7/1996 – “the 1996 Amendment”) reads as follows: Section 1 “Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

The leaflet was not suitable to inform all passers-by in an appropriate way, as the majority of passers-by would have read the poster, but not the leaflet.

The reasons for that decision read, in so far as relevant: “... As it emerges from the plaintiffs’ declarations of means, the second applicant is a sole owner of the farm of 57.44 ha ...

  7/1996 – “the 1996 Amendment”) reads as follows: Section 1 “Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

A police report was also read out.

Consequently, the average reader would expect the picture of Dr Sommer to depict reality.

  It alleges violations of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention, the latter provision both in itself and read together with Article 14 of the Convention.   3.

Article 242 § 6 reads as follows: “The supervision of correspondence shall mean the opening of the letter and controlling its content.”

Such correspondence carries special privileges under the Rules and may not be read or opened for examination unless in accordance with instructions laid down by Prison Service Headquarters…” Instruction

The relevant part of the decision reads: “This court holds that the defence lawyer was not entitled to submit his claim for costs and expenses after he had received the appellate judgment, but rather had

They invoked Articles 8 of the Convention and 5 of Protocol No. 7, which read as follows: Article 8 “1.

The Constitutional Court Act Section 88 of the Constitutional Court Act ( Verfassungsgerichtshof - gesetz ), insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “A party which loses its case or satisfies the other

Rezard, rapporteur, - et les conclusions de Mme Pestka, rapporteure publique. Considérant ce qui suit : 1. Les requêtes visées ci-dessus présentent à juger des questions connexes.

Rezard, rapporteur, - les conclusions de Mme Privet, rapporteure publique, - et les observations de Me Vigier, pour la SA SNCF Réseau. Considérant ce qui suit : 1.

Rezard, - les conclusions de Mme Pestka, rapporteure publique, - les observations de Me Krief, représenté M. C, - et les observations de Mme A, représentant l'AP-HP.

Article 2, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.

That provision reads: “1.

    As to the interpretation of the newspaper’s articles, the perception of the ordinary reader would be decisive, as required by the Court’s case-law.

The relevant part of the Constitutional Court's decision reads: “7.     ...

He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, which, in the relevant part, read as follows: “1.