X..., Mmes Y... et Z... et la société Aux Deux Helios.

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête et un mémoire, enregistrés les 25 janvier 2021 et 9 janvier 2022, la société Hello Finances, demande au tribunal d'annuler la décision du 5 octobre 2020 par

de justice administrative ; D E C I D E : -------------- Article 1er : Le pourvoi présenté par le Centre hélio-marin est rejeté.

TRANSPORT HELP SERVICE, [A] [J], [N] [P], [RT] [E], [O] [W], [G] [SH], [H] [SH], [D] [R] [J], [B] [SH], [U] [M], [C] [J], [S] [Z], GAY TRANSPORTS, [K] [V], [Y] [L], SOLOMAT LOCATION Copie

    On 11 December 1995 the court held a hearing and the case was settled in part. 17.

The Court also held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13.

The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of an effective remedy.

Accordingly, the Court held unanimously in the three cases that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.

    Hellas Eurotrade Ltd had been established in 1975 and had three shareholders: the applicant who held 40% of the shares and three other individuals that held the remaining shares in equal

He needed help with feeding, moving and transport, using means of communication, taking care of his finances and medication.

  In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

It held that on 29 August 2001 the applicant had attacked Mr   G.   who, in response, had punched the applicant in the head.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the applicants’ relatives’ deaths; a violation of

  The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the treatment of the applicants while in detention

The Court held:       by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the authorities failed to

Italy, the European Court of Human Rights held by sixteen votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights

    The court martial was held on 28 May 1997.

It therefore held that the treatment inflicted on them had been contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

  The Court also held, unanimously, that Moldova had to give the lawyers and doctors of the applicant immediate and unrestricted access to him and his medical file.