That second opinion had been communicated to the applicant and, therefore, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1.

the second applicant; (iv)   held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the first applicant; (v)   held, by six votes to one, that there had

It therefore held unanimously that there has been a breach of Article 34.

It also held that no separate issue arose under Article 8 taken together with Article 14.

  Consequently, the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article   5 § 3. (The judgment is in French only.)   (2)   Vasilopoulou v.

Consequently, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 3 as concerned Mr Özdemir.

  On 12 June, during one of the press conferences relating to the mayoral elections in Kirovograd, and held at the Ukrainian Independent News Agency (“the UNIAN”), a local journalist, Mr M., accused

The other two members of the majority held that same-sex relationships were not, at that time, recognised by the Strasbourg case-law as a form of family life within the meaning of Article 8.

  The Court noted, however, that it had previously held that inquiries by administrative committees could not be regarded as independent.

It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning Mr Colibaba’s ill-treatment.

She claimed that she and X could live together at her parents’ house, arguing that her mother stayed at home and was willing to help care for X and that she and her mother were also willing to accept help

The applicant did not specify exact periods during which he was held in each of the above cells and the number of detainees held with him in each cell.

Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.

It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3.

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

Switzerland; 26.8.1997, De Haan v. the Netherlands   In the case of Helle v.

  Further hearings were held on 10 September and on 4 November 1980.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.

A hearing was held in November 1998, but the case was subsequently adjourned due to missing files.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and considered that no separate issue arose under Article 13.