Also, human rights cases before the Court generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant

    The Government contended that the applications were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded or on the ground that the applicants have not suffered a significant disadvantage.

) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Alexandru

  He complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him for blackmail which have been pending since 1996.

Legislative Decree no. 225/1973 was deemed to have remained in force (section   2).

, Alexandra, 1/8 ab indivisio.

The Court notes, however, that the Government have not explained exactly how those proceedings constituted an obstacle to the insolvency proceedings, nor have they shown that the tax enforcement proceedings

His letter reads: “I have received your letter of 28 September 2010 and a copy of the service note of 10 December 2007.

His appearance at court would only have been possible had the Šibenik Municipal Court ensured the presence of a medical team at the trial, which it had failed to do.

and could have been consolidated by selling some of S.’s immovable property. 16.

Nevertheless, the applicant could have asked to have a consultation with a private dentist in the prison’s dental practice, at his own expense; such a request had never been formulated, as the applicant

Application no. 40559/12 Giuseppe TILOCCA against Croatia lodged on 25 May 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Giuseppe Tilocca, is an Italian national, who was born in 1963 and currently lives in Alexandria

The third applicant, Mr   Alexandru Smoliacov, was born in 1980. All applicants are Moldovan nationals, live in Chişinău and are represented by Mr S. Pavlovschi, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.

Moreover, although those presumed responsible have been identified, they have not had to stand trial. The applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The last three applicants also complain that they did not have an effective remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of that detention.

It therefore reiterates that the applicant is deprived of his or her victim status if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient

It considers that a claim for damages, as suggested by the Government, would not have allowed him to have access to the Supreme Court.

Since, in addition to the evidence from the witnesses, the court will also have to hear evidence from defendants who have not yet given it and are at large, there is a risk of pressure being brought to

At that time they could hardly have entertained any legitimate expectation about being able to live together in Norway.