It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

#Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG vs L-Aġenzija Ewropea għas-Sigurtà fl-Avjazzjoni (EASA).

It was held that they were not liable to pay the disputed taxes.

The transparency could help maintain the legitimacy of constitutional review jurisdictions.

The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.

In both cases, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1.

164 de la loi n°2008-776 du 04 août 2008 ; assistée de Véronique COUVET, greffier lors des débats et de la mise à disposition ; Après avoir appelé à l'audience publique du 28 juin 2023 : HELIS

  The Court held, by 10 votes to seven, that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A hearing was held on 23 October 2001.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of ill-treatment by

  Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It held inter alia that every time his seven years old granddaughter had been requested to go to the applicant’s home she had refused.

It found that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time and unanimously held that there had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of 6 § 1 and that in the light of that finding it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint that the applicant had not

  The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 10.