FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private and family life had been violated, as he and his wife had been

Complaint under Article 3 in respect of the conditions of the first applicant’s detention at Burgas prison in the period from June 2003 to February

As to the remaining applicant (application no. 61156/13), the Government observed that she had decided to withdraw her appeal against the Oslo City Court judgment and had

The applicant could not derive from his rights as a natural father a right to be heard in the proceedings for the change of his child’s surname, because his rights

On 21 September 2009, following the disclosure process which took place during the appeal proceedings, the applicant lodged a further ground of appeal regarding

As a result, and having regard to the complexity of the case and the severity of the punishment, the applicant concluded that he had been unable duly to exercise his rights

In a subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued, inter alia, that the Supreme Court had relied on the defendant company’s Collective Agreement although it

The applicant complains that the Council's delay in providing access to his social service files subjected him to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of