The running of this period is interrupted by the commission of a new serious crime.

In accordance with Article 52(3), the meaning and scope of this right are the same as those of the corresponding article of the ECHR.

Article 6 “The Annexes to this Agreement and the Appendices to the Agreement and Annexes are an integral part of the Agreement.”

of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix

The Court notes that the latest of the decisions concerning the amount of the maintenance was issued on 18 July 1996, thus more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted.

This proved that the measure in question was necessary.

the violations alleged against them, before those allegations are submitted to the Court.

This included the SPC. On this basis, payment of the applicant’s pension ceased as from the date of his imprisonment. Proceedings in the High Court 7.

  The Government inferred from this that the case raised "serious questions affecting the interpretation of the Convention", which justified the application of Rule 48.

When the applicant company thus complained that A.K. and P.I. had appeared in public before the charity dinner, the court referred to this concept of “private area within a public space”.

Latvia and the Russian Federation had not been able to reach any agreement on this issue due to their apparently diverging views on this matter.

It thus decided to close the examination of the execution of the Court’s judgment delivered on 7   November 2013. 5.

In a fresh application to the Court, the applicant claimed that this investigation had not been adequate.

In this capacity they could acquaint themselves with the case file, present evidence, make requests and appeal against acts of the courts to the extent that this was related to their civil claim.

The judge argued that this provision was passed to provide a solution to those cohabiting couples consisting of a man and a woman who could not marry, and who thus did not qualify for a survivor’s pension

The applicant was further informed that proceedings on this question were ongoing in which the same complaints as those made by the applicant had been raised.

as possible their consequences and to prevent new violations similar to those found by the Court;   Emphasising that the need to adopt such measures in this case is all the more pressing given the

Two requests to allow the appeal on this ground were refused by the Constitutional Court. 10.

were thus the main reason for the events of January 1991.