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

They argued in particular that in the 1970s the legislator had justified this provision on the theory that male adolescents were at a risk of being recruited into homosexuality while female adolescents

  64890/01, judgment [GC] of 29   March 2006) that the Court would not regard as manifestly unreasonable amounts of approximately 45% of the amounts that the Court itself awards in such cases

The Government maintained that such remedies are effective both in theory and in practice. The applicant did not contest this.

The concept of “ bona fide purchaser” was simplified, such that purchasers were deemed to have acted in good faith once they had checked the data concerning the dwelling they proposed to purchase and the

The concept of “ bona fide purchaser” was simplified, such that purchasers were deemed to have acted in good faith once they had checked the data concerning the dwelling they proposed to purchase and the

They had tried to have the results of the elections invalidated.

They argued that it had not been open to them to submit complaints as to the amount of compensation and the extent of the alleged damage.

    Third retrial of the applicant's case On 9   January 1995 the Court of Appeal (renamed Saarland Court of Appeal) ordered that an expert opinion be prepared on the amount of damages sustained

The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Vučković and Others

author theory.

They also complained of an error in the determination of the relevant causal link between the medical negligence and L.V.’s death in the civil proceedings, of the amount of compensation awarded and of

    On 21 November 2000 the Town Court issued a writ of execution for the total amount of RUR 2,136.66. 11.

They also contended that in any event the applicant's claims were excessive and if the Court decides to make an award it should not exceed the amount awarded by the Court in the Burdov v.

In the cases provided in paragraphs 1 and 2, the judge – in the judgment convicting the offender – shall determine the amount of money or identify the goods to be confiscated in so far as they constitute

On the contrary, they are obliged to provide such protection.’ ... ...

There is nothing in the present case to depart from this conclusion.

The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness.

The Government argued that the applicant had claimed the latter amount in the domestic proceedings, and on 3 October 2007 such claim had been allowed by the Mozdokskiy District Court, and there would be