It notes, however, that such proceedings have not been completed by the applicant. 20.

illiterate, should have lead the expert to conclude that the signatures in question had been forged. 12.

    The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts had not been independent; that they had been placed at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis their

had there not been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 24.

    Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant argued inter alia that his detention had been unlawful as he had not been heard by the investigation bodies prior to his detention. 19.

    The applicant complained that his right to a fair hearing had been breached in so far as the final decision of 27   June 2001 of the Supreme Court of Justice had been quashed and reversed

The courts had been prevented from admitting additional evidence with the exception of written documents and could only have done so if the applicant’s complaint had been allowed. 36.

Popescu” has been inserted. [2] Rectified on 12 May 2014: “to the applicant” has been deleted. [3] Rectified on 12 May 2014: “to the applicant” has been inserted. [4] Rectified on 12 May 2014: “to Ms N

In addition, 1,100 ballistics reports had been prepared, and more than 10,000   investigative measures and 1,000 on-site inquiries had been conducted.

    According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   3.

He was unsuccessful; on 18   November   1998 the High Court did not find it established that there had been a violation of Article 11.

The benefits were granted to Emine but not to her mother, on the ground that her marriage to Ö.K. had not been legally recognised. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against that decision.

Having found the applications admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 13 January 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 10 (seventeen votes to fifteen)

  In a judgment of 27 January 2005 (see press release 038 from 2005), the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 3 and unanimously that there had been a violation

The Court considers that an agreement has been reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention).

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Poland (no. 26229/95), in which it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).