remedies for the complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention, as the action in tort had become an effective remedy for grievances similar to those of the applicants, allowing them to have

    The Court notes that the Russian Government have not made any submissions as to the admissibility and merits of application no. 79438/17 and have not made any further submissions in respect

However, the applicant lodged her application with the Court as Alexandra   Grypari.

And: “We are doing everything possible to provide them with some comfort at Pichet where sixteen families have been relocated. For the rest other options were found. We have no houses available.

It held that the Regional Court could and should have scheduled a hearing date before the expiry of the time-limit, but that its failure to observe the time-limit entailed neither the inadmissibility of

various rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, including the following: (i)   her right to be present and to effectively participate in the proceedings, (ii)   her right to have

TOURNIER Alexandre, Commis Greffier Le Ministère Public ayant eu connaissance de la procédure.

June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre

It pointed out that under the decree’s provisions the applicant could have withdrawn his request for adoption of the summary procedure and elected to stand trial under the ordinary procedure.

European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   September 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Linos-Alexandre

  September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre

Furthermore, there do not appear to have been any exceptional circumstances that might have justified dispensing with a hearing.

  In the case of Alexandrou v.

However, her daughter, Ms Aleksandra Yevdokimovna Pozdnyakova, expressed her wish to pursue the application. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms S.

However, her daughter, Ms Aleksandra Andreyevna Kosolapova, expressed her wish to pursue the application. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms S.

Two applicants (see appended table below) have died after the institution of the proceedings before the Court. The applicants’ heirs (see below) wished to pursue the application.

    On 7 June 1999 and 30 March 2001 the City Court awarded Mrs   Aleksandra Gracheva a total of UAH 6,759 [1] against the Company. 7.

The relevant provisions for pre-trial proceedings have since been amended, following a Constitutional Court finding that they were unconstitutional.

In such circumstances, it would have been reasonable to expect the applicant to have raised these complaints either before the CO or in a review under section 115 of the 1955 Act.