Struck out of the list (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage

SOCIETE [T] MAXIME chargée de réaliser une chape en béton et le dallage autour de la piscine, assurée auprès de la société VHV ASSURANCES France, Constatant un mauvais traitement de la jonction entre

Violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Article 41 – EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Article 41 – EUR 2,000 to each applicant association in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

    Damage 59.

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Violation of Art. 5-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

as to why the claim for non pecuniary damage could not be sustained.

However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed that award after finding that the “moral damage did not constitute a direct consequence of the annulled administrative act”.

  Damage 1.

5 of the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention, that the Government of Italy pay to the applicant, for material and non-material damage

    Damage 66.     The applicant claimed PLN 2,032,231 [1] in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 67.     The Government contested the claim. 68.

    Damage 36.     The applicant claimed 391,081.71 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 37.

    Damage 35.     The applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage without specifying the exact amount. 36.

The damage was uncontested. The evidence presented by the applicant unequivocally indicated that there was a causal link between that accident and the damage it caused in the farm.

Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award