The court held that the child’s removal from Israel without the father’s consent was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 26 May 1999;   Whereas at the 659th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission's proposals, held

However, its judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation in a decision of 13 March 2001 in which it held that the alleged offences did not come within the exceptions to the principle of immunity for

  In a judgment of 1 April 1996 the Court of Cassation held that the applicants’ application to join the proceedings as civil parties was inadmissible since it was directed against a member of the

On 5 November 2014, the Board rejected her request, after having held an oral hearing for two days where 11 witnesses were heard.

In 1990, during the summer holidays, the children went to stay with her former husband; he held dual French and Romanian nationality and lived in the United States.

  On 4 October 2002 the applicants Shamayev, Adiev, Aziev, Khadjiev and Visitov were extradited from Georgia to Russia and are apparently being held in a pre-trial prison (“ SIZO ”).

  In its Chamber judgment of 5 July 2005, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8.

With the applicant’s consent, the trial was held in Russian. The applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed to him by the investigators in December 2005.

  In its Chamber judgment of 11 October 2005 the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

#Hatodik HÉA irányelv - Az adóztatott tevékenységek teljesítési helye - Tengeri hajó fedélzetén teljesített termékértékesítés - A Közösségen belül végzett szállítás - Az adóztatás kizárása harmadik területen

  During the hearing held on 28 April 1987 the court took evidence from an expert.     The next hearing was held on 19 May 1987.

G.T. stated that he had known V.Š. since 2000 and that V.Š. had called him and asked for help.

It consequently held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

It therefore held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   3.

  On 9 July 2003 the district court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Mehdi Akdeniz.

It therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2.   The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.