He also argued that Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated because the imposition of the special tax was allegedly discriminatory.

  1, read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. THE LAW 12.

    Article 206 of the Criminal Code as in force at the date of the events read as follows: “ Anyone who makes any statement or allegation in public concerning a particular person which, if true

Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – read alone and in conjunction with Article 13 – that the imposition of the 98% tax constituted unjustified deprivation of property

not, as such, included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Whereas, however, it has considered this complaint under the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) read

  7/1996) read as follows: Section 1 “Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

  7/1996) read as follows: Section 1 “Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

It found that the phrase infringed the principle of equal treatment and was hence discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, as there was no objective

Relevant domestic law and practice Article 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania cywilnego ), in so far as relevant, reads: “§   1.

Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

  7/1996) read as follows: Section 1 “Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

  [2] Rectified on 2 March 2006: The applicant’s name read Yağup Yıldırım in the former version. [3] Rectified on 2 March 2006: The applicant’s name read Yağup Yıldırım in the former version.

    Relevant domestic law The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act reads as follows: Section 180(1) “Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction

    Relevant domestic law The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act reads as follows: Section 180(1) “Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction

The relevant parts of the Act Amending the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no. 7/1996) read as follows: Section 1 “Section 180 of the

    Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her brother’s political views, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?

    Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their national origin, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, read in conjunction

Reza X..., demeurant ..., et tendant à ce que le Conseil d'Etat : 1°) annule le jugement du 7 mai 1986 par lequel le tribunal administratif de Paris a rejeté sa demande tendant à l'annulation de la décision

Mohamed Reza et de Mme Hassanaly A..., sollicitent la cassation de trois arrêts rendus, le 13 mai 1993, par la cour d'appel de Paris, qui ont déclaré qu'ils n'étaient pas français, comme conséquence de