ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 8.     The remaining applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Elle cite l’article 1 du Protocole n o 1 à la Convention ainsi libellé   : «   Toute personne physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens.

    The applicants submitted other complaints under Articles 6, 8, 13, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW 7.

    There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION 34.

Pologne (n°   26918/02)   Violation de l’article 5 § 3 Le requérant, Grzegorz Trzciałkowski, est un ressortissant polonais né en 1975 et résidant à Varsovie.

THE LAW Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 26.

    Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s criminal prosecution and the sentences imposed on him or the freezing of his assets?

with Article   35 of the Convention, and specifically with the six-month time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicants’ complaints under various Articles of the Convention (see appended table) were communicated to the Ukrainian Government, which submitted observations on the admissibility and merits.

of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

    Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 September 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention

If so, was that detention compatible with Article 5   § 1 of the Convention?

The complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 19.

    Mrs Zhukova (application no. 36038/11) complained in addition under Articles 3, 5 § 1 (c), 5 § 2, 5 § 4, 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (b), 6 § 2, 13 of the Convention. THE LAW 11.

  45735/16) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 July 2016 by a Romanian national

The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention. He also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 2 .     On 13 July 1996 the applicant was placed in detention.

    En conclusion, la Cour juge le grief manifestement mal fondé et le rejette en application de l’article 35 §§ 3 et 4 de la Convention 78.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos.