2 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant also claimed to be the victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that she had not been able to attend the hearing of her appeal on points of law. 4. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 11 July 2006 it was declared partly admissible by a Chamber of that Section, composed of Boštjan M. Zupančič, Corneliu Bîrsan, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Alvina Gyulumyan, Egbert Myjer, David Thór Björgvinsson and Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Vincent Berger, Section Registrar. 5. On 11 December 2007 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 6. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24. It was also decided to give notice of the application to the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Russian Federation and to invite them to submit their observations (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44). However, neither government wished to exercise that right. 7. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits. 8. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 25 June 2008 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Ms S. KAULIŅA, Mr E. PLAKSINS, Ms D. TRUŠINSKA, (b) for the applicant Mr V. BUZAJEVS, Mr A. DIMITROVS, Co-Agent, Advisers; Counsel, Adviser. The Court heard addresses by Mr Buzajevs and Ms Kauliņa. 9. On 8 and 10 July 2008 respectively the applicant and the Government submitted written replies to the additional questions put by the Court at the hearing. Furthermore, in a letter of 8 October 2008 the applicant informed the Court of new developments in the case.