In a Chamber judgment of 18 May 2006, in Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others , the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings

In June 2013 the court granted his application for a three-month period, but in August 2013 the court of appeal held that the necessary medical treatment could be provided in prison.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.

  The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Austrian

The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for the previous situation in the case to be restored, arguing that she should not be held liable for the bailiff’s error.

A hearing was held on 8 December 1999.

Arrêt rendu le 08 Février 2022 par la Cour d'Appel de VERSAILLES N° Chambre : 1ère N° Section : B N° RG : 21/1755 Expéditions exécutoires Expéditions Copies délivrées le : 24/10/23 à : Me Helia

It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 and upheld that it was unnecessary to examine the case under Article 13.

The Court further held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   3   (c) on account of the lack of legal assistance during police custody.

It therefore held unanimously in each of the four cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.

  The court held that, under the Banks Act of 1997, it had limited jurisdiction in proceedings concerning winding up an insolvent bank.

Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords held that the detention was lawful in domestic law.

It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.

  Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

  The Court held unanimously that in the case of Aleksandr Popov v.

The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1.

The Court further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1.