Italy, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation

    After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.

  On 18 December 1996 Vienna Court of Appeal, after having held a hearing in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his defence counsel, dismissed his appeal.

  The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 8.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 7   As the Court had found, Emergency Ordinance   no.

The District Court held that the information in the annonce of 12 October 2006 was true and had not breached the applicant’s rights and interests.

The Constitutional Court found no liability on the part of Bosnia and Herzegovina or its Entities and instead ordered the State to help the clients of those branches to recover their savings from Slovenia

  The applicants were held in the basement of Hasköy Police Headquarters. According to them, it was damp, with insufficient natural light.

According to Ms   Muradova, a police officer hit her right eye with a truncheon when she asked him for help in getting up from the ground.

It further held that a finding of a violation was in itself just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Siałkowska v.

  The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1.

The criminal court held that the ban laid down by section 2 of the law of 2 July 1931 was general and absolute.

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

The publications by A.S. and L.P, who received a verbal warning, were not classified as plagiarism but were held not to constitute works of scientific reference.

Accordingly, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company 6,434.87 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.

  The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s conviction for the publication

  The Court held by six votes to one that:   there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In a judgment of 24   November 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.

  The Court consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on the ground that the applicant had been denied a fair hearing and access to a court.