of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Viana Montenegro Carneiro delivered on 30 May 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling

of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Conçeicão Fernandes delivered on 20 December 2001 and transmitted on the same date to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention

of the European Court of Human Rights in the Livanos case delivered on 16 May 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case

final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saraiva e Lei delivered on 3 October 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention

Court of Human Rights in the Kostić case delivered on 18 November 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated

final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Agostinho case delivered on 3 October 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;  

of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Baptista do Rosário delivered on 4 April 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling

Court of Human Rights in the Parchanski case delivered on 17 May 2005 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated

of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that on 6 March 2003, within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly

final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Mercuri case delivered on 11 April 2002 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;  

of the European Court of Human Rights in the Themudo Barata II case delivered on 25 October 2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case

Court of Human Rights in the Koliha case delivered on 26 October 2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated

of the European Court of Human Rights in the Loffelman case delivered on 26 March 2002 and transmitted on the same date to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that

Rights in the Pescador Valero case delivered on 17   January 2003 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that

     La déclaration de la Turquie, du 22 janvier 1990, relative à          l'article 46 de la Convention (art. 46)   20.

    Partant, la Cour conclut il y a eu violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n o 1. II.     SUR L’APPLICATION DE L’ARTICLE 46 DE LA CONVENTION 26.

Karatzalidis de celles des autres requérants et l’a rayé du rôle ; - a dit que l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention s’appliquait en l’espèce ; - a dit qu’il y avait eu violation de l’article 6,

SUR LE PREMIER MOYEN, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 1134 DU CODE CIVIL, L.132-10 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL ET LES ARTICLES 45 ET 46 DE LA CONVENTION COLLECTIVE NATIONALE DU PERSONNEL DES ORGANISMES DE SECURITE

judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the I.S. case delivered on 4 April 2000 and transmitted on the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that