In the leading case of Butko v. Russia (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

    In the leading case of Kormacheva v. Russia, no.

In these circumstances, the Court finds that, as in the leading judgment, the debtor enterprise in the instant case did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities

    In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine, (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.

    In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary (no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v.

    In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary ( no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading case of Gankin and Others v. Russia, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.

    In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004 the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017 and Kunić and   Others v.

    In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017, and Kunić and Others v.

    In the leading cases of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014 and Lakatos v.

    In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017 and Kunić and Others v.

    In the leading case of Melnik v.   Ukraine (no.   72286/01, 28   March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v.   Ukraine [Committee], no.

    In the leading case of Ara Harutyunyan v.

Prior to leaving Belarus, he had separated from his wife and a child who stayed there. In 2008 he started cohabiting in Perm with the second applicant and her child.

    In the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28   March   2006) and Sukachov v.

    In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v.

He contested the interim measure and the proceedings leading to it and claimed violations of his rights (i) to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; (ii) to respect for his family life