CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 4 April 2016 and 8 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 17492/16 Yekaterina Vladimirovna NUSALOVA against Russia lodged on 1 April 2016 FURTHER QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Given the Government’s response to the Court’s decision to impose, on 4   April 2016, an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, has there been a hindrance on part of the State to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?