Les organes de la Convention ont précédemment admis des restrictions imposées à la suite d’un refus de se conformer aux obligations du service militaire ( Marangos c.

Ireland (judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 20-21, § 46), Modinos (judgment cited above, p. 12, § 25) and Marangos v.

Marenco and C. Ladenburger, and Mrs S. Fries.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

été refusé et que la division des lots n°5 et 6 en deux appartements distincts est contraire au PLUI, alors que cette information était en possession tant de Monsieur [I] [U], que de la SCI 4 JULES MASSENET

  38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no.

Maison de retraite Les Gardioles, société à responsabilité limitée, dont le siège est [Adresse 128], 102°/ la société Marienia, société anonyme, dont le siège est [Adresse 120], 103°/ la société Massenet

Finland , no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80 ‑ a , p. 38, and Marangos v.

Masenko - Mavi , of the Budapest Bar,   Counsel ; (c)   for the Commission Ms   M. Hion ,   Delegate , Ms   M.-T. Schoepfer ,   Secretary to the Commission .

The Convention organs have previously accepted that restrictions imposed following a failure to comply with military service obligations (see Marangos v.

la société Systra, de Me Treins représentant la société Dumez Auvergne, de Me Perriez représentant la société Lohr Industrie, de Me Michel, représentant la société ETF et de Me Arsac, suppléant Me Massenat

The Court hence considers, that the Government failed in discharging their burden of proof concerning the availability of adequate medical supervision and treatment to the applicant in prison (see, Malenko

Augusto ATZENI 1961 Graziella FODDAI 1966 Sergio SANNITU 1961 Giulio BANDINO 1961 Francesco Valerio CARA 1958 Giuliana ENA 1963 Mario Saverio FARCI 1956 Enrico IBBA 1948 Domenico LILLIU 1958 Roberto MASSENTI

Austria , no. 2293/03, § 40, 22 February 2007; and Malenko v.

That being so, the Government, in the Court’s opinion, have failed in accounting for the detained applicant’s state of health and thus in discharging their part of the burden of proof (see, Malenko v.

  11982/02, 6   December 2007, and Malenko v. Ukraine , no.   18660/03, §   40, 19   February 2009).

Therefore the period of the applicant’s detention prior to 23 November 2004 falls outside the six-month time-limit within which an applicant is required to lodge a complaint (see, for example, Malenko

  72286/01, §§   47-53) and in the judgment of 19 February 2009 in the case of Malenko v. Ukraine (no. 18660/03, §   28 ‑ 30). THE LAW I.

have properly assisted the Court in its task of determining the facts, whilst the applicant limited himself to wholly unsubstantiated assertions (compare with Goginashvili , § 72, and contrast with Malenko

Konstantinovka 1) Kostyantynivka Court, 19/12/1997   2) Kostyantynivka Court, 05/04/2001             74958/12 07/11/2012 Nadezhda Mikhaylovna MAMENKO

01/2001   2) Slovyansk Court, 01/12/1997   47241/12 21/07/2012 Lesya Igorivna KOSTYUK 08/08/1981 Kyiv Bila Tserkva Court of Kyiv Region, 6/05/2006   47335/12 16/07/2012 Oleg Ivanovych MALENKO