Non-violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'art. 6-3-d

Denmark , no. 13156/87, Commission decision of 1 July 1992, Decisions and Reports (DR) 74, p. 5). Accordingly, the Government's objection should be dismissed. 31.

Thus, Article 35 § 1 does not require the exhaustion of extraordinary or discretionary remedies and the decision taken as the result of such an appeal is not normally regarded as the ‘final domestic decision

§ 1).

Now the starting-point is that a suspect (and an accused person) should not be detained indefinitely, as long as a first-instance judgment is not rendered.

    The applicant requested non-pecuniary damage, but did not specify an amount, leaving its determination to the Court’s discretion. 28.

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 14.

(art. 6-1) de la Convention ?

    Finally, there is no indication that the dispute in question was not genuine and serious (see, by contrast , Skorobogatykh v. Russia (dec.), no.   37966/02, 8 June 2006). 29.

    Rules of Court A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

    The applicant alleged that the civil proceedings in his case were not concluded within a reasonable time in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4.

They submitted, however, that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as she had not sought redress by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force since 1 January

    The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11). 5.

    On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No.

    The Government for their part requested the Court in their memorial to find that Article 6 § 1 was not violated in the case at issue.

    On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1). 6.

    Then the applicant requested to be put on retirement under sections   18 §   2 and 10 §   1 of Law No.   1186/81.