The applicants not only accepted help, but heavily relied on it, took advantage of it and used it as an excuse for themselves.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and no violation of Article 14.

  At a press conference held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, the Court’s President Jean-Paul Costa and Irish Ambassador to the Council of Europe James Sharkey gave journalists a preview

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

    The court martial was held on 28 May 1997.

It held that the Regional Court could and should have scheduled a hearing date before the expiry of the time-limit, but that its failure to observe the time-limit entailed neither the inadmissibility of

Some people being held in police custody at the same time at the security police headquarters stated that they had seen Mehmet Ertak while he was in police custody.

    The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by two Turkish nationals, Metın Dıkme, born in 1969 and currently held in Istanbul Prison, and his mother, Emıne Dıkme, who

  In a judgment of 10 November 2004 (see press release no. 558 from 2004) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention.

In 1994, Nikolaj Slivenko, who still held Russian citizenship, retired from the Russian army and applied for a temporary residence permit.

They also rang the police many times to report the incidents and seek help.

He escaped from the scene of the accident with the help of a friend and his father.

It held that the applicant, whose statements were credible, disposed of an internal flight alternative. She could for instance live in another province or in one of the big cities.

  The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR

  Complaints   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Tierce complained that no public hearing was held before his appeal was dismissed.

On 9 December 1993, in proceedings brought by the applicant, the Bucharest Court of First Instance held that the nationalisation had been unlawful.

speedily; Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of Poland on 17 August 1998 and by the applicant on 7 August 1998; Whereas in its judgment of 25 March 1999 the Court: - held

The applicant was held in detention pending trial for approximately two years and seven months, in Pianosa Prison in particular, where he alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment; such treatment

  ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.

In a judgment of 10 November 2004 (see press release no. 559 from 2004) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 and that the violation had originated in a systemic problem connected