d'un arrêt qui, une fois définitif, est communiqué par le Président au Comité des Ministres pour lui permettre de surveiller, conformément à l'article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention, l'exécution des

of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, on the dates indicated in the appendix, within the time-limit agreed to under

of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided

by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the Government of the respondent state had paid the applicants

by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that on the dates indicated in the appendix, within the time-limit

46 of the Convention;   Recalling that these cases originated in applications (see Appendix) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 July 1997 under former Article

of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided

of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, on the dates indicated in the appendix, within the time-limit agreed to under

of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, on the dates indicated in the appendix, within the time-limit agreed to under

46, paragraphe 2 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales (ci-après dénommée «   la Convention   »),   Vu l’arrêt de Grande Chambre de la Cour

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. II.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION 39.     Article 46 of the Convention provides: “1.

  Validité des restrictions territoriales dont sont assorties les déclarations de la Turquie relatives aux articles 25 et 46 de la Convention La Cour tient compte du caractère singulier de la Convention

;    Considérant que l'Italie a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article 46 de la Convention) (art. 46) et ratifié le Protocole n° 9 (P9) à la Convention, dont l'article 5

. 1 et 47 de la Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);        Considérant que l'Italie a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article 46 de la Convention (art. 46)) et ratifié

    Considérant que l'Italie a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article 46 de la Convention) (art. 46) et ratifié le Protocole n° 9 (P9) à la Convention, dont l'article 5 (

    Considérant que l'Italie a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article 46 de la Convention) (art. 46) et ratifié le Protocole n° 9 (P9) à la Convention, dont l'article 5 (

;    Considérant que l'Autriche a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article 46 de la Convention) (art. 46) et ratifié le Protocole n° 9 (P9) à la Convention, dont l'article

32 par. 1 et 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) de la Convention;            Considérant que l'Italie a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article 46 de la

1997 et présentée à la Cour par Mme A.Ar., ressortissante de cet Etat, le 13 mars 1997;         Considérant que l'Italie a reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour (article