xa0; » aux fins de l’article   34 de la Convention sauf si les autorités nationales reconnaissent, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparent la violation de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Dalban

requérant ne suffit en principe à lui retirer la qualité de «   victime   » que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention ( Dalban

  Mytilinaios bien qu’il faille aujourd’hui attribuer cette qualité à son épouse et à ses enfants ( Dalban c.   Roumanie [GC], n o   28114/95, CEDH 1999 ‑ VI). II.

Niko Mavrakis (voir, mutatis mutandis , Dalban c.   Roumanie [GC], n o 28114/95, § 1, CEDH 1999-VI).     SUR LA VIOLATION ALLÉGUÉE DES ARTICLES 9 ET 11 DE LA CONVENTION 45.

purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, inter alia , Dalban

  846, §   36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, §   44, ECHR 1999 ‑ VI; and Rotaru v.   Romania [GC], no.   28341/95, §   35, ECHR 2000-V).

Popescu will continue to be called “the applicants” in this judgment, although Mr Bogdan-Andrei Sterian, Ms Ruxandra-Marina Stavre [2] and Mrs Didona Emilia Didea are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban

sufficient to deprive him or her of “victim” status unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Dalban

France judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36 and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).

Intérieur, la requérante entreprenne maintenant une nouvelle procédure pour le moins incertaine contre le refus implicite du ministre de faire droit à sa demande de réparation du préjudice subi (cf., arrêt Dalban

Without denying the provocative value of these expressions, the Court reiterates that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Dalban v.

une base factuelle du requérant, la Cour ne peut admettre que ses propos ne dépassaient pas la dose d’exagération et de provocation admise par l’article 10 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis , Dalban

purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, inter alia , Dalban

France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §   44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Rotaru v.

France , judgment of 25 June 1995, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v.

Nemtsov’s daughter has a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling that the finding whether her late father’s liability in defamation constituted a breach of his right to freedom of expression (see Dalban

For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v.

France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).

Horea   Mircea   Timar will continue to be referred to in this judgment as “the applicant”, although Mrs   Gabriela   Timar and Ms Mihaela Timar are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban