The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8

It indicated that there had been collusion and that the murder could have been prevented.

Their earlier letter should not have been taken into consideration, because it had been unsigned.

time has been exceeded and that finding therefore suffices.” 8.

In a judgment of 13 January 2009, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).

Also, had the members of the Union been recognised as a “national minority”, they would automatically have gained unqualified and legally enforceable privileges.

He also complains that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of his Kurdish origins and political opinions, contrary to the provisions of Articles   14 and 10 of the Convention taken together

After adversarial proceedings, the Madrid High Court gave judgment on 14 July 1998, setting aside the impugned judgment on the ground that the applicant’s dismissal had been compatible with the fundamental

    Twice, where the authorities dealt with the merits of the dispute, they relied on the fact that the applicant association had been refused registration and was not a legitimate organisation

  Complaints     The applicant complained that her son had been the victim of an infringement of the right to life, secured in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In a judgment of 10 May 1995, which was served on the applicant on 26 October 1995, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the appeal, holding that it had been lawful for the Minister to dismiss the applicant on

In 1988 the authorities evicted the applicant from the cinema on the ground that he had been withholding State property unlawfully and assigned it to the Ilioupolis municipality.

respect of Muhsin Tasş, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant, that there had been a violation of Article 5 and 13 of the Convention and that there had been no violation

The applicant had not been informed and learned about the outcome on the radio. 11.

  25716/94), the European Court of Human Rights held by 12 votes to 5 that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The first and second applicants claimed that they were political dissidents in Iran and had been involved in anti-Government activities.

  The application     The application alleges that Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) has been violated.

As the new statutory rules had come into force on 1 March 1994, they had been applicable when the applicant had committed fresh offences in 1995, so that he had been a recidivist in legal terms as a result

  In its Chamber judgment of 11 October 2005 the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.