In any event, they considered that the applicant had not been eligible to receive the child allowance as provided for by Federal Law No.

Article 41 – EUR 4,500 to the first applicant and EUR 4,000 each to the second and third applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Beian v.

. 1.

Non-violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'art. 34;Partiellement irrecevable

Therefore, the fact that in the present case the aggregated length of the proceedings did not appear very long at first glance did not absolve the domestic authorities of their responsibility to account

  Ukraine (no.   72277/01, §§   33-36, 12 October 2006). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   1 OF THE CONVENTION 25.

The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to take this matter up in the present context (see Skubenko v.   Ukraine (dec.), no.   41152/98, 6   April   2004).

  La Commission conclut, à l’unanimité, qu’il y a eu, en l’espèce, violation de l’article 6 par. 1 de la Convention.   14.

Since there were no indications that the applicant would not reoffend, he was dangerous to the public. 12.

Accordingly, there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. B.   Lawsuits in which the applicant had not requested the direct discharge of her fees 1.

had not been impartial, and that witnesses in his favour had not been heard.

Conclusion   : non-violation (unanimité). Article 5 § 1   : la Cour se réfère à ses développements dans l’arrêt Mubilanzila Mayeka et Kaniki Mitunga c.

(P1-1) ?

Violation de P1-1;Non-violation de l'art. 6-1;Satisfaction équitable réservée

Partiellement irrecevable;Violation de l'art. 6-1;Non-violation de l'art. 6-1

Partiellement irrecevable;Violation de l'art. 5-1;Non-violation de l'art. 5-1

N° 1 (P1-1) ?

  » Article 10 «   1.

Violation de l'art. 6-1 (non-exécution);Violation de l'art. 13;Irrecevable pour le surplus