In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions

In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 14 and 16 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 12 and 14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.

In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

The Court observes that these objections are identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v.

), sitting on 3 July 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Nina Vajić, President ,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre

First Section), sitting on 9   December 2014 as a   Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre

of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   February 2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre

Convention”) by a Belarusian national, Mr Dmitri Gavrilovich Kurilovich (“the first applicant) and two Bulgarian nationals, Ms   Maria   Atanasova Kurilovich (“the second applicant”) and Mr Alexandar

Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3   November 2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Linos-Alexandre

Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Alexandrou v.

text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } [TRANSLATION] … THE FACTS The applicants [Mr Alejandro

cour : jugement du tribunal judiciaire de Nîmes en date du 04 février 2020, N°17/05917 COMPOSITION DE LA COUR LORS DES DÉBATS ET DU DÉLIBÉRÉ : Mme Isabelle Defarge, présidente de chambre, Mme Alexandra

Alexandre VAZZANA ARRÊT : Contradictoire Prononcé publiquement par mise à disposition de l'arrêt au greffe de la cour, les parties en ayant été préalablement avisées dans les conditions prévues

AUGUSTIN, conseiller, magistrat honoraire juridictionnel a rendu compte des débats à la Cour composée de : Madame Laurence DUVALLET, présidente de chambre, présidente de la collégialité, Monsieur Alexandre

COHEN, avocat au barreau de Paris, Toque : C1887 Monsieur [E] [Z] [Adresse 3] [Localité 6] Ayant pour avocat Maître Alexandre DEVILLERS, avocat au barreau de VAL DE MARNE, Toque : PC 333 Madame