It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The parties’ submissions 87.

It is not for this Court to second guess Parliament's decision not to extend section 159 to Scotland.

The applicant had not and could not have been heard at this stage of the proceedings on the issue of compensation.

The prosecutor noted that the applicant had known of the final Vilnius Regional Court ruling of 8 October 2007, which was not amenable to appeal, but had ignored it.

This conclusion does not mean that a tenant could not contend that the provisions of the 1988 Act did not, for some reason, properly protect the article 8 rights of assured shorthold tenants: that would

His intention had not been to disrupt the ceremony and, when he had entered, he had not seen a ceremony being held.

It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. C.     Merits 33.

The same Directive noted that “traditional methods of healing”, including yoga, were not officially recommended by the Ministry of Health for application in medical practice, and, therefore, were not covered

Although the applicant had not been a party to that earlier case, he did not have any separate legal interest requiring protection, and could not claim that he had suffered separate damage calling for

The Court notes that while Article 11 para. 1 (art. 11-1) presents trade union freedom as one form or a special aspect of freedom of association, the Article (art. 11) does not guarantee any particular

The “NKR”, on the other hand, not being a member of the Council of Europe and not being bound by the Court’s case-law, was a separate entity and could not be influenced by the legislative changes in Armenia

and that the power of attorney did not empower her to do that.

He noted that the ultra vires point had not been raised until relatively late in the proceedings, namely, in an affidavit lodged by West Dorset dated 5 October 1995. 16.

    The Court notes that this part of application is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

He did not seek medical assistance, assuming it was food poisoning. 18 .

  The Federal Republic of Germany could not be held responsible for measures taken at a time when the Basic Law was not even in force.