The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation). (Judgment in English)   (5)     Magyar v.

  Consequently, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression had not been lawful and held that there had been a violation of Article 10.

The applicant party further complained that it was deprived of its chance to win parliamentary seats because the general election results were finalised without a vote having been held in two electoral

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (d).

  The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article   5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention as regards his detention on remand

France, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (by five votes to two), a violation

However, it held that in this case the additional provision in question could apply only to offences committed in 1986, and not in 1995.

The trial court held the first hearing on 17 May 2005. In 2005 it held in total 5 hearings. On 7 February 2006 the Zamość Regional Court gave a judgment in the case.

contributions collection agency (“the URSSAF”) for reimbursement of the employer’s share of the contributions paid in respect of their employees, arguing that they provided their residents with home help

Under pressure from B.T.F. the applicant agreed to help him obtain ecstasy pills. For this purpose the applicant contacted C.A.O. who agreed to bring him some pills. 4.

  The Government did not indicate the number of inmates actually held in the cells.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, but that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant company’s complaint raised under Article 1 of   Protocol

    Decree of the Government no. 1182-N on average daily portion of food for persons held in penitentiary institutions (in force from 31   October 2015, replacing the Decree no. 431-N) The

It further held that those findings constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

#Unifruit Hellas EPE tegen Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen.

settlements are final [1] ):   SECTION 1   Friendly settlements In the following five Turkish judgments the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained about the length of time they were held

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded 40,000 French francs for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in French.)   (4)   Guisset v.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,000 Euro for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.