32010/07), which is not final [1] , the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of

The Court therefore held that the courts had failed to justify the applicant’s continued detention, in violation of Article 5 § 3.

Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6   § 1.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him 40,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage.

    In 1995 six hearings were held. The trial court ordered preparation of an expert opinion and held a view of the property. 11.

  The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (d).

Le montage évoqué consiste à faire racheter [C] par GT Management qui devient HELLA France, elle-même détenue par HELLA Holding.

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

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights in

  In its judgment of 10   July 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 as regards the lack of proper medical care provided to the applicant at each

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

He held a senior public sector post dealing with the administration of education in schools.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights read in the light of Article 9 (freedom

Turkey (nos. 41340/98 & 41342-4/98), the European Court of Human Rights held, by four   votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of

Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, in the event of the decision of the authorities of the respondent State to deport the applicant to Iran being implemented, there would

  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 concerning Sema Gül and Semiha

  The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the death of the applicants’ relative; a

Accordingly the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded each applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

They also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925, which provided that, after the expiry of the 12-year period, the registered owner held the land in trust for the squatter.