Their attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. According to the information from the post office, the applicants in cases nos.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 10.

  34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated

CHAMBRE CIVILE 1ère Chambre B ARRÊT DU 19 SEPTEMBRE 2006 APPELANTE : SOCIETE GENERALE poursuites et diligences de son Président Directeur Général en exercice, domicilié en cette qualité au siège social 29

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

The second applicant in application no. 29527/10 and the applicant in application no. 49548/10 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

Invoquant l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, le requérant se plaint de la durée de la procédure.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention.

    COMPLAINTS   Proceedings leading to the Federal Court's decisions of 29 March 1990        Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.

Thus, Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention was violated.”

It follows that the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

  Pologne du 3   novembre 2009, §§ 23-29. EN DROIT I.     SUR LA VIOLATION ALLÉGUÉE DE L’ARTICLE 6 § 1 DE LA CONVENTION 19.

    GRIEFS        Le requérant invoque chacun des griefs sous l'angle de l'article 6 par. 1 de la Convention.

They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

1 of the Convention.

   The Government submit that the relevant period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention started on 29 July 1983, when the applicant was informed about the opening

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that his right of access to a court was violated due to the Constitutional Court’s above-mentioned decisions dismissing both his requests for

The applicants invoke Article 2 para. 1 and Article 3 (Art. 2-1, 3) of the Convention which state, insofar as relevant:         Article 2 (Art. 2)