August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application essentially concerns the various complaints, under Article   8 of the Convention, of the fourteen-year-old applicant about the legality of the

  The Court held: by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Articles   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article

34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by

    It follows that the applicant’s both complaints under Article 3 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the violation of her freedom of expression.

; under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention that during 40 days he was unlawfully detained by order of his unit's command;   -     under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention that the

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.

Convention.

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

  120/04, 54/07, 104/09 and 36/10) effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.

Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

Relying on various Articles of the Convention, he argued that he had not been engaged in unlawful activities and had been arrested without legitimate cause.

    Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home and private and family life in the present case, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.

    All the applicants raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. THE LAW A.

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

[G] et avait, par ailleurs, succédé à la société Vansovy, elle aussi animée par M.

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

    Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?