Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nine Bulgarian nationals, Mr Valko Stanilov Valkov, Mr Vasil Kirilov Galabov, Mr Atanas Vladimirov Gonevski, Mr Ivan Zahariev Slavkov, Mr Boyko

07/11/2012 Yuriy Gavrylovych SHABROV 12/01/1951 Konstantinovka Kostyantynivka Court, 23/02/2001             74944/12 07/11/2012 Valentina Nikolayevna BOYKO

Relying on Bock   v.   Germany (judgment of 29   March   1989, Series   A no.

litigation has to be taken into account in certain cases (see, mutatis mutandis, the H. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120-B, pp. 59 and 62-63, paras. 71 and 85, and the Bock

Some cases found State obligations arising due to State involvement, for example, Bock v.

gave the applicant an opportunity to contest them at the trial, but this can scarcely be regarded as a proper substitute for a personal observation of the leading witnesses giving oral evidence (see Bocos-Cuesta

form are exceeded without an extension having been sought and an explanation provided for the delay incurred in complying with this very simple yet crucial procedural requirement (see mutatis mutandis Bock

Austria judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, p. 103, para. 52, and the Bock v. Germany judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no. 150, p. 18, para. 37).

    Finally, the Court notes that particular diligence is required in all cases concerning civil status and capacity (see Bock v.

Germany judgment of 29 May 1986, Series   A no. 100, p. 26, § 77; the Bock v. Germany judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no. 150, p. 18, § 37; and the Ruiz-Mateos v.

Monica ITA 1969 877 BOCCARDO Rebecca ITA 1966 878 BOCCHI Monica ITA 1966 879 BOCCHINI Elena ITA 1966 880 BOCCIA Sergio ITA 1969 881 BOCCIOLETTI Barbara ITA 1970 882 BOCCIOLETTI Francesca ITA 1975 883 BOCCO

  60018/00, §   40, 8   June 2006, with further references, and Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands , no. 54789/00, § 66, 10 November 2005). ii.

    The Court would also reiterate that particular diligence is required in cases concerning civil status and capacity (see Bock v.

Germany judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100, p. 26, para. 77; the Bock v.   Germany judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no.   150, p. 18, para. 37; and the Ruiz-Mateos v.

However, a waiver of a Convention right had to be established in an unequivocal manner ( Bocos-Cuesta v. the Netherlands , no. 54789/00, § 65, 10   November 2005; Colozza v.

particulièrement élevé (voir, en ce sens, CJUE, arrêts du 14 mars 2013, Allianz Hungária Biztosító e.a., précité, point 43, du 18 novembre 2021, Visma Enterprise, précité, point 61, et du 29 juin 2023, Super Bock