Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2001; Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and

Convention.

    The applicant complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that there had been a number breaches of the electoral law and other irregularities

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

Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and

    Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?

She invoked Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.

3 of the Convention.

Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9   June 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article   29 §   3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility

    The case concerns complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

In this connection, they also relied on Article 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.

In these circumstances it considers that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention

    Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

The applicants’ attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the

The applicant cites Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b, c and d) of the Convention without any further specification. The applicant finally invokes Article 13 of the Convention.

  Decision of the Court [1]   Article 10 of the Convention   With regard to Mr Garaudy’s convictions for disputing the existence of crimes against humanity, the Court referred to Article

Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about a lack of an effective remedy in that regard.