The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants ITL   10,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French).

The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (Judgment in French).   4)   Savvidou v.

  P.’s case was held in camera, although his second application was heard in open court.

Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that the detention was lawful in domestic law.

  The Court held: unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the medical care

    The Court therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 10. (The judgment is available only in French.)

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

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

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête, enregistrée le 27 décembre 2023, l'EURL Heli-Mecanic conteste la décision du 25 octobre 2023 de rejet par l'administration fiscale de sa demande de remboursement

  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.

La société HELI-COJYP a déposé des offres pour les lots 1 à 4.

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.