The applicants, Ms Aleksandra Vinčić (“the first applicant”), Mr   Damir Matić (“the second applicant”), Ms Dušica Obradović (“the third applicant”), Mr Aleksandar Kržić (“the fourth

In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.

    In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning alleged restrictions

In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in the above paragraphs, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

In view of the findings in paragraphs above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.

Grèce, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (première section), siégeant en une Chambre composée de   :   Ksenija Turković, présidente,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Linos-Alexandre

cours duquel Mme Laurence DUVALLET, Présidente de chambre a rendu compte des débats à la Cour composée de : Madame Laurence DUVALLET, présidente de chambre, présidente de la collégialité, Monsieur Alexandre

personne de son représentant légal domicilié en cette qualité au siège social situé [Adresse 2] [Adresse 3] Immatriculée au rcs de Lyon sous le numéro 411 309 198 Représentée par Me Estelle RIGAL-ALEXANDRE

chambre composée de   :   Josep Casadevall, président,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Kristina Pardalos, juges,   Alejandro

The Court observes that these objections were identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v. Turkey (no. 16162/90, §§ 11-22, 20 January 2009), and should be dismissed for the same reasons.

Two applicants, Mr D’Alessandro and Mr   Haussmann, said that as members of Greenpeace they had only ever taken part in peaceful protests.

The Court observes that these objections were identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v. Turkey (no. 16162/90, §§ 11-22, 20 January 2009), and should be dismissed for the same reasons.

The Court observes that these objections are identical to those raised in the case of Alexandrou v.

Greece (No. 2) (no. 16163/02)   Violation of Article 13 The seven applicants, Maria Nastou, Alexandra Nastou, Styliani Al. Nastou, Constantina Al. Nastou, Heleni Nastou, Styliani I.

Klagenfurt – Following the discovery of massive speculative losses from swap deals, the floodgates are threatening to open at Carinthia’s Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank.

Romania (no. 13309/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Alexandru Radu and Elena-Ligia Radu are Romanian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1943 and live in Geneva (Switzerland).

Romania (no. 1486/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Ioan-Alexandru Orha and Ligia-Mariana Orha, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1966 respectively and

Romania (no. 16891/02)   Mihai Alexandru Ion Erbiceanu is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest.