(1) AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No

In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the proceedings instituted against the applicant under Article 177 § 1 of the 1998 Criminal Code concerned essentially

under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they did not receive a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal as one of the Court of Appeal judges, P.L.,

The applicant complained under Articles 5, 7 and 6 in connection with Article 14 of the Convention about the decisions given by the Polish courts in connection

The Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention on the ground that the applicant no longer ran any

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, following his decision to move to the North of Finland in order to live with his former foster parents,

With regard to the civil head of Article 6 para 1, the Government recall that a wealth ot Convention case-law has established that this provision applies to disciplinary

Regarding the second defendant, the court of first instance held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of article 6(1) of the Lugano Convention, which determines, that a

article 52 (1) (b) of the ICSID Convention) and not enforceable (article 36(1)(a)(iii) of the Model Law and article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention); an award rendered by an