There was no indication that the applicant could be held accountable for those delays.

  In its principal judgment in the case (19 June 2006) the Grand Chamber held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention concerning the

The administrative court dismissed her complaint and held that an oral hearing would not have been likely to help clarify her case.

1 / de la société Banque Duménil Leble, dont le siège social est ..., 2 / de la société Compagnie internationale de gestion d'actifs (CIGA), dont le siège social est La Motte Chambers à Saint Hélier

Helmers.

COUR D'APPEL D'ORLÉANS CHAMBRE DES URGENCES COPIES EXECUTOIRES + EXPÉDITIONS : Me Julie HELD-SUTTER la SELARL CASADEI-JUNG ARRÊT du : 03 JUIN 2026 n° : N° RG 24/02325 - N° Portalis DBVN-V-B7I-HB22

It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts.

  At some point before noon, the soldiers selected six young men, including   İkram and Servet İpek, to help carry equipment, giving assurances that they would be able to return.

They ended on 15 July 1997 with a judgment in which the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had held that the applicants’ entitlement to compensation was time-barred.

  P.’s application in respect of his son’s residence was also held in camera.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him FRF 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

She thus held the security forces responsible for his death for not having provided him with help speedily, as well as for allegedly leaving   the explosive device which had killed her husband.

  For eight years and two months – from his detention in Santé Prison on 15 August 1994 until his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison on 17 October 2002 – the applicant was held in solitary confinement.

It therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention.

It held that the applicant had learned of the proceedings from non-judicial sources so that the failure to summon her to appear did not infringe Article 24 of the Constitution (right to a fair trial).

The applicant applied to the court of appeal for the previous position in the case to be restored, arguing that she should not be held responsible for S.I.’s mistake.

In a judgment of 26 February 2004 (see press release 094), the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been two violations of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the shooting

  The applicant, together with three other Kurdish Iraqi detainees who had been held at Oakington, applied for permission for judicial review of their detention claiming that it was unlawful under