FONCIERE EPILOGUE [Adresse 1] [Localité 1] Représentée par Me Marianne HELIAS de la SELAS ALEMA AVOCATS, avocat au barreau de QUIMPER INTIMÉS : Monsieur [U] [G] né le [Date naissance 1] 1973

Christophe LHERMITTE de la SELEURL GAUVAIN, DEMIDOFF & LHERMITTE, avocat au barreau de RENNES et représentée par Me Typhaine DESTREE, avocat au barreau de NANTES [Z] [Y] Représenté par Me Hubert HELIER

L'IMPOSSIBILITE D'AGIR ; ATTENDU QU'IL RESSORT DES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE, SUIVANT ORDONNANCE DU 28 MARS 1960, TROIS PARCELLES DE TERRAIN APPARTENANT RESPECTIVEMENT A DAME X..., A DAME HELIER

Accordingly, the Court held that there had also been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

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

He was being held in Bergama Prison when his application was lodged.

It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

In a judgment of 7 November 1991, the Paris Court of Appeal held that the proceedings against the applicant on the fraud charge had lapsed.

  Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously in the three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 3.

In December 2011, the elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation were to be held.

The Portuguese Government must be held responsible for such an inordinate delay. Although the applicants had received interest, it was significantly exceeded by currency depreciation.

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

    On 6 December 2000 St. met with the applicant and asked him “to help collect a debt” from a company in Moscow.

As regards a number of other allegations, the Court held that it was not necessary to consider the issues raised.

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

  The Court held, by 14 votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Article 11   The Court noted that there had been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly.

  The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.     Haas v.

Accordingly, it held unanimously in all six cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.