in the estate. On 24 November 1987 they joined the proceedings.

At the same time, the applicant’s representative was invited to clarify his client’s action.

They also complained under the same provision, and further relying on Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention, about the allegedly unfair outcome of those proceedings.

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

The applicant was not subjected to any restriction as regards his visiting rights hence his visitors and lawyer were able to visit him within the same period.

The same day, the local authority applied for an emergency protection order and, as the hospital confirmed that it could not guarantee the child’s safety, the authority decided to serve the order and removed

She was then accorded the same detention arrangements as the “ordinary” detainees in the prison. The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Appeal.

The judicial proceeding lasted 46 years, as a result of the annulment by the Court of Cassation of several decisions of the Court of Appeal, which did not take into account the real market value of the

Both claims were based on the same legal basis and were only due from one of the defendants.

Therefore, as far as that period is concerned, this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court and the applicant has not submitted any “relevant