The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 concerning the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent.

  Relying on Article 69 § 6 of the Constitution, it held that the party had become a centre of anti-secular activities and that its dissolution met a pressing social need.

  The Court held, by four   votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, unanimously, that there

The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

The first applicant was held in pre-trial detention in Prison no. 13. The second and the third applicants were held in the same detention facility to serve their sentences.

The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.

#Skadeståndstalan - Följder för folkhälsan av atomolyckan i Thule (Grönland) - Direktiv 96/29/Euratom - Kommissionen har inte vidtagit åtgärder mot en medlemsstat - Uppenbart att talan helt saknar rättslig

#Helm Düngemittel GmbH mod Hauptzollamt Krefeld.#Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Finanzgericht Düsseldorf.

    At hearings held on 4 March and 15 April 2013 N.J. was present, but the applicant was absent.

ORDONNE : Article 1er : Il est donné acte du désistement IBH IMMOBILIÈRE BERNARD HELME.

  The seminar will be held in the afternoon at the Court in Strasbourg, France, from 2.30 pm (local time) and will be followed in the evening at 6.15 pm by the official opening ceremony, at which

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant : Sur le pourvoi formé par la société anonyme Bernard Ghesquières, dont le siège social est Le Hellu, ...

The Court therefore held unanimously that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.

  It was true that the applicant did not seek medical help in the evening of the alleged incident, or the next day, but waited until 11 August 1995.

A hearing was held on 5 March 2002 and on the same day the Chamber unanimously declared the application admissible.

  Ms Moser appealed complaining that neither the Juvenile Court itself nor the other authorities involved in her case had made any effort to help her regulate her residence status or to help her maintain

The Court also held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage claimed and awarded the applicant FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses.